After nearly three decades of legal manoeuvring, former President Jacob Zuma is finally out of road — at least for now. The KwaZulu-Natal High Court in Pietermaritzburg has issued a landmark ruling ordering that Zuma’s long-delayed arms deal corruption trial must proceed, regardless of any further interlocutory applications filed by any of the parties involved.
Judge Nkosinathi Chili handed down the ruling on Thursday, siding with the State’s application to push the matter forward without waiting for pending side applications to be resolved. The decision marks a significant moment in one of South Africa’s most drawn-out legal sagas — a case that has consumed court rolls, public patience, and enormous state resources since charges were first laid.
At the heart of the matter are allegations that Zuma and French arms company Thales engaged in corruption, fraud, racketeering, and money laundering linked to South Africa’s controversial 1999 arms deal. Zuma is specifically accused of accepting payments totalling R4.1-million between 1995 and 2004 from his former financial adviser, Schabir Shaik, and Shaik’s associated companies, allegedly to protect and advance Thales’ business interests.
Judge Chili was blunt in his assessment of why the case has taken this long to reach trial. He found that both Zuma and Thales had employed what is known as the “Stalingrad defence” — a legal strategy designed to tie up criminal proceedings through a relentless series of civil court applications, effectively grinding the prosecution to a halt.
“I need hardly add that this is of a particular benefit to those who are well resourced and able to secure the services of the best lawyers,” Chili said pointedly, in remarks that will resonate with many South Africans who have watched this case drag on for years.
The judge was equally direct about what was at stake beyond the interests of the accused. He noted that the court had an obligation to weigh the interests of society as a whole, warning that without judicial intervention, “there is a likelihood of grave injustice or the administration of justice being brought into disrepute.”
Jacob Zuma’s Arms Deal Trial: A History of Delays That Finally Hits a Wall
The road to this ruling is littered with failed applications and dismissed challenges. As recently as June 2025, Zuma and Thales attempted to have all charges against them permanently dropped. Their legal teams, with Zuma represented by advocate Dali Mpofu, argued that the deaths of two key former Thales employees — Pierre Moynot and Alain Thétard — made a fair trial impossible. The argument was that without these witnesses, the defence could not effectively challenge the State’s evidence.
Judge Chili rejected that argument outright. He found no persuasive basis to conclude that Zuma’s right to a fair trial would be materially compromised by the unavailability of the two deceased witnesses, and dismissed both Zuma’s and Thales’ applications accordingly.
Before that, Zuma spent considerable energy targeting advocate Billy Downer, the National Prosecuting Authority prosecutor assigned to the case. In 2021, Zuma challenged Downer’s authority to prosecute using the Criminal Procedure Act, then escalated to a personal offensive — launching private prosecution proceedings against Downer and News24 journalist Karyn Maughan, alleging that Downer had unlawfully leaked Zuma’s medical records. That bid failed. Multiple related appeals followed, each ultimately dismissed, including by the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Judge Chili noted the pattern explicitly in his ruling, observing that Zuma had “challenged many decisions adverse to him in the past, usually invoking the entire appeal process to the highest court in the land” — and had been unsuccessful in many of those bids, each time causing further inevitable delay.
Despite that track record, Zuma has long insisted he wants his day in court, consistently maintaining that the charges against him are politically motivated. Whether that framing will hold any water before a judge is a question South Africa will now have a chance to see answered.
The National Prosecuting Authority welcomed the ruling without reservation. Spokesperson Kaizer Kganyago said the NPA was “very happy” with the order, adding that it would serve as a precedent for other cases where Stalingrad-style tactics have been deployed to frustrate the justice system.
Practically speaking, the trial is now scheduled to commence on 1 February 2027 — a date determined partly by the defence’s stated unavailability when the State sought an earlier start. Queries directed to Umkhonto weSizwe Party spokesperson Nhlamulo Ndhlela were referred to Mzwanele Manyi of the Jacob Zuma Foundation, who had not responded at the time of publication.
What happens between now and that February date remains to be seen. Zuma has demonstrated an exceptional willingness to exhaust every legal avenue available to him, and few observers would be surprised if further challenges emerge before the trial formally kicks off. What Thursday’s ruling makes clear, however, is that the courts are no longer prepared to let those tactics indefinitely postpone accountability — and for a case this old, this costly, and this consequential to South African public life, that shift in judicial patience may be the most significant development yet.