Judge Nkosinathi Chili of the Pietermaritzburg High Court has drawn a firm line against what legal circles call “Stalingrad tactics” in the long-running corruption trial of former president Jacob Zuma and French arms manufacturer Thales.
Chili issued an order requiring both the state and the defence to coordinate with the court’s registrar to establish firm trial dates. The ruling signals a clear end to procedural obstruction that has defined much of the case’s history.
The charges against Zuma and Thales trace back to a multibillion-rand arms procurement scandal originating in the early 2000s. Both face accusations of corruption, fraud and racketeering linked to the controversial deal. Over the years, the case has become a measure of South Africa’s judicial resilience, drawing sustained public attention precisely because of how long it has dragged on without reaching trial.
The phrase “Stalingrad tactics” was coined by Zuma’s former defence counsel, Kemp J Kemp SC, to describe a litigation strategy built on repeated interlocutory applications designed to obstruct rather than advance justice. Chili addressed this directly in his judgment, making clear that such an approach would no longer be tolerated. He declared that the trial must proceed regardless of any pending interlocutory applications from either side.
The defence had petitioned the court to dismiss the charges entirely, arguing that the deaths of several key witnesses made a fair trial impossible. That argument formed the basis of their application for leave to appeal. Chili rejected it. He found that the interests of justice demanded immediate commencement of the trial, a conclusion rooted in a careful balancing of competing legal principles and public interest considerations.
By contrast, the judge’s reasoning extended well beyond procedural management. He articulated a broader concern about public confidence in judicial institutions, observing that reasonable members of society would lose faith in the system if Zuma avoided trial through procedural delay rather than substantive legal argument. Indefinite postponement of a constitutionally significant criminal trial, Chili held, would undermine the legitimacy of the courts themselves.
On the practical question of harm, the judge stated he could identify no cognizable injury or grave injustice that would result from proceeding despite outstanding interlocutory applications. That finding proved central to his conclusion.
Chili’s order does not strip the defence of all remedies. He acknowledged that Zuma and Thales retain their right of appeal under Section 316 of the Criminal Procedure Act, read together with Section 35(3)(o) of the Constitution. Appellate channels remain open if the defence believes the judgment is wrong.
The ruling, covered in detail at https://mg.co.za/news/2026-05-14-zuma-and-thales-ordered-to-stop-stalingrad-tactics-in-arms-deal-trial/, now requires concrete action from all parties. The question that remains is whether the defence will test those appellate rights before trial dates are locked in, or whether, after more than two decades, the case will finally reach the stage it has so persistently avoided.