President Cyril Ramaphosa's lawyer advocate Ngwako Maenetje SC says they are 'cautiously optimistic' on whether they will emerge victorious in their urgent application case against former president Jacob Zuma. Constituting a full bench at the High Court in Johannesburg, Gauteng deputy judge president Ronald Sutherland, justices Edwin Molahlehi and Marcus Senyatsi heard Ramaphosa's application to block the summons for him to appear in court on 19 January in private prosecution proceedings instituted by Zuma. The president's lawyers have also contended his application was urgent because his constitutional rights were being trampled on by Zuma's “unlawful” private prosecution. Abuse of court…
President Cyril Ramaphosa’s lawyer advocate Ngwako Maenetje SC says they are ‘cautiously optimistic’ on whether they will emerge victorious in their urgent application case against former president Jacob Zuma.
Constituting a full bench at the High Court in Johannesburg, Gauteng deputy judge president Ronald Sutherland, justices Edwin Molahlehi and Marcus Senyatsi heard Ramaphosa’s application to block the summons for him to appear in court on 19 January in private prosecution proceedings instituted by Zuma.
The president’s lawyers have also contended his application was urgent because his constitutional rights were being trampled on by Zuma’s “unlawful” private prosecution.
Abuse of court processes
Ramaphosa approached the high court on an urgent basis after Zuma – on the eve of the ANC’s 55th elective conference in December – charged him with being an “accessory after the fact” in relation to charges his predecessor is pursuing against senior state prosecutor Billy Downer and journalist Karyn Maughan.
Maentje said if Ramaphosa appeared before the criminal court, the ANC’s step aside rule would apply to him.
Zuma’s lawyer advocate Dali Mpofu accused the president of abusing court processes and state resources to avoid his day in court.
“This is the abuse of court resources by the rich or abuse of state resources in this case. All 60 million of us (South Africans) would have to appear if we are charged, but not the high and mighty, not the president,” said Mpofu.
ALSO READ: Judgment reserved in Ramaphosa’s urgent interdict application against Zuma
He said the step aside debate was evidence the court should not grant the interdict.
Mpofu also accused the NPA of trying to shield the president from being held to account.
Advocate Tebogo Mathibedi, acting on behalf of the NPA, denied suggestions the NPA was shielding Ramaphosa from facing the law. Mathibedi said there was no evidence to back up Mpofu’s insinuations, saying this was “pure speculation”.
“I imagine the news headline will be ‘NPA shielding the president‘. My lord, we respectfully submit there is no factual and legal basis for making such an insinuation.”
Ramaphosa should have appeared
Jacob Zuma Foundation spokesperson Mzwanele Manyi said they do not know why the president does not want to physically appear in court.
Manyi said the president had not made a strong case about why he did not want to appear in court during his submissions.
“All we know is all people that are criminally accused must appear in court. There was some wishy-washy stuff about his liberties and all of that,” he said.
ALSO READ: Ramaphosa’s legal team argues Zuma is trampling on his constitutional rights
“What about everybody else who gets wrongly accused but they have to appear in court? He may very well be wrongly accused but the place to deal with it is in court not outside court.”
He said it was an insult the president was arguing to not physically appear in court as everybody else in South Africa has been going to court.
Manyi said they would only accept the outcome court outcome only if it was lawful.
“If it is a cooked outcome, we will not accept it. We will accept an outcome that is in line with the constitution,” Manyi said.
Zuma’s staunch ally and expelled ANC member Carl Neihaus said he did not want to predict what the full bench would decide.
“I sincerely hope these judges of the full bench will do the right thing. I sincerely hope these judges are not going to prove themselves to be captured,” he said.
Neihaus said after listening to the case, it was clear to him Zuma had a strong case.
He said the case was about the president not wanting to be held accountable and trying to evade coming to court.
“Everything else, I think it was just fluff. He doesn’t want to face the embarrassment if it is an embarrassment to come and sit in the dock,” he said.
“All of us are equal before the law and that is what our constitution says. If President Zuma can come and stand in the dock so can president Ramaphosa. It seems to me we have a president who likes to avoid accountability.”
Judgment was reserved for 16 January.
ALSO READ: Mpofu accuses Ramaphosa of using state resources to avoid his day in court
