‘Ramaphosa’s interim interdict against Zuma’s private prosecution bid may be overturned’

Legal Analysts argue that there may be prospects for President Cyril Ramaphosa’s interim interdict which temporarily halts former President, Jacob Zuma’s private prosecution bid against him to be overturned.

This comes after Zuma filed papers at the Constitutional Court to overturn the decision of the Gauteng High Court to grant Ramaphosa an urgent interdict against the process.

A full bench of judges at the Gauteng High Court found that a case had been shown for the violation of personal rights on the part of the president.

He launched the private prosecution bid against Ramaphosa, accusing him of failing to act against prosecutor, Advocate Billy Downer for the alleged disclosure of his medical records.

The interdict temporarily prevents Zuma from giving effect to the private prosecution.

Legal Analyst, Reitumetsi Phiri says although the position in South African law does not generally see the appeal of interim interdicts, it is possible if the interests of justice dictate it.

Phiri says, “The position in our law for an extended period has been that interim interdicts are generally not appealable, but since the advent of the constitution, we have seen a few orders in which the courts have held that interim interdicts, even though as a general proposition are not appealable, may be appealable, if the interests of justice dictate.”

The interdict halts Zuma from giving any further effect to his private prosecution bid and it does not compel the President to appear in the dock.

The private prosecution bid, however, remains on the criminal roll as it kicked off on the January 19 with the matter postponed to May, the same month in which the part B of his challenge to the private prosecution.

Zuma’s intention

The Jacob Zuma Foundation Spokesperson, Mzwanele Manyi says, “We already have a criminal court date. So, the intention is to try and make sure that all the issues that may prevent 26 May from happening are cleared. So, the quicker we go to the court with the final say, the better. It’s President Zuma’s right to go directly to the Constitutional Court. The issues of direct access are settled. A lot of issues that came out of Judge Sutherland’s judgment are constitutional issues in their own right.”

In the papers filed before the Constitutional Court, Zuma contends that interim orders can be appealed. He adds that the interests of justice permit such a relief.

However, Phiri differs with the former president’s contentions based on the circumstances of this particular case.

A date for the apex court challenge is yet to be set.