Unlikely Zuma will face litigation
Whether DAwins or loses, no guarantee charges will be reinstated
IN AWEEK in which he faced a fresh motion of no confidence in Parliament and scrutiny over the war between Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan and Sars boss Tom Moyane, President Jacob Zuma would have been encouraged by events at the Pretoria High Court this week.
The DA’s application to have the 2009 decision to drop corruption charges against him set aside, took an interesting turn when its legal counsel conceded that, were the court to rule in its favour, it would not mean the charges would be reinstated.
Whichever way the court rules, Zuma knows he is unlikely to face immediate prosecution as a result.
The DA’s Sean Rosenberg conceded this, a point which had been repeated through the week by the National Prosecuting Authority and Zuma’s lawyers.
This means if the court rules in the DA’s favour, the party would still have to pursue other avenues, such as making representations to the NPA to reinstate the charges, using the court judgment as the basis.
The NPA leadership which includes the National Director of Public Prosecutions, Shaun Abrahams, and his deputy, Nomngcobo Jiba, are seen as favouring Zuma and are not expected to be forced by the DA to prosecute the president.
A favourable outcome for the DA would force Abrahams to give fresh reasons, not those advanced by former NPA head Mokotedi Mpshe for not charging Zuma.
It would be a challenge for Abrahams, as his reasons would have to deal with the material aspects of the case and not issues of political interference as advanced by Mpshe as these would have been discredited.
A defeat for the DA would justify Mpshe’s decision and bolster the president’s view that their pursuit was as ill-fated as it was politically motivated.
Kemp J Kemp, appearing for Zuma, made this point as he sought to convince the full bench of the High Court that it was not only the strength of the case against the accused which should be considered when a decision to prosecute, or not, is made.
“Now we know that is not what this review is about, they have now accepted that Mpshe was acting in good faith. In a desperate attempt to challenge his decision, they are saying his decision was irrational.”
According to Kemp, it was significant the NPA, through the likes of former Scorpions boss Leonard McCarthy, was using its powers to determine who the next president should be.
The NPA’s Hilton Epstein told the court the principle of separation of powers was at stake as the DA sought to force the courts to reinstate charges against the president
“If the applicant wins, the case will have to go back to the authority to reconsider the decision to withdraw the charges.”