PRESIDENT VS EX-PRESIDENT
Zuma ‘desperately’ trying to link private prosecution cases for ‘ulterior purpose’ — Ramaphosa
President Cyril Ramaphosa has said Jacob Zuma is trying to undermine the private prosecution process which would ‘irreparably’ harm his constitutional rights, dignity and reputation.
President Cyril Ramaphosa on Tuesday reiterated in his replying affidavit to a summons and private prosecution attempt by former president Jacob Zuma that the endeavour was “unlawful, unconstitutional and invalid because they do not meet the jurisdictional requirements for a valid private prosecution”.
A key reason said Ramaphosa in his affidavit, filed with the Johannesburg high court, was that the Director of Public Prosecutions had not yet issued a nolle prosequi certificate — a prerequisite for a private prosecution — that relates to him. He said unless such a certificate was issued and presented, the private prosecution could not take place.
Ramaphosa wants the court to issue an urgent interim interdict and set aside the private prosecution, which is set down to start on 19 January.
Zuma initiated the private prosecution of Ramaphosa on 15 December, the day before the governing party was to start its national elective conference, the conclusion of which saw Ramaphosa being voted in for a second term as ANC president. The timing of the summons led Ramaphosa to accuse Zuma of attempting to scupper his chances at re-election.
The former president has accused Ramaphosa of being an accessory after the fact to criminal conduct or alternatively, of defeating or attempting to defeat the ends of justice, relating to the unauthorised disclosure of information in Zuma’s private prosecution of veteran prosecutor Billy Downer — who will be prosecuting the arms deal graft trial in which Zuma is accused number one — and journalist Karyn Maughan.
However, Ramaphosa said Zuma’s reliance on using the same nolle prosequi certificate that made it possible for the former president to privately prosecute Downer and Maughan was “practically impossible”.
He said that the certificate pointed to an alleged crime committed on 9 August 2021 when Downer and Maughan were accused by Zuma of leaking a letter related to Zuma’s medical well-being into the public domain. The two have maintained it was Zuma who filed the letter with the court and made it part of the public record.
Ramaphosa said that at the very earliest, the alleged crime Zuma is accusing him of, would have occurred after 25 August 2021.
“The certificate [relating to Downer and Maughan] does not set out a charge against me, it does not name me or link me in any way to the alleged crime stated in the certificate”.
Ramaphosa said the positions of Downer and Maughan “are not the same as mine and their election on how to proceed does not bind me or disentitle me to relief that I have made out a case for”.
He said Zuma had “desperately strung together certificates of non-prosecution that do not pertain to me, so that he can, at all costs, drag me to court for an ulterior purpose”.
Visit Daily Maverick’s home page for more news, analysis and investigations
“That conduct is at best abusive of both the office of the President and the courts. Permitting that kind of behaviour would drain confidence in our judicial system.”
Ramaphosa said it was also “unfortunate” that Zuma “consistently made unfounded allegations of some collusion” between the President and the judiciary.
He said the court had jurisdiction to determine the validity of a private prosecution and set aside or interdict such.
The urgency to bring the matter before the court was because he was being “subjected to an unlawful prosecution”, said Ramaphosa.
He said if it was not deemed urgent, the “unlawful private prosecution will be well underway” by the time the high court made a ruling. “My constitutional rights, dignity and reputation will be irreparably harmed.”
Zuma is privately prosecuting Downer and Maughan for allegedly colluding to “leak” his private medical information, submitted as part of other documentation in the arms deal case, and contends Ramaphosa failed to act when he was told about such. This, says Zuma, placed Ramaphosa in contravention of Section 41(6)(a) and/or (b), read with section 41(7) of the National Prosecuting Act.
A medical note issued by one of Zuma’s attending military doctors in 2021 asking for the postponement of the arms deal case because of Zuma’s ill health was filed with the court — making it a matter of public record — together with other papers. The note did not disclose any of Zuma’s medical ailments, and the former president acting on it to the extent that he has is widely viewed as a stalling tactic to stop the protracted arms deal matter from finally sitting for trial.
Zuma’s legal team wrote to Ramaphosa on 19 August 2021 seeking that an investigation be launched into the alleged breach by Downer and Maughan, with the President responding on 25 August 2021 that the matter “[Which] we view in a very serious light” had been referred to Justice and Correctional Services Minister Ronald Lamola. Ramaphosa said in the same response that he had asked that Lamola refer it to the Legal Practice Council — a standard referral for most such alleged breaches.
Zuma contends that because the matter was not followed through by Ramaphosa, he enabled Maughan and Downer to evade liability and thus harmed Zuma’s “dignity, privacy, bodily integrity and security rights”. Ramaphosa has made clear that he is not at liberty to interfere with the direction taken by the Legal Practice Council.
In his answering affidavit filed with the same court last week, Zuma stated that Ramaphosa seeking to interdict the summons was not urgent, was an abuse of the court process, and an “abusive, frivolous, and vexatious application”.
Zuma further stated that Ramaphosa had “dismally failed to meet the legal requirements for an interim interdict” and asked the court to dismiss the application or strike it off the court roll with punitive costs.
A full bench is expected to hear Ramaphosa’s bid for the interim interdict on Thursday, 12 January. DM
Become an Insider
Zuma you are a coward,who should be in jail,you are a whimp who can’t be a man!!!
And so the abuse of the legal system by ANC leaders and factions continues, wasting resources, wasting energy, distracting the ANC from governing, and generally continuing ANC destruction of South Africa
Why, when one does hot have a case, does one have to use flowery language? Not many are going to confuse a long chain of adjectives with a sound legal argument. The awful Dali does this all the time.
Who pays for all this ongoing litigation ? I bet JZ doesn’t. Taxpayers? Do treasury allow that? Ongoing farce, and it’s sickening.
Zuma is a disgrace to this country! Here is someone who always sprouted that “he wanted his day in court”. Has anyone calculated the massive legal costs (paid by taxpayers) & thousands of hours courts have spent dealing with this ongoing circus? Pathetic!
When will we evolve our process such that, when a court awards a cost order against a party, the losing party’s lawyers are jointly and severally liable for the cost award? It might help clear the roll of cases continued along the famous line “my instructions are …” if lawyers have good reason to seriously consider the strength of their case.
This guy Zuma has really made a nuisance of himself.
When we have a legal system that permits private prosecution as part of the safeguards against a captured prosecution system as citizens we ought not to be throwing mud at those we disagree with when they use the system. As a check and balance against the NPA, that is part of the executive, this mechanism has been a subject of insults when others use it and praise when others use it. One has a belief that our judiciary is capable of handling this matter and we must not pick and choose against whom it should be used. It should not be said that it is not correct when used against Ramaphosa and his supporters like Thandi Modise but it is correct if used against NDZ or for that matter Dudu Myeni. This amount to legal thuggery. Unless those who support Cereal say that they have no confidence in the functioning of the justice system.
Whether the summons are defective or not the competent court will be able to determine that and if the case is vexatious and frivolous our courts have the
competency to determine that. This notion that others have a right to use the private prosecution and other do not have such a right. There are those that have appropriated this right to themselves.
This matter is well watched as the interdict itself may be chicanery and frivolous because the matters can be raised before the presiding judge as this matter is a criminal matter. The insults on these page we do not see in the Sakelige case.
Yes absolutely. 2 wrongs make you right.