Judges fine Zuma for disrespect
Judgment says the language used in the former president’s application do not belong in a proper court process
THE National Prosecuting Authority has emerged successful in its request to the Pietermaritzburg High Court to impose a fine on former president Jacob Zuma for using disrespectful language in his application for leave to appeal last month.
Zuma wanted the court to grant him permission to approach the Supreme Court of Appeal to hear his failed application for a permanent stay of prosecution, which was dismissed on October 11.
This related to corruption charges emanating from the arms deal.
Handing down judgment recently, the three judges, led by Jerome Mnguni, underlined at least nine phrases which they said should not have been used in Zuma’s court papers.
These include words such as “sanitised version of facts”, “high court worked backwards” and the “high court simply parroted”.
The judges said they noted the apology for the disrespectful words by Zuma’s lawyer, advocate Muzi Sikhakhane SC, but pointed out that the apology only came after advocate Andrew Breitenbach SC, on behalf of the State, submitted in his heads of argument that Zuma ought to be penalised.
“The language used in Zuma’s application for leave to appeal… do not belong in a proper court process,” they said.
“Comments or allegations that are scandalous or vexatious to the court ought to be avoided at all costs, as they can bring the administration of justice into disrepute.”
The judges also emphasised that the attitudes such as those displayed by Zuma could possibly undermine the public’s confidence in the courts and disturb the moral authority of judicial processes.
“We do not suggest that the courts must not be criticised for their judgments, but we are of the view that such comments must be respectful and grounded on the judgments, as they can have a wider impact than merely hurting the judges’ feelings or impugning their reputation.”
The judges said submission by Zuma that they over-emphasised the seriousness of the crime more than his rights had no merit whatsoever, and added that the seriousness of the crime was but one of the factors to be considered.
They have since hit Zuma with a costs order.
“With regard to costs, we were mindful that in applications of this nature it is not usual to grant a costs order against an applicant. However, in our view, Zuma’s complaints were not genuine, hence a costs order.”
While the court did not say how much should Zuma pay, conservative estimates show that combined with his own legal fees, the fees could be as high as R400 000.
Also, this is not the end of the road for Zuma, as he may still directly petition the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein and this can only happen next year, as the courts will go on recess in mid-December and only open in January.