Cape Town - President Cyril Ramaphosa’s court application to stop former president Jacob Zuma’s private prosecution provides for an interesting legal test for the judiciary.
Although Ramaphosa is within his legal rights to do so, the move is essentially a request for the South Gauteng High Court to interdict itself given that the subpoena was issued by the same court.
Ramaphosa has further asked the court to excuse him from appearing before a judge to answer to his alleged crimes on January 19, 2023, as directed by the summons.
Zuma launched a private prosecution bid against Ramaphosa last month for allegedly contravening the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) Act following the disclosure of his medical records by prosecutor Billy Downer and journalist Karyn Maughan.
Zuma has claimed that Downer and Maughan acted in an unethical manner and were in criminal breach of the NPA Act, which requires prosecutors to obtain written permission from the National Director of Prosecutions before disclosing the contents of documents in their possession.
Zuma accused Ramaphosa of being an “accessory after the fact” in a criminal offence alleged against Downer, who is accused of improperly sharing information in terms of the NPA Act.
Last month, Ramaphosa demanded that Zuma withdraw his private prosecution within three days, but Zuma’s legal team insisted he had a case to answer to.
Ramaphosa had argued that the certificate granted to Zuma as a legal confirmation that the NPA will not proceed with the prosecution following its consideration of the charges was not issued directly against him.
However, his argument may be legally flawed.
This is because even though the general nolle prosequi issued by the NPA in August 2021 had Downer as the sole suspect, Maughan was subsequently charged based on it.
In addition, Zuma’s legal team argued that he had mentioned Ramaphosa as one of the people who infringed on his rights. Given the existing perception in some quarters that our judiciary is biased in favour of Ramaphosa and his administration, the president should allow the legal process to take its course and prove Zuma wrong, if he feels his predecessor is being malicious.
Cape Times