Legal professional Mpumelelo Zikalala says the style in which President Cyril Ramaphosa responded to former President Jacob Zuma’s bid to have him privately prosecuted was problematic.
Zikalala’s remark comes forward of the judgment of the High Court in Johannesburg immediately in Ramaphosa’s pressing utility towards Zuma’s intentions to privately prosecute him.
Last week, the court docket heard arguments from either side on the matter.
Zuma is accusing Ramaphosa of being an adjunct to prosecutor Advocate Billy Downer’s alleged crime in relation to the disclosure of his medical data.
The former President has additionally accused the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) of being dishonest in relation to the issuing of the nolle prosequi certificates.
Zikalala says Ramaphosa ought to have instructed the NPA to tackle the matter.
“On (the) part when it to comes to the merits, I think he is going to be successful because his defence is clear, it says I’m the President, I’m not the one who is supposed to chastise misbehaving prosecutors, this is not my prerogative…His only mistake was launching this particular urgent application and only directing it to the former president and not really directing any instructions to the NPA or forcing them to act in a manner that which they can be able to resolve their mistake.”
Zikalala elaborates in the video beneath:
‘Argument not strong enough for urgency’
Legal analyst Nthabiseng Dubazana says Ramaphosa might have failed to efficiently argue his case.
Lawyer for the President, Advocate Ngwako Maenetje, argued that Ramaphosa’s rights can be trampled upon ought to he be pressured to seem in what he says is an illegal personal prosecution.
Dubazana says: “I really don’t think that they had a strong argument for urgency. If you even saw how the presiding officers were probing at the issue of urgency to the counsel for Ramaphosa, they are possibly not as convinced that the matter was as urgent as it is made to be or to appear as if it is. If we look at what urgency is in terms of Section 6, it means that if this is not done as quickly as possible and I’m not granted this relief that I’m asking from the court with as much urgency as possible, it means the detriment that’s going to come, is going to be so harsh on me…we therefore request the court to deal with this as expeditely as possible. When we look at what is before the court right now, there were so many delays prior to the matter actually being set down for urgency.”
-Additional reporting by Zoleka Qodashe
