By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
Judgement has been reserved in the urgent interdict application by President Cyril Ramaphosa regarding his private prosecution by former president Jacob Zuma.
The full bench of the high court heared Ramaphosa’s urgent interdict application to halt the private prosecution against him by his predecessor, Zuma.
Ramaphosa approached the high court on an urgent basis after Zuma – on the eve of the ANC’s 55th elective conference in December – charged him with being an “accessory after the fact” in relation to charges the former president is pursuing against senior state prosecutor Billy Downer and journalist Karyn Maughan.
Last year, Zuma charged Downer and Maughan with contravening the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) Act over the disclosure of a medical note filed in court, on 9 August 2021, during Zuma’s arms deal corruption trial.
Ramaphosa said he approached the courts on an urgent basis to challenge the “unlawful, unconstitutional and invalid” summons and private prosecution against him set down for 19 January.
Legal teams representing Ramaphosa and his predecessor appeared before a full bench of the Joburg High Court.
Advocate Ngwako Maenetje SC, acting on behalf of the president, argued that the high court had the jurisdiction to hear Ramaphosa’s interdict application and to grant interim relief on an urgent basis.
This after Zuma’s lawyers argued that a civil court wasn’t empowered to suppress a criminal charge before an accused person had pleaded in a criminal court.
Advocate Maenetje referred to several case laws to back up his arguments that the high court was empowered to hear the matter.
“We establish that in terms of its inherent powers [the high court] can intervene by way of review – setting aside or by way of granting a final interdict stopping the private prosecution, he said.
Advocate Maenetje added: “There is established authority; we haven’t seen authority to the contrary, other than authorities relating to the context of public prosecutions.”
Meanwhile advocate Dali Mpofu, acting on behalf of Zuma, argued in court that Ramaphosa was abusing court processes by seeking to interdict his predecessor’s private prosecution bid against him.
Mpofu argued that Zuma did not charge Ramaphosa in his capacity as the president of South Africa, but rather in his personal capacity.
This is despite the fact that Ramaphosa is being accused by Zuma of being “an accessory after the fact” for allegedly failing to act as the president of South Africa against Downer and Maughan for the alleged crime against them.
Mpofu said: “This abuse of a court process by those who are rich and who, in this case, are actually using state resources wrongly, because he [Ramaphosa] has not been charged as the president. It amounts to these 4 000 pages [Ramaphosa’s court papers] to try and do what?
“This case is about one thing and one thing only; to avoid the appearance [in court] next week. All these other gymnastics forget about them.”
Mpofu said other accused persons in South Africa, when summoned to appear before a court of law, followed the law, but Ramaphosa was seeking special treatment from the courts.
“That’s for the other 60 million inhabitants of South Africa, not the high and mighty. Not the president,” he said.
Mpofu added that Zuma, unlike Ramaphosa, had subjected himself to court processes and followed the law even though he felt persecuted.
Watch Live in the video below:
Video Courtesy of ENCA.