S v Zuma

{{Short description|South African legal case}}

{{distinguish|text=the Jacob Zuma rape trial}}

{{Use dmy dates|date=April 2022}}

{{Infobox court case

|name = S v Zuma

|court = Constitutional Court of South Africa

|image =

|imagesize =

|imagelink =

|imagealt =

|caption =

|full name = State v Zuma and Others

|date decided = {{Start date|1995|4|5|df=y}}

|citations = {{Cite SAFLII |year=1995 |court=ZACC |num=1 |parallelcite=1995 (2) SA 642 (CC), 1995 (4) BCLR 401 (CC)}}

|transcripts =

|judges = Chaskalson P, Ackermann, Didcott, Kriegler, Langa, Madala, Mahomed, Mokgoro, O'Regan & Sachs JJ, Kentridge AJ

|number of judges = 11

|decision by = Kentridge

|prior actions = Referral from Natal Provincial Division

|appealed from =

|appealed to =

|subsequent actions =

|related actions =

|opinions =

|keywords =

|italic title =

}}

S v Zuma and Others was the first case decided by the Constitutional Court of South Africa after it was established in 1995. The case dealt with a provision of the Criminal Procedure Act which required the defence in criminal cases to prove that a confession made before a magistrate was coerced, rather than requiring the state to prove that it was not coerced. The court held that this reverse onus provision was unconstitutional because it violated the right to a fair trial under section 25 of the Interim Constitution.