The Jacob Zuma Foundation says “justice was most definitely not served” in recent Supreme Court of Appeal’s (SCA) dismissal of the former president’s application for to leave to appeal.
Zuma was appealing his corruption prosecution and was also attempting to have state advocate Billy Downer removed from the trial.
In a statement, the foundation said the SCA’s ruling was unclear, and to proceed with a criminal trial against Zuma would be a travesty of justice.
“In our respectful view justice was most definitely not served in this case. The foundation is astounded by the glaring vagueness and the ambiguity inherent in this decision. A blanket approach and routine order of dismissal does not provide the required clarity. In this case it is because it’s common cause that some of the four separate petitions filed at the SCA do not require leave to appeal, even Judge Cowen made it clear in his judgement,” said the foundation.
It said court judgements were there to provide legal certainty and clarity so that subjective inferences were avoided. “All litigants are entitled to know their exact and real reasons why their cases are successful or not. This is not the case here”.
The foundation said Zuma has therefore briefed his legal team to do all that is necessary to approach the president of the SCA in line with the relevant legislation to seek appropriate remedies including the reconsideration, variation or clarification of the decision.
“The NPA has been notified of these developments and due to the pressing timetable the presiding judge in the criminal trial has been copied in the correspondence. All that president Zuma wants is a fair trial, and will leave no stone unturned that the constitutional promises of the rule of law and equality before the law are evenly applied to all,” said the foundation.
It said on April 11, Zuma’s legal team will be in the Pietermaritzburg high court with the clear mandate to ensure the protection of “these sacrosanct” rights and values enshrined in the Constitution. It said for the criminal trial to proceed under the present conditions while the legal protections were being pursued, would be a travesty of justice and a vindictive assault on the Constitution.