Daily Maverick
Dailymaverick logo

South Africa

This article is more than a year old

PRESIDENT VS EX-PRESIDENT

Ramaphosa pushes to interdict Zuma to counter brazen private prosecution ‘legal’ bid

Former head of state Jacob Zuma’s brazen attempt to privately prosecute Cyril Ramaphosa has hit another hurdle, with the current president saying he’ll launch a court application to declare Zuma’s attempted legal moves against him ‘unlawful’.
Ramaphosa pushes to interdict Zuma to counter brazen private prosecution ‘legal’ bid Former president Jacob Zuma and current president Cyril Ramaphosa during the announcement of new party leadership at the 5th African National Congress (ANC) national conference at the Nasrec Expo Centre on 18 December 2017 in Soweto, South Africa. (Photo: Gallo Images / Alet Pretorius)
Caryn Dolley
By Caryn Dolley
27 Dec 2022
Facebook
3

President Cyril Ramaphosa has approached the high court in Johannesburg in the hope of interdicting his predecessor, Jacob Zuma, from pushing ahead with proceedings to have him privately prosecuted.

Ramaphosa’s move is the latest in a series of exchanges involving him and Zuma, who faces several accusations relating to State Capture.

Daily Maverick has previously reported that legal experts view Zuma’s attempted court action against Ramaphosa as nonsense.

Attempted counter-prosecution

The matter stems from a statement issued by the Jacob G Zuma Foundation on 15 December – a day before the start of the ANC’s National Elective Conference – saying that Ramaphosa “has been charged in a private prosecution with the criminal offence of being accessory after the fact in the crimes committed by among others Adv Downer namely, breaching the provisions if [sic] the NPA Act”. 

The “Adv Downer” referred to in the statement is Advocate Billy Downer, who is leading the prosecution of Zuma on corruption charges related to the Arms Deal.

In another court matter, Zuma is claiming that Downer and News24 journalist Karyn Maughan colluded to publish classified information on his medical status.

The Jacob G Zuma Foundation statement, in relation to the attempted private prosecution saga, said Ramaphosa was expected to appear in the high court in Johannesburg on 19 January.

Urgent application

Ramaphosa has now hit back. 

On Tuesday, 27 December, it emerged that Ramaphosa had approached the high court notifying it of his intention to make an application on 10 January.

Ultimately, he wants a summons against him to be declared unlawful and wants the private prosecution being driven by Zuma declared “unlawful, unconstitutional, invalid” and for it to be set aside. 

It appeared that Zuma had structured his attempted private prosecution against Ramaphosa on a specific certificate.

The Presidency has previously explained that, according to the Criminal Procedure Act, “a private prosecution can only be instituted after the individual prosecuting has obtained a certificate of non-prosecution”.

It added: “The certificate serves as a legal confirmation that the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) will not proceed with the prosecution following its consideration of the charges.”

Ramaphosa’s notice of motion made mention of such a certificate.

It said he wanted the application he was driving to be held urgently and wanted it ordered that Zuma and others, including the National Prosecuting Authority, “are interdicted from taking any further steps to give effect to the nolle prosequi certificate of 21 November 2022 … and/or the summonses… or to pursue the private prosecution”. (A nolle prosequi certificate indicates the NPA has declined to prosecute someone.)

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

NPA provides clarity

The NPA issued a statement on 21 December, saying it had noted the summons (linked to Zuma’s attempted legal processes) issued on Ramaphosa.

It said it issued two nolle prosequi certificates in good faith in relation to a specific Pietermaritzburg case, and that the certificates “apply to any persons who are specifically mentioned in the docket”.

The NPA said the certificates were not issued in relation to Ramaphosa, and, in a separate statement, the Presidency said Zuma had not provided such a certificate “with charges in the name of President Ramaphosa”.

In his notice of motion, Ramaphosa said he wanted the high court to excuse him from appearing in the dock on 19 January – which is when Zuma wanted him in court. The notice of motion also said Zuma should pay for the costs of Ramaphosa’s application. 

Disregarding the law

The Jacob G Zuma Foundation previously rejected the NPA’s stance on the matter. The foundation said the NPA’s reaction to the nolle prosequi certificate matter was “demonstrably false and it is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt to rescue Mr Ramaphosa”.

Earlier this month, the Presidency issued a statement saying Ramaphosa “rejects with the utmost contempt Mr Jacob Zuma’s abuse of legal processes.

“The summons served to the President is hopelessly sub-standard and demonstrates absolute disregard of the law.” DM

Comments

Fritz Jesch Dec 28, 2022, 08:31 AM

The ANC should seriously consider inviting Mr Zuma to discuss his conduct as retired president!

jcdvil Dec 28, 2022, 09:51 PM

They should kick him out of the party,he is a disgrace!!!No 1 ,no no 0

Cunningham Ngcukana Dec 29, 2022, 07:23 PM

This would be indeed a very interesting court case and would undoubtedly set a precedent. Summons are an administrative measure to secure an accused to appear before court to answer to certain specific criminal charges or to a civil mater regarding certain claims or civil proceedings. We are perpexled that we have a President who regards himself as above Mandela or the law. Mandela to preserve the legal and institutional framework despite what was frivolous, went and appeared before and vindicated his position in court and it earned him eternal respect. The precedent that may be set is to challenge every summon in criminal cases as well as civil cases in another court rather than honour the summons and deal with firstly with their defects and secondly with the frivolity of their substance. Those who claim that it is the abuse of the private prosecution the question arises whether private prosecution is not part of our legal system. If it is part of our legal system, then summons stamped by a court registrar have a force and effect in terms of the law. If an interdict is granted by an ANC judge in South Gauteng, called Edwin Molatlhegi, then our legal system would be highly compromised. My view is that the President must obey the summons and go and argue the matter in an appropriate court rather than create precedents that would send the incompetent magistrates courts into a tailspin. Nobody believes there is a case against him but he must follow due process like everybody.