Zuma back in costly litigation

THIS week President Jacob Zuma filed yet another court appeal against a ruling that went against him.

This time he challenged the December 2017 decision of the North Gauteng High Court where a full bench ordered that National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) Advocate Shaun Abrahams should vacate his position and that deputy president Cyril Ramaphosa should be the one appointing a new NDPP.

Besides setting aside Abrahams’ appointment, the court also ordered that former NDPP Mxolisi Nxasana should return the R17-million settlement he was offered when he left his position. In October last year the Supreme Court of Appeals found that the same North Gauteng High Court had been correct when it found that then acting NDPP Mokotedi Mpshe’s 2007 decision to drop the corruption charges against Zuma was irrational. Zuma has 783 counts of fraud and corruption hanging over his head. This means that the National Prosecuting Authority has to decide Zuma’s prosecution.

So basically this would mean that the accused – in this case Zuma – would have had the opportunity to pick his own prosecutor. That is unheard of. That is what the court had in mind when, in delivering the judgment, Judge Dunstan Mlambo ordered that Ramaphosa appoints Abrahams’s successor as Zuma was conflicted due to the litany of charges he still has to answer to.

This is exactly the part that Zuma is appealing. The president’s lawyers argue that the court had erred in saying that he would not be able to perform his role as president in appointing an NDPP whereas he was able to perform other presidential duties. The NDPP is appointed by the president. In his papers Zuma said: “The court a quo erred in law in holding it to be constitutionally permissible to have two presidents in the country at the same time and both exercising presidential powers”.

But obviously the drafters of our Constitution never imagined that a sitting president would one day become a criminal suspect. Our constitutional democracy finds itself in uncharted waters. But in a way it is a good thing that Zuma is appealing as the matter will now be settled once and for all. The legal loophole will finally be filled. Without prejudging the appeal before the Constitutional Court, but given the history of Zuma’s litigation, it would not be surprising if the president lost or just simply withdrew his appeal, as he is wont to do.

Zuma probably ranks as the costliest president post-apartheid. He is extremely litigious. His continued stay in office does not only negatively affect the image of the country but is also expensive. But he does not care. It’s not his money but our money as taxpayers. This is why it is in the interests of the country that the ANC national executive committee must recall him without delay.