A BRIEF BACKGROUND TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN
Jeffrey Epstein is described as an American financier, multi-millionaire, and convicted sex offender who orchestrated a vast, international child sex-trafficking ring. Using his immense wealth and elite social connections, Epstein spent decades exploiting underage girls and vulnerable young women before his criminal operation was finally dismantled by federal authorities. Over December 2025 and January 2026, the government publicly released more than 3 million pages of internal documents, 180,000 photos, and 2,000 videos. An Associated Press review of these unsealed records showed that the FBI compiled massive proof of Epstein’s direct sexual abuse.
PRESIDENT ZUMA’s VISIT TO THE UNITED KINGDOM
On the 3rd of March in 2010 our then President Jacob Zuma, accompanied by one of his wives, Thobeka Madiba Zuma, paid a State Visit to the UK. The visit was scheduled for the 3rd to the 5th of March 2010.
We must presume that Her Majesty and her husband, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, were happy to receive President and Mrs. Zuma since they had invited them to visit the UK as their guests. However, there were some in the UK who were unhappy with the visit, including certain sections of the Media.
One of these was the Daily Mail, well-known as a right-wing publication.
In its 4 March 2010 edition, it published an article on the Zuma State Visit written by one of its journalists, Stephen Robinson.
The article was headed:
“Jacob Zuma is a sex-obsessed bigot with four wives and 35 children. So why is Britain fawning over this vile buffoon?”
It went on to say:
“Spare a thought for the Buckingham Palace protocol officials tomorrow when His Excellency President Jacob Zuma arrives in London for his first state visit to these shores.
“For this incoming ‘One hundred per cent Zulu Boy’, as the South African President styles himself when he has an election to win, presents unique challenges of planning for the courtiers. The formal announcement of the state visit primly notes that the President will be accompanied during his three-day stay at Buckingham Palace by ‘his wife Mrs. Thobeka Madiba Zuma’. This is not untrue – but nor is it quite the whole truth.
“Because Thobeka is just one of Mr. Zuma’s four living wives, not including one from Mozambique who committed suicide in 2000. She is also one of the estimated ten women with whom the libidinous Zuma has sired the 20 children he acknowledges to be his own…One thing is clear. Jacob Zuma could not be more different from the man in whose long shadow he must walk – South Africa’s great and first democratic leader, Nelson Mandela…
“it seems utterly misguided to have invited Zuma at a time when it is becoming ever more evident that South Africa is being turned into an organised kleptocracy… But millions of South Africans, viewing television images of the Zulu Boy at Buckingham Palace, will wonder why the Queen is honouring a man who back home is rapidly becoming a very bad joke.”
The newspaper The Telegraph, also joined the Daily Mail in criticising the Zuma State Visit.
The newspaper published an article by Graham Boynton on 3 March 2010 headed:
“Will Jacob Zuma be the big loser after the World Cup whistle?”
Of course, this referred to the FIFA Soccer World Cup held in South Africa in 2010.
The article went on to say:
“When Jacob Zuma arrives at Buckingham Palace for a sleepover this week, one wonders if the Queen will be aware of what an unusual guest she is hosting.
“For all the colourful characters who have visited the Palace during her 58 years on the throne, the South African president is possibly the first guest to be a polygamist, probably the first to have faced a multitude of criminal charges including fraud, racketeering, corruption and tax evasion, all of which were later withdrawn, and most certainly the first to have a signature anthem that runs: “Bring Me My Machine Gun.”…
“The World Cup will bring a wave of goodwill – although given South Africa’s ranking in the Fifa tables, it is unlikely to have the restorative qualities of the victory in the 1995 rugby World Cup, which Mandela used to bind together a host nation that had been prised apart for generations by apartheid…
“Allister Sparks, a veteran South African journalist and political analyst, has likened the president to a pricked balloon, and said that “the nation was feeling deflated with him”. Sparks claims that Zuma “is already a lame-duck president in the first year of his first term”: the various factions within the ANC are waiting until the World Cup is over to take their shots at him, and business leaders are already alarmed by recent remarks that appeared to support Robert Mugabe.
“This week, Zuma and the fifth Mrs. Zuma have a comfortable bed at the Palace, and a marvellous banquet to attend. They had best enjoy it while it lasts.”
Perhaps driven by a surge of patriotism, some within the South African media decided to challenge their British counterparts.
As reported by David Smith of the UK newspaper The Guardian on 12 March 2010, Jeremy Gordin, Jacob Zuma’s biographer wrote in the Daily Dispatch:
“There’s not much funny about what Robinson has written (in the Daily Mail) and of course, its success lies in its appeal to the basic racism of the English about the laughable black men in Africa who sit under a tree, have many wives to till the fields for them, and never require Viagra.”
Smith also reported that in a leader column, Business Day chided:
“Let us help you guys in Fleet Street with a little news. Life in SA, even under Zuma, is, trust us, a lot better than in the UK. Sure Zuma’s imperfect. He may even be a lousy leader. But he’s our lousy leader. We’ll deal with him.”
Recently released information suggests that there were some others in the world who also disagreed with the negative posture assumed by sections of the British media about President Zuma.
Thanks to the volume of reports emanating from the United States, over a good stretch of time, many of us even here in South Africa have come to know something about a now deceased US citizen.
We are referring here to Mr. Jeffrey Epstein who passed away in 2019 while detained in prison in New York. Now we must say something about this Mr. Epstein first, before we explain his relevance to our story about the 2010 Zuma State Visit to the UK.
Before he passed away, we knew that Epstein was a convicted criminal, having been found guilty in a plea bargain in 2008 of the crime of paedophilia, having procured a child for prostitution and solicited a prostitute, and served almost thirteen months in prison.
When he died in prison in 2019, this was because he had been arrested and charged with the sex trafficking of minors and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors. Epstein also owned an island in the Caribbean. Regularly he flew important personalities to this island, where among other things, they would find young women.
The story about Epstein, and his partner Ms. Ghislaine Maxwell, also strongly associated them with Israel, suggesting that the sex trafficking had to do with a scheme to expand the numbers of people committed to support Israel. After much agitation, the US Department of Justice finally agreed to release files in its possession concerning the activities of Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell over many years – the Epstein Files. The last batch of these Epstein Files was released at the end of January 2026.
These revealed that unlike some in the British media who were hostile to the Zuma State Visit, there were others in the UK who were very interested to host and welcome President Zuma.
Of interest these were associates of Jeffery Epstein who then acted to implement his decision. This decision was that they should, on behalf of Mr. Epstein, host a dinner for President Zuma at the end of his State Visit, at the famous Ritz Hotel, one of the most expensive in London.
One of the e-mails in the recently released Epstein File dated 4 March 2010 says:
“Dear Vera,
“I am a friend of Jeffrey Epstein, and I have been asked to help arrange a small dinner tomorrow night for President Jacob Zuma of South Africa at the Ritz Hotel at 7:00pm tomorrow evening. Jeffrey suggested that I invite you, as you would be certain to add some real glamour to the occasion. A friend of Jeffrey’s is a friend of mine, so I have no hesitation inviting you to join us. If you are not put off by the extremely short notice and would be able to accept, can you let me have a little more information about yourself as well as your full name ( as I have to present the President with a summary of the guests in advance).
with best regards,
“Mark LLOYD
The Vera mentioned here was a 26-year-old ‘stunning’ Russian woman.
In her e-mail responding to Mark Lloyd, Vera wrote:
“It is very kind of you and Jeffrey to invite me and I will be honored to accept your invitation. About myself: my name is (redacted). I’m from Russia and I have lived in London for the past 2 years. I am a model, represented by Select model agency. I have been modelling for the past 6 years and have lived in Paris, New York, Barcelona and Japan. Please let me know if you need any other information.
“Will it be a black-tie event or is a sleeveless cocktail dress ok?”
An e-mail sent on 7 March 2010 reads:
“Jeffrey,
“(Vera) was a delight last night and enchanted all those she met. Her beauty apart, she displayed an elegance and natural charm that is a rare combination to find anywhere these days. So a very big thank you for the introduction.
“George Meurrisse has heard from (redacted) and I think the last message from (redacted) was that (redacted) So thank you again for that.
“By the way, Jacob Zuma was much more impressive and engaging than I thought he would be!”
A day earlier, on 6 March 2010, Mark Lloyd sent the following e-mail to Jeffrey Epstein:
“Jeffrey,
“(Vera) was magnificent! She is that rare combination of elegance, charm and natural beauty and what is more, she is smart with it! She made a very positive impression on all those who met her, so thank you very much indeed for this introduction…
“That aside, we aft found Jacob Zuma a much more impressive character than we had expected, he displayed more gravitas and none of the macho bluster he is generally portrayed as having by the tabloid press.
“When are you coming to London? Can you travel yet or are restrictions for that still in place?
“Is the island back in operation or closed down until your ‘Alhambra’ project is completed?
“As ever,
“Mark
Of interest, Jeffrey Epstein also sent an e-mail on 4 March 2010 to the British Minister of Business, Peter Mandelson, which read:
“(Mark Lloyd) is having dinner for zuma tomorrow night at the ritz„ i have invited a beautiful russian named (redacted) to attend”.
This is of interest because subsequently, in 2026, the long-standing relationship between Lord Mandelson and Epstein got the former into very serious trouble, such that he had to resign as UK Ambassador to the US as well as a member of the British Labour Party of which had been a leading member for at least two decades. This episode is threatening the very survival of the current UK Labour Party government, led by Prime Minister Sir Kier Starmer, who had appointed Mandelson as Ambassador to the US.
We have seen nothing in the Epstein File to explain why Epstein thought it was necessary that Mandelson should know that he had arranged the Zuma dinner at the Ritz, and that he had invited ‘a beautiful russian’ to the dinner!
And indeed, we have also found nothing in the Epstein File to explain the relationship between Jacob Zuma and Jeffrey Epstein! Was the invitation to President Zuma to attend a dinner at the Ritz Hotel out of the blue as far as Zuma was concerned? Is it likely that Zuma would accept an unsolicited invitation from a complete stranger to attend a dinner at a London hotel while on a State Visit to the UK? Is it possible that in fact President Zuma and Jeffrey Epstein had known each other before Zuma’s 2010 State Visit to the UK?
If so, where and when had they met, or how did they come to know each other and strike a relationship? What was the nature of this relationship such that Epstein would want to take advantage of Zuma’s presence in London to arrange a private dinner for him?
What should we make of the comments by Zuma’s host at the dinner that Zuma was “a much more impressive character than we had expected, (and) he displayed more gravitas and none of the macho bluster he is generally portrayed as having by the tabloid press.”
Had Epstein and his people been studying Zuma, and if so, for what purpose?
The 6 February 2026 edition of the Financial Times (FT) carried an article by Paul Galizia and Kaye Wiggins entitled ‘Inside Jeffrey Epstein’s social Ponzi scheme’.
Among others, the article says:
“While the core of the Epstein saga will always be his web of sexual abusers and the women and girls they preyed on, every new set of messages released by the US justice department reveals the staggering range of his social network and the relationships he was able to sustain. Epstein’s emails read like a self-help group for the 0.01 per cent (at the top of human society) …
“The needs of (Epstein’s) elite group of associates varied. To satisfy them, Epstein could present himself as a confidant, a broker of introductions, a gateway to a more luxurious lifestyle, or even a banker. According to US prosecutors, he had also built “a network of minor victims in multiple states to sexually abuse and exploit”.
“Fame, power, sex and crime — the Epstein files are likely to reverberate for a generation, especially given the legion of questions about his abuse of women and the source of his money that remain unanswered. In an era of profound mistrust of elites, modern politics is already being shaped by the power of conspiracy theories. Anon believers in the US, a loyal part of the Trump coalition, have long claimed to be battling a group of elite paedophiles in government, business and the media.
“It turns out that the real conspiracy was being run…from the hyperactive email account of a child sex offender in a townhouse on the Upper East Side (of New York City). When Epstein’s deployment of wealth, flattery or assistance failed, he would threaten and bully – turning the intimacy he cultivated in people into a fear of exposure that kept the machine running.”
Inevitably, the fact of Zuma’s dinner at the Ritz, as ordered by Jeffrey Epstein and hosted on his behalf, raises the question of what Zuma was doing among the “social network and the relationships (Epstein) was able to sustain”, which the FT reported on.
Incidentally, the rest of Zuma’s UK State Visit delegation was not invited to the dinner at the Ritz.
After the latest Epstein File was released, the Daily Maverick (DM) published a story on 31 January 2026 headed ‘Revealed: Jacob Zuma’s intimate dinner with Jeffrey Epstein’.https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2026-01-31-revealed-jacob-zumas-intimate-dinner-with-jeffrey-epstein/
The Jacob Zuma Foundation denounced the DM article as “a textbook example of agenda-driven journalism built on innuendo, third-party emails and retrospective guilt by association.
“At no point does the article allege, let alone establish, any unlawful or improper conduct by Jacob Zuma.The attempt to smear President Zuma by proximity to the unrelated crimes of a third party is unethical, irresponsible and intellectually dishonest.”
As it happens, the DM headline was wrong. Epstein was not present at the Ritz dinner. Otherwise, the DM article cited the same e-mails we have cited. However, the DM article also referred to other e-mails sent or received by Epstein concerning President Zuma.
It said that one of these was sent to Epstein by an unknown person on 6 March 2010 and said:
“I am also summoned to see President Zuma tomorrow for private meeting. Do we like South Africa ???”
Epstein responded, saying:
“very much„ you can ask him about the girl next to mark lloyd [name redacted, presumably the Russian model] my new future ex”.
The Independent Newspapers also join the fray.
They published an article on 9 February 2026 entitled ‘No, former President Zuma is not in the Epstein files’. They strongly and correctly decried what they said were “claims that former President Jacob Zuma dined with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in London in 2010”.
They also observed that:
“Despite the scale of the disclosure (in the Epstein Files), U.S. officials have cautioned that the documents do not automatically imply criminal wrongdoing by everyone named. The Justice Department has said many references in the files reflect social or professional contact rather than evidence of illegal activity. Officials added that most of the material does not meet the legal threshold required to bring new prosecutions.”
Indeed, none of the e-mails we have seen suggest in any way that President Zuma was involved in any illegality or wrong doing. And none of the relevant media articles we have seen make such averments.
However, we believe that the unduly pugnacious stance adopted by both the Jacob Zuma Foundation and the Independent Newspapers is understandable, given the fact that the e-mails in the Epstein Files link President Zuma to the very unsavoury character described in the FT article we have cited.
Nevertheless, we must repeat what we said earlier in this article:
Inevitably, the fact of Zuma’s dinner at the Ritz, as ordered by Jeffrey Epstein and hosted on his behalf, raises the question of what Zuma was doing among the “social network and the relationships (Epstein) was able to sustain”, which the FT reported on.
This question is further reinforced by the additional e-mails mentioned by the DM.
What did Epstein’s associate mean when he/she asked him the question – “Do we like South Africa???”
What did Epstein mean when he replied – “very much…”?
And why had Epstein’s associate been “summoned to see Presdt Zuma tomorrow for private meeting” – which is what presumably occasioned the query – “Do we like South Africa???”
The FT article we have cited says:
“Sometimes a table can tell a whole story. Against a wall in Jeffrey Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse, an antique console table boasted more than a dozen framed photographs, including some of the world’s most recognisable people.
“There is a Democratic president and a Republican president, a leftwing intellectual and a right-wing activist firebrand. There are figures from Wall Street, from Silicon Valley and from the British royal family. The pictures even include Mick Jagger, Fidel Castro and Pope John Paul II…
“The picture that emerges is of a man with an extraordinary ability to work out exactly what some of the world’s richest and most powerful people wanted and needed, and provide it to them. Epstein managed to keep doing this even after spending 13 months in jail starting in 2008 for soliciting prostitution from a minor.”
Did Epstein ‘work out exactly what President Jacob Zuma wanted and needed, and provided it to him’?
Why did Epstein ask his associate to ask Zuma about “about the girl next to mark lloyd…”?
These and other questions are important because here we are dealing with:
• none other than the Head of State and Government of the Republic of South Africa; and,
• a clearly very unsavoury character who, nevertheless, had a proven record of enticing “some of the world’s richest and most powerful people” to join what the FT has described as “a form of social Ponzi scheme that he kept going until he was arrested and died in jail in 2019.”
This is why the questions we have mentioned, arising out of the surprising Zuma Dinner at the Ritz, are important, because they have to do with matters directly relevant to the future of South Africa.
Jeffrey Epstein is now late and therefore cannot answer them.
Perhaps his partner, Ghislaine Maxwell, will answer them, if she knows and is willing.
However, this is certain – Jacob Zuma owes the country an honest explanation about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein!
Will he honour this obligation?
Because of the national imperative fully to understand the Epstein phenomenon, the US Congress has subpoenaed many of those whose names appear in the Epstein Files to appear before it.
END
Leave a Reply