Presidential lawfare and Stalingrad tactics: lessons from and for South Africa

The concept of ‘Stalingrad defence' or ‘Stalingrad tactics' is relatively unknown outside South Africa, yet its first recorded use in litigation appears in the United States decision of X_IT Products v Walter Kidde Portable Equipment 227 F Supp 2d 494. This article traces how the term has taken root in South African practice and become closely associated with the litigation strategies deployed for former President Jacob Zuma. We use Zuma's two_decade resistance to corruption charges, particularly the special_plea and private_prosecution campaigns against the lead prosecutor and a journalist, as a case study in ‘presidential lawfare': the weaponisation of routine criminal_procedure mechanisms by powerful accused persons to evade accountability. Our analysis advances several claims but we focus on two: First, that these tactics strayed beyond robust criminal defence into ethically contestable – and arguably abusive – uses of legal process that the regulatory authority failed to confront adequately. Second, that sustained judicial pushback and courage is needed to close the structural openings that enable such tactics, offering lessons for South Africa and other jurisdictions grappling with similar forms of lawfare.