Judgment has been reserved in President Cyril Ramaphosa’s urgent application to interdict the private prosecution bid by former President Jacob Zuma. The Johannesburg High Court on Thursday heard arguments from various lawyers representing the President, as well as his predecessor and the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA).
Zuma is accusing Ramaphosa of failing to act against prosecutor, Advocate Billy Downer, for the alleged disclosure of his medical records. Zuma also accused the NPA of being dishonest regarding the issuing of the nolle prosequi certificates.
Analysis of Ramaphosa vs Zuma court proceedings: Thabo Masombuka:
Lawyer for President Cyril Ramaphosa, Advocate Ngwako Maenetjie, has argued that the President’s rights would be trampled upon in the private prosecution bid launched by former President Jacob Zuma. Maenetjie says the head of state has a right not to be hauled before a criminal court.
The President approached the court for an interdict to prevent Zuma from taking further steps to give effect to his private prosecution bid. Maenetjie says the law provides the President with protection over what he says is unlawful 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 aside rule
Maenetjie argued that the private prosecution bid launched against Ramaphosa is not in the best interests of the public. He countered the argument made by the former President and says Ramaphosa’s appearance before a criminal court could give effect to the ANC’s step aside resolution which would affect his role as party President and his position as head of state.
Maenetjie also argued that the President was not aware of the alleged commission of a crime by Downer. He further states that Ramaphosa referred the matter to Justice and Correctional Services Minister, Ronald Lamola, who has jurisdiction over the matter. Maenetjie made this submission before the court.
“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 court
Advocate Dali Mpofu – who was representing the former President – has, however, argued that Ramaphosa would not suffer any harm by appearing before a criminal court next Thursday in accordance with the summons issued by Zuma. He says the President would have an opportunity to state his case in court. Mpofu says the inconvenience of appearing before court is one suffered by all individuals facing charges.
“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 also argued that there is no basis for Ramaphosa’s claim that his appearance before a criminal court could potentially give effect to the ANC’s step aside rule which would affect his position as leader of the party and as head of state. He says the matter is not urgent as alleged by the President as he did not launch the legal action when he received the summons on the 15th of December last year.
The President approached the court almost two weeks later on 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 further submitted that the NPA attempted to shield the President when it issued a statement explaining that the President was not named in the docket when the nolle prosequi certificates were issued. A claim the NPA’s Advocate Tebogo Mathibedi says has no basis.
“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 expected to be handed down on Monday.
President Ramaphosa’s urgent interdict application heard in court:
