President Cyril Ramaphosa‘s legal team has argued that the South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg has been given the power to hear an urgent interim application to stop the personal prosecution brought against him by former president Jacob Zuma.
The president’s lawyer also argued that the application is important because his constitutional rights were trampled by the former president. Jacob Zuma‘s “unlawful” personal prosecution.
Read also: Ramaphosa vs Zuma: ‘If the outcome of the court is cooked, we will not accept it’ – Manyi
Ramaphosa vs Zuma
A full bench of the high court on Thursday heard Ramaphosa’s application to block a summons for him to appear in court on January 19 in private prosecution proceedings brought by Zuma.
Ramaphosa approached the high court quickly after Zuma – on the eve of the ANC’s 55thTh Elective conference in December – the power of people as “accessories after the fact” in relation to the charge of the ancestors who pursued against senior state prosecutor Billy Downer and journalist Karyn Maughan.
Zuma charged Downer and Maughan with contravening the National Prosecution Service (NPA) Act on the disclosure of medical records from his doctor – without the consent of the national director of public prosecutions – which was presented in court on August 9, 2021 during the Zuma arms deal corruption trial.
The former president accused the couple of colluding to publicly release medical information, even though the medical records were part of public court records filed by his own legal team.
WATCH LIVE: Ramaphosa and Zuma square off in court
The former president said Ramaphosa committed a criminal offense by failing to act against Downer and Maughan when they lodged a complaint with his office on August 19, 2021.
Ramaphosa, on the other hand, insisted that he did not commit a crime as he wrote to Zuma’s legal team on August 25, 2021 informing him that the matter had been referred to the Minister of Justice Ronald Lamola, and he asked him to refer the complaint. to the Legal Practice Council.
Jurisdiction of civil courts
Advocate Ngwako Maenetje SC, acting on behalf of the president, argued that the high court had jurisdiction to hear Ramaphosa’s interim application and grant interim relief.
This comes after Zuma’s lawyer, in a court paper, argued that civil courts do not have the authority to reduce criminal charges before the accused enter a plea in criminal court.
Advocate Maenetje said the Promotion to Administrative Justice Act applies not prosequi certificate – provided by the NPA in a private prosecution – and therefore the civil court can hear Ramaphosa’s ban application and grant urgent relief.
He cited several case laws to support his argument that the high court had jurisdiction to hear the matter.
“We assess the power that exists [the high court] can intervene by way of checking – set aside or by issuing a final ban that stops the private prosecution,” said Advocate Maenetje.
He added: “There is an established authority; we have not seen any authority to the contrary, except the authority relating to the context of public prosecution.
Urgency of interdict application
In a question about the urgency of Ramaphosa’s application, Advocate Maenetje said Zuma violated the president’s constitutional rights by bringing him to court in private criminal proceedings.
He said this was because Zuma’s lawyers had failed to comply with the provisions of sections 7 and 9 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
The section relates to the security, in the form of money, to be deposited by the private prosecutor before taking or issuing any proceedings commencing a private prosecution.
RELATED: Zuma has ‘deliberately misconceived’ the grounds on which the case was made, Ramaphosa said in an affidavit
“My client has no other medicine to prevent it. [The case] will happen on January 19. And violate his rights by bringing him to court [and] stay in attendance cannot be canceled,” said Advocate Maenetje.
Advocate Maenetje further argued that Zuma’s personal prosecution process was invalid because of him not prosequi the certificate is invalid and does not apply to Ramaphosa.
He added Ramaphosa to the high court “to prevent injustice” against him and his integrity.
“[Ramaphosa] did not know of the crime on August 9, 2021. The crime ended at that time. [and] the only time he was informed of this, was in Zuma’s letter dated August 25, 2021 asking him to investigate.
The case continues.
NOW READ: Zuma happy ‘sanity has prevailed’ for Ramaphosa over private prosecution