Corruption-accused former president Jacob Zuma will oppose President Cyril Ramaphosa’s urgent application for an interdict against Zuma’s private prosecution.
However, Zuma’s foundation complains about the “maximum inconvenience” that its patron’s legal team will now have to work during the holiday period in defending the legal manoeuvre Zuma himself started two weeks ago.
On 15 December – the day before the ANC’s national elective conference – Zuma’s first summons was issued to Ramaphosa. Ramaphosa gave Zuma until 21 December to withdraw the private prosecution, failing which he said he would institute legal steps.
Instead, Zuma stuck to his guns and a second summons, with the same charges but a different nolle prosequi certificate, was issued on 21 December.
On 27 December, Ramaphosa made good on his promise that legal steps would follow if Zuma didn’t withdraw the purported private prosecution and filed an urgent two-part application.
In the first part, he asks for an interdict against Zuma continuing with his purported private prosecution, pending the finalisation of the second part. The second part asks the South Gauteng High Court to declare the purported private prosecution unlawful, invalid and unconstitutional and to set it aside.
Ramaphosa also asks for a punitive costs order against Zuma, or a costs order against his legal team.
Zuma wants Ramaphosa to appear in court on 19 January, and Ramaphosa wants his interdict application heard on 10 January.
On Wednesday, a day after Ramaphosa filed his application, the JG Zuma Foundation issued a statement in response, condemning the “belated actions of Mr Ramaphosa” in challenging the private prosecution.
“[He] now expects President Zuma to miraculously access his legal team whose members are obviously on family holidays to launch an application during the Christmas long weekends clearly intended to cause maximum inconvenience, especially when valuable time was wasted issuing meaningless threats and deadlines,” the statement reads.
“HE [His Excellency] President Zuma will do his best to locate and consult with his legal team.”
Thereafter a more substantial statement will be released.
“Once again HE President Zuma learnt about the urgent application through the media to whom the court papers were strategically leaked even before being received by his lawyers,” reads the statement from the foundation, who announced Zuma’s private prosecution in a statement of their own on 15 December.
Filed court papers are public documents, unless sealed by the court.
Zuma accuses Ramaphosa of “being [an] accessory after the fact to crimes committed by, among others, Adv Downer” in alleged breaches of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) Act.
Advocate Billy Downer is prosecuting Zuma on behalf of the State for arms deal-related corruption.
Zuma is seeking to privately prosecute Downer and News24 specialist legal writer Karyn Maughan for allegedly violating the NPA Act through the sharing of court documents – filed by Zuma’s lawyers and the State – that contained a sick note from the former president’s military doctor.
Both Downer and Maughan have each brought applications to have Zuma’s private prosecution declared an abuse of court processes.
Zuma argues Ramaphosa’s failure to investigate makes him an accessory after the fact.
In his application for the interdict, Ramaphosa argues that he would suffer “irreparable harm” if Zuma was allowed to continue with the private prosecution before the second part was decided.
In Part B, Ramaphosa asks the court to declare Zuma’s summonses unlawful, unconstitutional and invalid, or to declare the summonses and the nolle prosequi certificate unlawful, unconstitutional and invalid and set them aside.
The summonses are unlawful, unconstitutional and invalid because “the purported private prosecution is pursued for an ulterior purpose”, Ramaphosa stated, adding that the timing of the first summons – a day before the ANC’s conference – was “disconcerting”.
“The ulterior purpose was to attempt to disqualify me from contesting the position of ANC president at the 55th National Conference, and if I succeeded, to attempt to have me step aside from the position of president on the basis that there are criminal proceedings pending against me in a court of law. This is based on the ANC’s step-aside rule.”
Furthermore, Ramaphosa also argued Zuma, as a former president, is aware that the president does not investigate crimes and “it would have been improper to report a crime to the president and expect him to investigate it”.
