Judgment has been reserved in President Cyril Ramaphosa’s pressing utility to interdict the private prosecution bid by former President Jacob Zuma. The Johannesburg High Court on Thursday heard arguments from varied legal professionals representing the President, in addition to his predecessor and the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA).
Zuma is accusing Ramaphosa of failing to act in opposition to prosecutor, Advocate Billy Downer, for the alleged disclosure of his medical information. Zuma additionally accused the NPA of being dishonest relating to the issuing of the nolle prosequi certificates.
Analysis of Ramaphosa vs Zuma courtroom proceedings: Thabo Masombuka:
Lawyer for President Cyril Ramaphosa, Advocate Ngwako Maenetjie, has argued that the President’s rights can be trampled upon in the private prosecution bid launched by former President Jacob Zuma. Maenetjie says the pinnacle of state has a proper not to be hauled earlier than a legal courtroom.
The President approached the courtroom for an interdict to forestall Zuma from taking additional steps to give impact to his private prosecution bid. Maenetjie says the legislation supplies the President with safety over what he says is illegal prosecution.
“Now when he says go to that court and plead, you have the right. Of course we have the right to go to that court, but we also have the right to assert our constitutional rights in saying we cannot be hauled before an unlawful trial, criminal proceedings. We have those rights and my client has decided to assert the right, to approach this court that he is entitled to protect him from having his rights trampled upon by a private prosecutor who, prima facie, and that’s the case we have to make, prima facie he’s conducting an unlawful private prosecution.”
ANC’s step apart rule
Maenetjie argued that the private prosecution bid launched in opposition to Ramaphosa will not be in the very best pursuits of the general public. He countered the argument made by the previous President and says Ramaphosa’s look earlier than a legal courtroom may give impact to the ANC’s step apart decision which might have an effect on his function as social gathering President and his place as head of state.
Maenetjie additionally argued that the President was not conscious of the alleged fee of a criminal offense by Downer. He additional states that Ramaphosa referred the matter to Justice and Correctional Services Minister, Ronald Lamola, who has jurisdiction over the matter. Maenetjie made this submission earlier than the courtroom.
“The first respondent says well, your urgency was in relation to the ANC conference and that has come and gone. But what he doesn’t acknowledge is that the step aside rule in fact continues to apply. So if he is hauled before a criminal court, those of his detractors in the organisation, well now you are criminally before court, you must step aside, but you step aside not only from your ANC position, you step aside from your national position as President. So the impact is not on the immediate interest of the President but it transcends into the interests of the public.”
Appearing in courtroom
Advocate Dali Mpofu – who was representing the previous President – has, nonetheless, argued that Ramaphosa wouldn’t undergo any hurt by showing earlier than a legal courtroom subsequent Thursday in accordance with the summons issued by Zuma. He says the President would have a chance to state his case in courtroom. Mpofu says the inconvenience of showing earlier than courtroom is one suffered by all people dealing with costs.
“What we have here is a simple pedestrian charge. A person that’s been charged must appear in court and say their piece. But what is this extra thing that makes you, the applicant to come to court because if the harm that you suffer is that which is suffered by all of us, then tough luck. The point is simply that any person in this country who is accused of a crime, rightly or wrongly, whether they will be acquitted or whatever in the end, has to suffer the inconvenience of appearing in court.”
Mpofu additionally argued that there is no such thing as a foundation for Ramaphosa’s declare that his look earlier than a legal courtroom may probably give impact to the ANC’s step apart rule which might have an effect on his place as chief of the social gathering and as head of state. He says the matter will not be pressing as alleged by the President as he didn’t launch the authorized motion when he obtained the summons on the fifteenth of December final 12 months.
The President approached the courtroom nearly two weeks in a while the matter.
“You can’t say my urgency derives from the fear of the step aside rule related to the ANC conference and then you do nothing. He says I went and consulted my lawyers on the same day, on the 15th because in his mind this was meant to disqualify him from standing as President of the ANC which would then mean disqualify him as President of the country. But what does he then do? That’s when he should’ve come here. He doesn’t do that. Instead he takes a contentious position that says he is entitled to ignore the summons.”
NPA shielding the President?
Mpofu additional submitted that the NPA tried to defend the President when it issued an announcement explaining that the President was not named in the docket when the nolle prosequi certificates had been issued. A declare the NPA’s Advocate Tebogo Mathibedi says has no foundation.
“I imagine the news headline will be NPA shielding the president. My lord, we respectfully submit that there is no factual and legal basis for making such an insinuation and even if one has a careful look at the papers, there is no evidence to back up that. I submit that, that is… it’s pure speculation.”
Judgment is anticipated to be handed down on Monday.
President Ramaphosa’s pressing interdict utility heard in courtroom:
