By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
President Cyril Ramaphosa has brought an application against Jacob Zuma, requesting the court to interdict him from trying to privately prosecute the President as an “accessory after the fact” in his ongoing private prosecution against Billy Downer.
Downer is leading the prosecution team against Zuma in his criminal case for alleged corruption in the infamous Arms Deal. Zuma has tried for several months to have Downer prosecuted over allegations that he contravened the NPA Act by allegedly leaking Zuma’s medical information to News24 journalist Karyn Maughan. But Ramaphosa says his name has no place being associated with the Downer matter or Zuma’s attempt to prosecute him.
Zuma’s main gripe with Ramaphosa is that he did not investigate a complaint – over the alleged leak of medical information – that he laid against Downer in August 2022. Ramaphosa says he referred the complaint to Justice Minister Ronald Lamola.
The Minister was requested then, to escalate the complaints of misconduct to the Legal Practice Council for investigation. In fact, (Ramaphosa) referred Zuma’s complaint to the Minister,” his lawyers argue. They add that Zuma’s complaint against Ramaphosa cannot form the basis of a criminal offence.
“The prosecution could not genuinely be for purposes of obtaining a criminal conviction. It is to harass the applicant for political ends,” Ramaphosa’s lawyers argue.
They also argue that Zuma is required to provide a security deposit before proceeding with a private prosecution, in terms of section 9 of the Criminal Procedure Act: “The first respondent (Zuma) did not pay a security deposit before issuing the summons and he has not done so to date. In his answering affidavit, he vacillates between two versions. On the one hand, he has put up security, on the other, he will still do so. Whatever the position, there is no evidence that security was in fact paid at all; or to the magistrate’s court in whose area of jurisdiction the alleged crime was allegedly committed. No summons should have been issued without proof that a security deposit was paid and issuing the summons in such circumstances was unlawful.”
Ramaphosa also argues that the timing of Zuma’s prosecution, on the eve of the ANC’s elective conference in December 2022, points to an ulterior motive.
Meanwhile, Zuma’s team argues that there are no fewer than 10 “overlapping legal issues” that the court should decide, including whether Ramaphosa’s objection should be dealt with in civil or criminal court.
His lawyers argue that the issues being raised in these civil proceedings should rather be argued in the criminal court, where Zuma wants Ramaphosa to appear.
“It seems obvious that the court should refuse to entertain the present preliminary litigation, dismiss the application and duly refer the matter to the court which has jurisdiction, namely the criminal court as the ‘constitutionally ordained’ forum to deal with issues such as title to prosecute, the requirements of section 7 of the Criminal Procedure Act or allegedly vexatious and unfounded private prosecutions or even any ambiguities in the charges.”
During the proceedings, Judge Lebogang Modiba has reprimanded Zuma for his accusations of unfair treatment towards his lawyer, Advocate Dali Mpofu, by the South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg.
This, after Advocate Mpofu lodged a complaint on behalf of Zuma regarding the alleged curtailment of time to wrap up his arguments.
Mpofu claimed this amounted to a “Zuma law” being applied by the court and suggested that other lawyers in the court proceedings were treated differently.
Following a tea break in the afternoon, Judge Modiba addressed Advocate Mpofu’s concern regarding the time allocated for concluding his arguments.
The judge clarified that all parties involved in the case had reached an agreement on how they would proceed. She emphasised that Mpofu’s allocated time, as the one presenting arguments prior to the tea break, had not been curtailed.
In fact, Judge Modiba said Mpofu was given additional time on Wednesday and Thursday, adding that Zuma’s complaint that the court was unfair to him was unfounded.
“The notion that this court is unfair to his client has no basis because this court has been extremely accommodating and has afforded substantially more time to Mpofu to argue than what was agreed.
“And invariably that gives him an unfair advantage over the other parties because the other parties, as we have heard from their counsel, they have stuck to the allocated time,” she said.
Modiba said Mpofu had also “consistently ignored” her directives on sticking to the allocated time to make his arguments.
In a ruling, the judge declared that Mpofu would not receive additional time to complete his arguments because the court had a full set of arguments from all parties.
At the same time, Judge Modiba also took issue with Mpofu saying there was a “Zuma law” being applied compared to other parties to the case. She said Mpofu’s remarks were “utterly inappropriate”.
“Those remarks are utterly inappropriate and from the reasons I’ve given in this ruling, clearly there isn’t any new law that is applied only to Zuma.
“And I’ve demonstrated in my reasoning how he has been accommodated more than the other parties in this court. And it’s inappropriate for you to be accusing this court of unfairly treating Zuma.”
Mpofu denied that the remarks about the “Zuma law” were from him, saying they came from the former president.
Judgement has been reserved.
Watch Live in the video below:
Video Courtesyof SABC.