The Johannesburg High Court has postponed the hearing of former president Jacob Zuma’s private prosecution of his successor President Cyril Ramaphosa until May 26, after the second round of the presidential contest has concluded.
This is because Zuma’s attorney, Dali Mpofu, disclosed in court that he had been directed to appeal Gauteng deputy judge president Roland Sutherland’s ruling granting Ramaphosa an immediate interdict against Zuma’s private prosecution.
Mpofu stated that it has not been determined which court would hear the appeal, and that his team is unsure of the timing.
According to Sunday World, Ramaphosa’s attempt to nullify the private prosecution will be heard on May 17 and 18.
Zuma and Ramaphosa squared off at the high court on Thursday of the previous week, where the president requested an urgent interdict of Zuma’s private prosecution in which the former statesman accuses him of being a “accessory” in the Zuma versus Karyn Maughan and Billy Downer case.
During the proceedings, Ramaphosa’s attorney, advocate Ngwako Maenetje, argued that the court has the power to hear the president’s “urgent” motion and that Zuma’s private prosecution bid would violate his client’s rights.
Ramaphosa, according to Maenetje, has the right not to be hauled before a criminal court, and the head of state is really protected by the law from this “illegal” prosecution, as Zuma’s nolle prosequi certificate was invalid and did not apply to his client.
Mpofu said that Ramaphosa is abusing court processes by requesting an urgent interdict order, as the former president did not charge Ramaphosa in his capacity as president, but rather as a private citizen or in his personal capacity.
Sutherland ruled on Monday that Ramaphosa’s legal team made a compelling argument that he should not be brought before a “illegal prosecution”
Sutherland decided that a prima facie violation of personal rights and freedom had occurred, implying that the urgency of the situation was self-inflicted.
“The harm of being subjected to an alleged illegal prosecution could not be undone, but delaying the former president’s prosecution would not cause him any harm,” he said.
Zuma’s spokesman, Mzwanele Manyi, stated that the former statesman was upset with the verdict but not shocked. According to Manyi, Sutherland’s verdict is hypocritical and an affront to justice. He said it demonstrated that the state will go beyond its authority to protect Ramaphosa.
“It is now abundantly clear that our ‘justice’ system will do everything in its power to protect Mr. Ramaphosa,” stated Manyi.
“Those who believe in equality before the law have the unpleasant responsibility of exposing the double standards that are consistently imposed in favor of those who carry out the agenda of the ongoing oppression and homelessness of black people. This phase in the evolution of our constitutional democracy will go down in history as a disgraceful one.
“It must not be forgotten that president Ramaphosa, in his personal capacity, remains criminally charged and accused in a court of law despite this grossly erroneous ruling.”
Thursday, convicted fraudster and legal analyst Brenda Wardle, who gained notoriety for her commentary during the Oscar Pistorius trial, gave unsolicited advise on Twitter that Zuma should withdraw the case and that there is no legal foundation for the private prosecution.
“This is from the bottom of my heart, Msholozi. Chitha lamanzi in this instance, and go away. And you know me because I’ve told you this face-to-face. Occasionally, people may tell you what they believe you want to hear, rather than what you should hear. “There is no legal foundation for this case,” Wardle tweeted.
»Private prosecution in Zuma v. Ramaphosa has been postponed until May 26«