CONFLICTING CONCERNS

After eight years of litigation, a decision will have to be made about who will handle the prosecution in the case that began with an application for access to

‘spy tapes’ involving President Jacob Zuma

Afight about an unlawful R17m golden handshake made to former national director of public prosecutions Mxolisi Nxasana has opened up the possibility that deputy president Cyril Ramaphosa may have to execute an important presidential function.

This comes after more than eight years in court, during which President Jacob Zuma first fought to keep the so-called spy tapes out of the hands of the DA.

The tapes were used as the basis for former prosecutions boss Mokotedi Mpshe’s decision to drop the corruption charges against Zuma in 2009, shortly before he was inaugurated as president of the republic.

Last week legal representatives of Freedom Under Law, Corruption Watch and the Council for the Advancement of the SA Constitution argued in court that Zuma was conflicted in relation to the appointment of the prosecutions chief. He has, after all, shown that he was willing to pay R17m unlawfully to get rid of a national prosecutions head he did not like, the court heard.

The court application seeks to review and set aside the decision to drop the corruption charges and the golden handshake.

The core issue in the case is now the independence of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), advocate Wim Trengove said last week.

He accused the authority of colluding with the president to keep SA’S number one citizen from being charged with fraud, corruption, racketeering and money laundering.

In 2016, after years of litigation, a full bench of the Pretoria high court declared that Mpshe’s decision to drop the charges had been irrational. The implication was that charges should be reinstated. However, Zuma and the NPA appealed the judgment. Then, in a stunning concession after all those years of litigation, the two parties conceded in the appeal court that Mpshe’s decision had indeed been irrational.

Though the concession came from both the appellants, it was the NPA that was slated in the appeal court judgment for the way it had drafted papers and dealt with the case, and specifically for deciding to

What it means: For the second time there is a possibility that an important function may be taken away from the president