Former spy boss drops spy tapes bombshell

Johannesburg - Former spy boss Mulangi Mphego has dropped a bombshell and possibly opened the door for the DA to have charges of corruption reinstated against President Jacob Zuma after claiming the infamous spy tapes could not be attributed to Crime Intelligence.

According to the Sunday Independent, Mphego said the spy tapes that Mokotedi Mpshe used as reasons to drop the charges against Zuma "could not be attributed to Crime Intelligence. Remember I was head of Crime Intelligence at the time".

Mpshe was acting national director of public prosecutions at the time and dropped the charges against Zuma after recordings apparently suggested there was political interference in the case.

Mphego has meanwhile challenged Mpshe to produce the tapes, saying the tapes he listened to at the time are not the tapes Mpshe is referring to.

Mphego was forced to resign after being accused of interfering with state witnesses in the corruption case against former national police commissioner Jackie Selebi.

This comes only days away from Zuma's supreme court appeal following a high court decision ordering acting National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) head Nomgcobo Jiba to hand over a copy of certain tapes.

The DA has been fighting a five-year battle to obtain the secret recordings. The matter will be heard in the SCA on 15 August.

The tapes, transcripts, and other documents, relate to a decision the NPA took in 2009 to drop corruption charges against Zuma.


In papers filed as part of the appeal, Zuma maintains his representations to the NPA were made on a confidential basis.

Zuma contends that as president, political leader, and member of the African National Congress, he would be the DA's natural target.

He argues that denigrating him or using certain information to his detriment would advance the DA's political cause.

The DA in response would ask the SCA to decide whether the high court order forcing Jiba to give a copy of the tapes to the court registrar was appealable.

The high court held, in granting leave to appeal its order, that the parties had different interpretations of the order. The matter required the SCA to decide on the final interpretations, the court said.