Ill health ‘not basis for Zuma parole’
DA leader John Steenhuisen on Friday filed an application to review and set aside prison boss Arthur Fraser’s “patently unlawful” decision to grant former president Jacob Zuma medical parole. Steenhuisen has urged the Gauteng high court to review Zuma’s medical parole because the procedure is “vulnerable to abuse and can be used unlawfully to commute the sentences of the politically connected”.
DA leader John Steenhuisen on Friday filed an application to review and set aside prison boss Arthur Fraser s patently unlawful” decision to grant former president Jacob Zuma medical parole.
Fraser’s decision to release Zuma on medical parole two months into an 18-month sentence for contempt of a Constitutional Court order sparked the legal challenge from the DA.
Steenhuisen has urged the Gauteng high court to review Zuma’s medical parole because the procedure is “vulnerable to abuse and can be used unlawfully to commute the sentences of the politically connected”.
In his submission to the court, Steenhuisen casts doubt on Fraser’s motives and the severity of the 79-year-old former president’s ill health.
“Mr Zuma’s ill health was not the reason for granting medical parole,” he claims.
In July, Zuma was admitted to Estcourt prison after the apex court found him guilty of contempt and sentenced him to time behind bars. He was held in an isolation area for a fortnight to undergo observation. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, patients are monitored on admission to prison before transfer to the section where they will complete their sentence.
Zuma was released to attend his brother’s funeral in mid-July. On re-admission, he returned to the secluded prison wing for medical observation. In August, he was transferred to hospital before being released on medical parole in early September.
Steenhuisen admits he can only speculate on Zuma’s condition as neither the former president nor the correctional services department have disclosed the details. “Here, I do no more than state that there are reasons to doubt Mr Zuma’s protestations that he is ill enough to qualify for medical parole.”
Among the grounds on which the DA leader has launched the challenge to Zuma’s effective get-out-of-jail card, Steenhuisen lists the recommendation against Zuma’s release made by the parole board.
During a televised interview, which is cited in the submission, Fraser said he took the decision to release Zuma for medical reasons. However, the relevant board on which medical professionals sit did not make that recommendation.
Steenhuisen said there were question marks about the release as Zuma has not disclosed the condition from which he suffers. However, Zuma’s lawyers have said in court that private information on his wellbeing is sensitive and a matter of state security.
Steenhuisen said “if Mr Zuma was gravely ill, he would likely have disclosed his medical condition to clear the air and to stave off legal challenges like this one.
“The fact that he has not leads to the inference that he might not be so ill. If he wishes for this punishment to be commuted for medical reasons, he must be comfortable with those reasons being public.”
He drew on a statement issued by Zuma’s eponymous foundation via social media on August 6, after Zuma was transferred from Estcourt prison to an unidentified hospital. The Jacob G Zuma foundation, whose spokesperson is Mzwanele Manyi, reported Zuma was undergoing a routine annual check-up.
A week-and-a-half later correctional services spokesperson Singabakho Nxumalo issued a statement reporting Zuma remained in hospital after a surgical
the“procedure” with more set down for the following days.
Nearly a month to day after Zuma’s move from prison to custody in hospital, the prisons department announced he was placed on medical parole, without indicating who was responsible for the decision or on what grounds it was granted.
Steenhuisen suggests the head of Estcourt prison passed the buck, after receiving the parole board’s report (seemingly among other unspecified reports). The jail is headed up by Nompumelelo Radebe whom Steenhuisen alleged told Fraser about reports which “require” Zuma’s release.
In choosing to place Zuma on medical parole, against the board’s recommendation, Fraser either erred in procedure or assumed the authority to do so, said Steenhuisen.
“It is not clear why the commissioner [Fraser] rescinded the delegation to the head of the Estcourt Correctional Centre to make the decision himself. We invite the commissioner to explain to the court why this occurred,” reads the affidavit.
Steenhuisen argues that the application for review and setting aside Fraser’s decision has merit because Fraser cannot grant medical parole if the board does not recommend it. Fraser, adds the applicant, made a critical error of law.
He accuses Fraser of acting irrationally by ignoring the board’s determination that Zuma was in a stable condition.
On a few occasions, Zuma’s ill health has prevented him from appearing in public and reportedly caused him to receive medical care abroad. Illness was cited as the reason he failed to appear for scheduled state-capture inquiry hearings. In February 2020, he also missed a high court date in his trial over the arms deal.
Last week, Zuma was again absent from a hearing in the corruption trial, where he has pleaded “not guilty” to charges, which include fraud, money laundering, tax evasion and racketeering. The business of the day on Thursday September 9 was postponed until September 20 when Zuma’s bid to have state prosecutor Billy Downer removed from the case will be heard in his absence.
In the notice of motion, the DA leader targets Tuesday October 26 as a date for the hearing in the application which was brought on an urgent basis. The document invites respondents who plan to oppose the application to file replying affidavits by early October.
I DO NO MORE THAN STATE THAT THERE ARE REASONS TO DOUBT MR ZUMA’S PROTESTATIONS THAT HE IS ILL ENOUGH TO QUALIFY FOR PAROLE