Zuma to challenge judgment
PRESIDENT Jacob Zuma has indicated he will appeal a court order which prevents him from appointing a new national director of public prosecutions (NDPP).
On December 8, the High Court in Pretoria set aside the appointment of current NDPP Shaun Abrahams and ordered that he vacate his post.
It also ordered that his predecessor, Mxolisi Nxasana, pay back a R17 million “golden handshake”.
Judge Dunstan Mlambo then ordered that Zuma’s deputy, Cyril Ramaphosa, appoint the next NDPP because Zuma was “conflicted”.
In his appeal, filed yesterday, Zuma’s lawyers argue that the court had erred in holding the view that he was not able to perform his role as president when it came to the appointment of the NDPP while still able to perform other functions.
This was not authorised by the constitution. His lawyers said the judgment effectively made it constitutionally permissible to have two presidents, both exercising presidential powers.
Zuma’s appeal comes on the same day Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane released the terms of reference into the state of capture commission requested by her predecessor, Thuli Madonsela, but said the failure to properly resource her office would have a detrimental effect on investigations into state capture.
She blamed Parliament for not properly resourcing her office, despite the vital watchdog role it plays.
“In the current financial year, despite the fact that I have motivated for a budget of at least R1 billion, the National Treasury has cut this institution’s budget by R8 million.”
Last month, the High Court in Pretoria rejected Zuma’s bid to have Madonsela’s recommendations on the state capture inquiry set aside.
The court instructed the president to establish an inquiry into state capture within 30 days. Last week, Zuma announced the establishment of the commission, to be headed by Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo.
Mkhwebane then asked for the terms of reference to be expanded and the focus broadened to look at state capture in general, and not specifically the relationship between the president, his family and the Guptas. She said this was a suggestion and not a recommendation.
She sought to clarify an earlier statement that drew widespread criticism. “(It) was intended to suggest that all related allegations of state capture are investigated by the commission and that the commission’s work is not limited to those identified… in the state of capture report.”