South Africa


Arthur Fraser ‘erred spectacularly’ in granting Zuma medical parole, Supreme Court of Appeal is told

Arthur Fraser ‘erred spectacularly’ in granting Zuma medical parole, Supreme Court of Appeal is told
Illustrative image | Sources: Estcourt Correctional Centre on 8 July 2021. (Photo: Gallo Images / Darren Stewart) | Former Correctional Services commissioner Arthur Fraser. (Photo: Gallo Images / Netwerk24 / Jaco Marais) | Former president Jacob Zuma. (Photo: Leila Dougan)

Advocate says the evidence and the law point 'overwhelmingly' to the fact that the former Correctional Services head's efforts to ignore or to override the medical parole board are a textbook spectacle of unlawfulness.

Former Correctional Services head Arthur Fraser had erred “spectacularly” in law and rationality when he summarily dismissed a recommendation by the Medical Parole Advisory Board that former president Jacob Zuma did not qualify for medical parole, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) heard on Monday. 

Acting on behalf of the Helen Suzman Foundation, advocate Max du Plessis SC told the Full Bench that Fraser was the national commissioner, “not the medical commissar”, at the time he made his decision.

“He doesn’t have the power to arrogate a wider power to himself to determine the medical question or ignore the board.”

fraser zuma parole supporters

A handful of people came to show their support for former president Jacob Zuma on Monday, 15 August 2022. (Photo: Kgothatso Mokoena)

Fraser had thought he could “do better” than the board — that he could override the decision that was based on the reports of five specialist doctors, said Du Plessis, but he had not pointed out any jurisdictional fact that would allow him to do so.

Fraser — a known Zuma ally — authorised the medical parole release on 5 September 2021, just days after the Medical Parole Advisory Board had advised against it, given that Zuma was not terminally ill or physically incapacitated. The release came just two months after the former president was sentenced to 15 months in jail by the Constitutional Court on contempt charges.

Zuma was imprisoned on 8 July 2021, sparking a wave of riots across his home province of KwaZulu-Natal, and to a lesser extent Gauteng, that led to more than 300 deaths and cost the economy of the eThekwini metro alone more than R70-billion, according to its business chamber. Should Zuma lose the case relating to his medical parole and have to return to prison, there are fears that his supporters will again be incited to riot and loot.

Zuma’s release was challenged in the Pretoria High Court by the Democratic Alliance, the Helen Suzman Foundation and AfriForum last year. The court found in their favour in December, with the presiding judge, Elias Matojane, calling the release unlawful and setting it aside.


Zuma was ordered back to jail to complete his sentence. But within hours of Matojane’s judgment, the Department of Correctional Services and Zuma made known their intentions to appeal against the decision at the SCA.

Du Plessis told the SCA that according to the appropriate regulations, it was up to the board to make a recommendation to the commissioner relating to medical parole. This was an “embedded power”, he said, and the recommendation would be value-based.

“As the high court put it, Parliament deliberately took the responsibility to diagnose terminal illness or severe physical incapacity away from the treating physician and left it to an independent board to make the expert medical diagnosis.”

Carl Niehaus at the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein on Monday, 15 August 2022. (Photo: Kgothatso Mokoena)

Quoting from his heads of argument, Du Plessis said that the National Council for Correctional Services completed its review of the South African medical parole policy in January 2010.

“The council proposed that the medical diagnosis of the medical practitioner, which puts the process in motion, be certified by a medical advisory board, to be established in its region,” said Du Plessis. 

He added that the “critical sentence” which followed was that: “The role of the national commissioner, or the parole board, or the minister, as the case may be, will therefore be to establish the other two criteria for eligibility — namely, the risk posed to society and whether there is adequate placement for the offender, since the medical leg of the three-pronged decision would have been established by the board.” 

Fraser was not entitled to inflate his jurisdiction, he said.

Specialist doctors

A number of specialist doctors had supplied reports that were utilised by the board in making its decision. The board found that Zuma suffered from various comorbidities, “but those are not the same as terminal illnesses”, said Du Plessis.

“They are not irreversible and won’t lead to imminent death. They make your future medical condition uncertain, but they are not the same as: ‘You are certainly about to die and therefore are entitled to terminal illness status under the statute.’”

The board declared that Zuma’s treatment for his undisclosed condition had been optimised. Given all the available records, it concluded that Zuma was stable and did not qualify for medical parole. But, said Du Plessis, the board did stress: “We are open to considering other information should it become available.”

Visit Daily Maverick’s home page for more news, analysis and investigations

There was no emphatic evidence of terminal illness or severe physical incapacity, said Du Plessis, as advocate Ismail Jamie SC, acting for the Democratic Alliance, had told the court earlier.

Fraser had “cherry-picked” the medical reports to decide on Zuma’s parole, said Du Plessis. He had utilised the reports of the former president’s personal military physician, and a Correctional Services physician, which recommended medical parole, but had not mentioned the reports from the specialists that the advisory board had relied on to deny the parole.

Nowhere had Fraser said that Zuma suffered from a terminal illness or physical incapacitation — requirements for medical parole — said Du Plessis, and Zuma had not said that he was terminally ill or incapacitated either.

‘Textbook spectacle of unlawfulness’

Fraser had “committed palpable errors”, said Du Plessis. “And the evidence and the law point overwhelmingly to the fact that Mr Fraser’s efforts to ignore or to override the board are a textbook spectacle of unlawfulness.”

In his submission, Jamie called out the hypocrisy of Zuma’s argument that he needed full medical care, including specialists, saying that when Zuma was imprisoned at the Estcourt Correctional Centre, he had round-the-clock medical care from the military, with no specialists in attendance.

Zuma was sent to the Heart Hospital in Pretoria for a medical condition, where he recovered, and was then sent home to Nkandla with the same military medical team he had in prison, none of them specialists.

“Mr Zuma was not sent to a tertiary facility as recommended [by Fraser], but was sent home to Nkandla with a military health service detail he had at Estcourt,” said Jamie.

He said Fraser and Zuma had not challenged the DA’s argument that neither admitted in their affidavits that the former president had a terminal disease.

fraser zuma parole mpofu

Advocate Dali Mpofu (centre) at the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein to represent former president Jacob Zuma on Monday, 15 August 2022. (Photo: Kgothatso Mokoena)

The day began with advocate Mantlheng Mphahlele arguing for the commissioner of Correctional Services, and afterwards, Dali Mpofu SC arguing for Zuma.

Fraser within his rights’

Mphahlele told the justices that Fraser was within his rights to use his discretion to make a decision about the medical parole because the recommendations of the board were not binding. The report from the board was simply an “additional report”, he said, that could be used by the commissioner in coming to a determination.

In response to a question from Justice Nambitha Dambuza about why Parliament would establish the statutory body if its recommendations held so little weight, Mphahlele said it was “in order to provide an independent additional report which needs to be considered by the national commissioner, and he has done so”.

The recommendations of the board were not “final”, he reiterated, and should not be elevated above the reports of the two doctors who had examined Zuma. “They must be treated equally.”

As for there being no mention of Zuma having a terminal illness, Mphahlele said that because the board had found the former president to be “stable”, it did not mean he was not suffering from a terminal illness. Such an illness could simply be under control because of medical intervention.

Mpofu told the court that “human rights” should be the starting point on the matter — whether Zuma’s constitutional rights had been “infringed, limited, violated or not”.

He emphasised that the board was an “advisory” one.

“The argument of the respondents is that the Medical Parole Advisory Board is capable, entitled, and within its powers to overrule, ignore or second-guess the recommendation of [the reports from the two doctors who examined Zuma]. But the national commissioner is disentitled, not allowed to second-guess, overrule or not entitled to overrule the advisory board.”

All sorts of people had advisers, he said, including ministers. “And I am sure they take some advice [and discard other advice].”

It was not correct, he said, that the board’s recommendations “assume some royal power”.  He agreed with Mphahlele that the board’s findings were an additional recommendation that could be considered by Fraser, along with other factors.

Judgment was reserved. DM


Comments - Please in order to comment.

  • Gerrie van der Merwe says:

    I quite understand that Zuma will try his utmost to stau out of prison. In this case pays for his own defence. What I cant understand is why Correctional Services is also appealing. They are wasting our taxpayers money.

  • Malcolm McManus says:

    He never “erred”. It was very deliberate. There is no mistake here. Fraser’s actions where directly intended to help defy justice.

  • Hilary Morris says:

    Watching Mpofu do his incoherent and rambling dance yesterday and listening (and trying to make sense of his word-scrabble)was painful. The man is absolutely appalling and it is difficult to understand why the courts allow his verbal diarrhoea to continue unchecked. He makes non-sense of everything

    • Ramabifi Kenneth Thobejane says:

      I always find it painful to listen to the stuttering uhms, ohs and whatevers of Mpofu. He is not crisp. He rambles on and on, getting tongue tied and tying himself in so many knots. Goodness me!

      • Kanu Sukha says:

        I am waiting breathlessly for the day a judge asks him to explain the “whatever” he is so fond of using ! Not that any such ‘explanation’ will also not contain several of those meaningless terms he has a propensity for !

  • jeyezed says:

    The widespread attribution of the cause of the riot being Zuma’s imprisonment received little or no acknowledgement from the rioters themselves. It’s validity must be questioned in the face if the more likely explanation of opportunism.

    • Malcolm McManus says:

      From all the news coverage, there distinctly appeared to be a racial demographic when visually viewing the looters all over the country at many places. Poverty was certainly not the common denominator judging by looted, large flat screen TV’s being loaded into BMW X5’s and other very many high end vehicles. Perhaps this should also be questioned.

  • Tim Price says:

    A veritable rogues gallery to witness Mpofu’s dismal attempts at being a lawyer.

  • Marius Bosman says:

    All humans suffer from terminal illness – we will all die one day. This saga is mind numbing and every one fighting the result is unfortunately wasting their breath, efforts and money. My heart bleeds for the latter, not for the miscreants who are afforded all sorts of shenanigans by our courts

  • Derek Taylor says:

    I wonder if Schabir Shaik has passed away. He was also released for the same reason.

  • Daniel Swanepoel says:

    What I do not understand is that a person can be sent to prison after numerous court cases, appeal cases, and eventually a constitutional court case where all the facts and evidence has been hammered out to boredom.
    And then …. a doctor or medical board or prison official has the power to turn all this around without they being thoroughly scrutinised and cross examined or the patient examined by the prosecutors doctors.
    Doctors lie too. Why should they be trusted without question? Something is seriously wrong with our legal system. The doctor-patient privilege thing is bull and widely abused.
    Shabir’s doctor is a prime example.

  • Roelf Pretorius says:

    The way Mpofu argues clearly shows his nationalist stance. It always give the nationalist politicians absolute power to decide. It does not matter which nationalistic movement the person is part of – the Afrikaner nationalists, the Nazi’s, the white Trump nationalists – they all do the same. But in a democracy no person has such sweeping powers; there are procedures for everyone. And the nationalists never want to go alon with it. Another example is Trump who claims that he has sole power to “declassify” classified documents, even top-secret documents, which is against the way it works.

  • Richard Fitzpatrick says:

    Send that thieving **** to jail with Fraser hot on his heels, how much more of this bull**** must we put up with, and pay for?

  • Barend Connan says:

    Worthy point well put.

  • Andre Swart says:

    ‘Textbook spectacle of unlawfulness’

    Yet Fraser is not in jail!

    Why not?

    At least for obstruction of justice!

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


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

Download the Daily Maverick Elections Toolbox.

+ Your election day questions answered
+ What's different this election
+ Test yourself! Take the quiz