MARCH 26, 2019. Duduzane is seen at The Randburg Magistrates Court, in Johannesburg. “Former president Jacob Zumaâs son Duduzane was in the dock on Tuesday in his culpable homicide trial relating to the 2014 death of Phumzile Dube, 30, when his Porsche collided with a minibus taxi – Photo: ALON SKUY. © Sunday Times
MARCH 26, 2019. Duduzane is seen at The Randburg Magistrates Court, in Johannesburg. “Former president Jacob Zumaâs son Duduzane was in the dock on Tuesday in his culpable homicide trial relating to the 2014 death of Phumzile Dube, 30, when his Porsche collided with a minibus taxi – Photo: ALON SKUY. © Sunday Times
On judgement day, Duduzane Zuma has been able to evade punishment for a fatal crash in 2014, caused by his Porsche 911 slamming into the back of a taxi and killing one person in the process. The Randburg Magistrate’s Court has found him not guilty on a charge of culpable homicide.
Zuma Jnr also managed to avoid prosecution for a high-profile corruption case linked to the Guptas earlier this year, chalking up another legal victory for the businessman. The state failed to prove that Duduzane was negligent or solely responsible for the death of Phumzile Dube, and the defendant has walked away as a free man on Friday.
#Duduzane Zuma has been cleared of culpable homicide by the Randburg Magistrate’s Court. This includes the reckless and negligent driving charges too. Magistrate Thupatlaase says there was no evidence supporting the state’s case.
— EWN Reporter (@ewnreporter) July 12, 2019
But what swayed the judgement? That’s what we’re looking into…
Eyewitness Michael Jankelowitz was asked to share his version of events. He says he saw the accident happen as he drove alongside the vehicles, but denied that speeding or “reckless driving” was a factor that caused this fatal collision. He told the court that Duduzane Zuma “was not driving at an excessive speed”. The judge ultimately agreed with him.
The prosecution simply didn’t chalk up the proof needed to secure a conviction. They tried to argue that DZ has given an inconsistent version of events, with Prosecutor Yusuf Baba has also questioning why Duduzane Zuma informed the crash site assessor that he was driving 70km/h, but then gave a different version to the court.
The defendant has claimed he was only giving an “approximation” at the time, but the prosecution have slammed him for failing to adjust to the adverse weather conditions. However, it wasn’t substantial enough to defeat eyewitness and forensic evidence presented by the defence. Essentially, the judgement concludes that: