ConCourt reserves judgement in Shaun Abrahams’ case

Reading Time: 2 minutes

The Constitutional Court has reserved judgement in a case brought forward by Freedom Under Law, Corruption Watch and others against NPA boss Shaun Abrahams.

The parties are seeking a confirmation order regarding the December judgment by the High Court in Pretoria, which declared the appointment of Abrahams as NPA boss unlawful.

The Constitutional Court has heard submissions from civil society legal representatives on why the order should be set aside. Abrahams legal representative, Hilton Epstein says there is no suggestion that his client is not fit to hold office.

Epstein was making argument in the Constitutional Court where then President Jacob Zuma’s replacement of Mxolisi Nxasana with Abrahams is being considered.

Nxasana received a massive R17 million golden handshake.

Abrahams has been accused of protecting Zuma and his supporters from prosecution since being appointed as NPA boss.

Epstein has challenged the Constitutional Court to sort the massive payment to Nxasana, saying it was irrational. He says Nxasana was free to resign, but should have lost his benefits payment.

“You can leave, if he goes to the president and says I am not happy – though I am happy with my job, but my wife is threatening to divorce me and I don’t get to see my children, I work too hard. Then the president says that’s not good enough reason. It cannot be endangered labour for him not to walk out, he can walk out – he just does not get his benefits in terms of 12-8 because it says if leave in terms of 12-8 A – then you get your benefits in 12-8 C.”

Earlier, Justice Azhar Cachalia warned legal representatives of civil organisations who are determined to see Abrahams vacating his position to bring constructive evidence to support their view.

Justice Cachalia says the High Court would not be justified in making a finding that Shaun Abrahams aligned himself with former president Zuma when that has not been tested.