Call for delay in charging Zuma
THE Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution (Casac) has asked embattled National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) Shaun Abrahams to confirm to the Constitutional Court that he will delay his decision on whether former President Jacob Zuma would face charges of corruption, money laundering, fraud and racketeering until a new NDPP is announced.
Casac, Corruption Watch and Freedom Under Law submitted a confirmation order to the court arguing that it would not be in the interests of justice for Abrahams to make the decision on Zuma’s prosecution before the judges make a decision on the position of the NDPP.
Speaking to Independent Media yesterday, Casac executive secretary Lawson Naidoo said that Abrahams already gave Casac the undertaking but “now we just want him to give the same to the court”.
The position, that Abrahams currently holds, was declared vacant by the High Court in Pretoria in December last year following an array of court proceedings surrounding the removal of former NDPP Mxolisi Nxasana, the golden handshake between Nxasana and Zuma and the appointment of Abrahams.
Nxasana left office with a R17 million golden handshake, later found to be part of an unlawful settlement agreement, and Nxasana was ordered to pay back the money.
Since the court found Zuma too conflicted to appoint a new NDPP as his looming charges were being decided upon, it was decided that his then deputy, Cyril Ramaphosa, would make the appointment.
Since Zuma resigned last week, Casac noted that the issue of who would make the appointment was now considered moot.
The Constitutional Court is set to hear the confirmation application on February 28.
In the order, Casac said that the “only real debate” was what should happen to Nxasana and Abrahams.
According to the court documents, Casac says there are three possibilities: Nxasana is returned to his position as NDPP; Abrahams retains his position as NDPP; or, both are removed and a new NDPP is appointed by the new president.
Casac argued that in deciding what was just and equitable, the court should not consider the primary interests of Nxasana and Abrahams, as this was not an employment issue but a “constitutional dispute about an attempt to undermine one of our most central crime-fighting institutions”.