South Africa

JZ ARREST WARRANT

Former president Zuma’s ‘sick note’ results in court issuing warrant for his arrest

Former South African President Jacob Zuma during his fourth day of testimony at the Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, Johannesburg, South Africa, 19 July 2019. (Photo: Mike Hutchings/EPA-EFE)

What is best described as a case of poor planning by the defence team resulted in their client being issued with a warrant of arrest, which will be stayed until the next appearance on 6 May 2020 where a credible explanation is expected to be given.

It should have been among the most irrelevant court appearances in the ongoing saga involving fraud and corruption charges against former president Jacob Zuma, but his defence managed to turn a simple adjournment into an hour of debate over a “so-called medical certificate” bearing the stamp of the South African National Defence Force’s One Military Hospital.

What is best described as a case of poor planning by the defence team resulted in their client being issued with a warrant of arrest, which will be stayed until the next appearance on 6 May 2020 where a credible explanation is expected to be given.  

The Tuesday appearance in the Pietermaritzburg High Court was effectively a holding date in the hope that trial dates may be discussed. However, due to outstanding judgments from the Supreme Court of Appeal, which Zuma has petitioned to have the charges set aside, and another petition made to the Constitutional Court by Zuma’s co-accused arms manufacturer Thales, the only logical conclusion was another postponement.

Zuma was not present and the medical “sick note” his defence attorney Daniel Mantsha handed to the court provided Justice Dhaya Pillay and prosecutor Advocate Billy Downer SC with little reason to believe the validity of the certificate. Furthermore, Mantsha provided no medical witnesses to speak to the note, or supporting documentation.

To compound matters, Mantsha had ignored correspondence sent to his office on 16 January 2020 by the National Prosecuting Authority asking for medical evidence speaking to the purported illness of Zuma. He had informed the NPA the day before that Zuma would be out of the country seeking medical attention on the hearing date.

The actual “sick note” presented by Mantsha provided no supporting documentation on who the attending doctor was, simply calling him “ZK Motene”. Alongside the purported illness not disclosed to the court was a “layman’s diagnosis”.

A call by Daily Maverick to One Military Hospital’s human resources department confirmed that a Dr ZK Motene worked for the Presidential Medical Unit.

Pillay went at length to try to diagnose the medical certificate while Mantsha, who appeared to know very little about it, insisted it must be accepted because it had “an original stamp” from the hospital.

He also told the court that the health of a former president “is a matter of national security and a matter of our armed services”, followed by what can be referenced as a “third force” jibe.

“It is absurd for the state to doubt the admissibility of a medical note by our military unless the prosecution team does not represent the same state [in which] this military resides,”  said Mantsha.

He said Dr Motene was with Zuma in the yet to be disclosed jurisdiction.   

“This quest for warrant of arrest is spiteful and vindictive and persecution of Mr Zuma,” said Mantsha.

He said if the court issued the warrant “the people will ask what kind of courts are these where there is no sensitivity”, adding that the public knew Zuma was “an elderly man seeking medical treatment”.  

Advocate Billy Downer SC, acting for the state, dismissed the notion that the court was being vindictive.

Instead he told the court that it was “extraordinarily uncollegial to leave unanswered pertinent invitations from the state, in good faith, to be able to assist the court with medical evidence to explain his absence from court today”. He called the note a “so-called medical certificate”, adding that there was no supporting evidence to add credibility.  

“The state does not consent to its admission. It remains hearsay evidence, the witness is not before court, there is no evidential weight, it proves nothing; moreover it raises many more questions than it answers. Who is the doctor, where does he come from, what is the so-called illness, why is it a layman’s diagnosis?

“These are the questions I want you to put to the doctor. We should not have reached this stage quibbling about the terms of an inadmissible medical certificate with an added desperate application [by Mantsha] that the matter should be postponed to clear up these issues.”

“We [the court] don’t know he is sick. We’ve heard reports in the media,” said Downer. DM

 

Gallery

Please peer review 3 community comments before your comment can be posted

X

This article is free to read.

Sign up for free or sign in to continue reading.

Unlike our competitors, we don’t force you to pay to read the news but we do need your email address to make your experience better.


Nearly there! Create a password to finish signing up with us:

Please enter your password or get a sign in link if you’ve forgotten

Open Sesame! Thanks for signing up.

We would like our readers to start paying for Daily Maverick...

…but we are not going to force you to. Over 10 million users come to us each month for the news. We have not put it behind a paywall because the truth should not be a luxury.

Instead we ask our readers who can afford to contribute, even a small amount each month, to do so.

If you appreciate it and want to see us keep going then please consider contributing whatever you can.

Support Daily Maverick→
Payment options

Daily Maverick Elections Toolbox

Feeling powerless in politics?

Equip yourself with the tools you need for an informed decision this election. Get the Elections Toolbox with shareable party manifesto guide.