DA puts pressure on Ramaphosa regarding Zuma
THE DA has urged President Cyril Ramaphosa to instruct the State Attorney to oppose former president Jacob Zuma’s application for a permanent stay of prosecution.
“It’s unconscionable and unacceptable that the Presidency has agreed to pay for Jacob Zuma’s legal costs for his participation in the Zondo Commission [into state capture] on top of the costs for his criminal defence that the state already pays,” DA leader Mmusi Maimane said yesterday.
“How long will this government make the public pay for Jacob Zuma?
“President Ramaphosa should cut off this obscene funding immediately, and in fact the president should be opposing Zuma’s application for a permanent stay of prosecution,” he said.
“If Ramaphosa was serious about showing real commitment to fighting corruption there was no way that he should be allowing the public to carry the cost of Zuma’s legal defence – this was a corruption tax on the public. Ramaphosa should be using the Zuma case as an opportunity to demonstrate that no one is above the law in South Africa.
“He should instruct the State Attorney to oppose Zuma’s application for a stay of prosecution. The DA calls on Ramaphosa to do so.
“Regardless of whether the president rises to the occasion or not, the DA will not let Jacob Zuma get away with corruption. We have instructed our lawyers to begin the process of joining the case as an interested party to oppose Zuma’s application for a permanent stay of prosecution,” Maimane said.
Zuma will appear in the Pietermaritzburg High Court court on Friday. He faces 16 charges of fraud, corruption, money laundering and racketeering stemming from 783 alleged payments to him in relation to the arms deal when he was KwaZulu-Natal MEC of economic affairs and tourism.
At his previous appearance in July, he and his co-accused Thint were warned that they had until November 16 to file their applications.
Both Zuma and Thint, now known as Thales, have filed applications for a permanent stay. In a statement earlier this month, Thales said one of the contentions as to why the “re-institution” of charges holds no validity was that criminal charges against the company were withdrawn in 2009, and this action was not challenged or set aside by any court.