The use of Stalingrad tactics and the abuse of process

Abstract

He, who is called to justice, is set out to delay justice. The purpose of a trial should be to seek truth and achieve justice. However, one cannot fulfil the purpose of a trial if your day in court never comes. Some matters never make it to trial due to constant delays that occur. Whether it be systemic delays or deliberate delays. Systemic delays or those resulting from overloaded court schedules can lead to unreasonable postponements. Unfortunately, many accused exploit these delays with tactics designed to evade responsibility. It goes without saying that justice delayed, is justice denied. The delaying tactics are often referred to as Stalingrad tactics, where an accused uses every manoeuvre available to oppose, obstruct, or delay the efficient and effective determination or finalisation of matters. By using these tactics, an accused often tries to invoke the remedies of Section 35(2)(d) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 19996 or Section 342A of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, in particular the extraordinary remedy of a permanent stay of prosecution. However, courts are, more often than not, sceptical to grant a permanent stay of the prosecution when the delay is due to the accused individual’s own doing. This aspect touches the concept of abuse of process which will also be dealt with in my dissertation. This dissertation focuses on the Stalingrad tactics and looks at how former President Jacob Zuma made use of the Stalingrad tactics in his corruption case and further related cases. I then further evaluate how the courts have dealt with the Stalingrad tactics. The study evaluates how the courts could ensure that an accused using Stalingrad tactics will not escape justice and abuse court processes.