‘Quash­ing JZ charges was ir­ra­tional’

Pretoria News - - NEWS - ANA RE­PORTER

THE Supreme Court of Ap­peal in Bloemfontein has re­served judg­ment af­ter Pres­i­dent Ja­cob Zuma’s lawyers ad­mit­ted that the quash­ing of hundreds of crim­i­nal charges against him were “ir­ra­tional”.

Shortly be­fore the 2009 polls, af­ter Zuma had won the con­test for the lead­er­ship of the rul­ing ANC, then act­ing Na­tional Pros­e­cut­ing Author­ity (NPA) boss, Mokotedi Mp­she, with­drew 783 charges linked to the multi-mil­lion rand 1999 arms deal.

Since then, the DA has chal­lenged the mat­ter in court. In May last year, the Gaut­eng High Court, Pre­to­ria, or­dered that Zuma must face all the charges.

The Pres­i­dent then took the mat­ter to the Supreme Court of Ap­peal.

Le­gal rep­re­sen­ta­tives for the NPA and Zuma were at pains as they tried to per­suade the court to al­low the ap­peal.

Ini­tially, two days had been set aside to hear the le­gal team’s rep­re­sen­ta­tions, but by lunchtime they had wrapped up the mat­ter. But not be­fore the NPA’s le­gal coun­sel con­ceded that Mp­she had “used the wrong power” to with­draw charges against Zuma.

The NPA said it ac­cepted that Mp­she could not rely upon sec­tion 179 of the con­sti­tu­tion, as he ear­lier declared, as this sec­tion did not al­low the pros­e­cut­ing author­ity to re­view its own de­ci­sions.

Ad­vo­cate Kemp J Kemp, coun­sel for Zuma, made the same con­ces­sion. He also con­ceded that a de­ci­sion to with­draw charges that was based solely on the tim­ing of the in­dict­ment was ir­ra­tional. Ar­gu­ments around what was to hap­pen with re­gards to the le­gal pro­ceed­ings against Zuma, dom­i­nated the rest of pro­ceed­ings.

“If the de­ci­sion to pros­e­cute stands un­chal­lenged, and the at­tempt to undo it is found in­valid, what is the ef­fect?” asked Jus­tice Mo­hamed Navsa.

Kemp con­ceded that the de­ci­sion to pros­e­cute Zuma still stands, but pointed out that it didn’t mean that court pro­ceed­ings against Zuma could sim­ply be con­tin­ued where it left off.

The le­gal process had to be “kick­started” in some way again by, for in­stance, the serv­ing of an in­dict­ment.

The chair­man of the DA’s fed­eral ex­ec­u­tive, James Selfe, said from the con­ces­sions made by the lawyers and the ques­tions from the Bench, it seemed that the court was poised to set aside the de­ci­sion to scrap Zuma’s pros­e­cu­tion.

“This opens the way for Ja­cob Zuma, fi­nally, to have his day in court that he has been ask­ing for, for the past 15 years. Like any other or­di­nary cit­i­zen, he must face up to the moun­tain of charges against him.”

Selfe said he hoped that the court would in its judg­ment give clar­ity as to how the NPA should deal with a re­vived pros­e­cu­tion.

How­ever, should it be nec­es­sary, the DA would take fur­ther le­gal ac­tion to en­sure that Zuma was charged, rais­ing the spec­tre of the party tak­ing on the NPA.

“For far too long the ANC po­lit­i­cal elite has been al­lowed to es­cape ac­count­abil­ity sim­ply be­cause they are con­nected. This must not be al­lowed to stand.

“All cit­i­zens must face up to charges if they are brought against them, and the same must be true for Ja­cob Zuma,” he said.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa

© PressReader. All rights reserved.