Independent Online

Wednesday, June 29, 2022

Like us on FacebookFollow us on TwitterView weather by locationView market indicators

Zuma's lawyers concede scrapping of criminal charges was 'irrational'

President Jacob Zuma Picture: Nic Bothma/EPA

President Jacob Zuma Picture: Nic Bothma/EPA

Published Sep 14, 2017


The Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein on Thursday reserved judgment after President Jacob Zuma's lawyers admitted that the quashing of hundreds of criminal charges against him were "irrational".

Shortly before the 2009 polls, after Zuma had won the contest for the leadership of the ruling ANC, then acting National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) boss Mokotedi Mpshe withdrew 783 charges linked to the multi-million rand 1999 arms deal. 

Story continues below Advertisement

Since then the DA has challenged the matter in court. In May last year the North Gauteng High Court ordered that Zuma must face all the charges. The president then took the matter to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Read: #

On Thursday, legal representatives for the NPA and Zuma were at pains as they tried to persuade the court to allow the appeal.

Initially two days had been set aside to hear legal team’s oral representations, but by lunchtime they had wrapped up the matter. But not before the NPA’s legal counsel conceded that Mphse had “used the wrong power” to withdraw charges against Zuma. 

Story continues below Advertisement

The NPA said it accepted that Mpshe could not rely upon section 179 of the constitution, as he earlier declared, as this section did not allow the prosecuting authority to review its own decisions.

Also read: 

Advocate Kemp J Kemp, counsel for Zuma, made the same concession. He also conceded that a decision to withdraw charges that was based solely on the timing of the indictment was irrational.


Story continues below Advertisement

Arguments around what was to happen with regards to the legal proceedings against Zuma dominated the rest of proceedings.

Now read: 

“If the decision to prosecute stands unchallenged, and the attempt to undo it is found invalid, what is the effect?” asked Justice Navsa.

Kemp conceded that the decision to prosecute Zuma then still stands, but pointed out that it didn’t mean that court proceedings against Zuma could simply be continued where it left off. 

Story continues below Advertisement

The legal process had to be “kickstarted” in some way again by, for instance, the serving of an indictment.


Judgment has been reserved.  

African News Agency

Related Topics: