Judges take Zuma to task over language by lawyers
Iin a judgment that marks a potential escalation in tension between the former head of state and the judiciary, former president Jacob Zuma came under fire over his lawyers’ pronouncements on the high court that dismissed his legal bid to permanently stay his prosecution on corruption charges.
The three high court judges who ruled against Zuma in that application in Pietermaritzburg on Friday expressed concern about the language used in his application for leave to appeal against their decision, which they found did “not belong in a proper court process” and could bring the justice system into disrepute.
During his argument for leave to appeal against the unanimous ruling given by judges Jerome Mnguni, Esther Steyn and Poyo Dlwati, Zuma’s advocate Muzi Sikhakhane apologised for what he considered to be an attack on the court contained in his client’s court papers.
After finding that apology to be “insufficient”, the judges hit out at the accusations made against them that they had “in adopted those a documents, sanitised which included claims version of facts biased against Mr Zuma and aimed at assisting the National Prosecuting Authority’s [NPA’s] violation of his constitutional rights”.
Zuma’s lawyers further contended that the high court had “worked backwards in determining this matter instead of rigorously and objectively assessing the legal grounds on their merits” and had made “gratuitous remarks about Mr Zuma’s political fortunes”.
In addition to accusing the judges of “parroting” evidence given by former national director of public prosecutions Vusi Pikoli, Zuma’s lawyers criticised the high court for dismissing his argument that, as a result of political interference in his prosecution, it should not be allowed to continue.
The high court had relied on a ruling given by the Supreme Court of Appeal, in which it overturned the history-changing decision handed down by judge Chris Nicholson in 2008.
Nicholson slated then president Thabo Mbeki and his cabinet for meddling in Zuma’s trial and accused three consecutive national directors of public prosecutions of wrongdoing. But, while dismissing these findings as unfair, the appeal court found that “a prosecution is not wrongful merely because it is brought for an improper purpose”.
Zuma’s lawyers argued that the high court “simply abused” and “slavishly aligned” itself to the appeal court’s ruling, effectively suggesting that it had failed to think for itself about the arguments that Zuma had made about his prosecution being irretrievably tainted.
The high court in Pietermaritzburg evidently believed that it had no choice but to respond.
“Without diverting our focus from the issues in this application, we deem it necessary to voice our displeasure on the disrespectful manner in which this court was addressed in Mr Zuma’s notice of application for leave to appeal,” the judges state in an 11-page ruling.
“In our view, comments or allegations that are scandalous or vexatious to the court ought to be avoided at all costs, as they can bring the administration of justice into disrepute. They can also undermine the public’s confidence in the courts and disturb the moral authority of the judicial process.
“They also undermine the public’s confidence in the courts and disturb the moral authority of the judicial process,” the judges said.
Echoing the sentiments expressed by chief justice Mogoeng Mogoeng in response to renewed attacks on the judiciary, the judges added: “We do not suggest that the courts should not be criticised for their judgments, but we are of the view that such comments must be respectful and grounded on the judgments as they can have a wider impact than merely hurting the judges’ feelings or impugning their reputation.”
Zuma and his lawyers are almost certain to seek to petition the appeal court for the right to appeal against the high court’s decision, and the coming weeks will demonstrate if the warning contained in the above words will have any effect on the way the former president chooses to litigate.
Zuma and his lawyers know they will have to fight hard to even secure a hearing of his appeal, which if it fails could see the former president in the dock as soon as April 2020.
Backed into a corner, they may believe that fighting dirty is the only option available to them. But it is a fight that will almost certainly come at great cost to Zuma and the judicial system he appeals to but does not trust or respect.
FORMER PRESIDENT UNDER FIRE OVER LAWYERS’ SCATHING ASSESSMENT OF FAILED BID FOR STAY OF PROSECUTION