Former president Jacob Zuma has expressed disappointment at the South Gauteng High Court ruling to grant an urgent interdict application in favour of President Cyril Ramaphosa.
The pair are squaring off in court after Zuma claimed that Ramaphosa failed to act against National Prosecuting Authority prosecutor Billy Downer. According to “The Star”, Zuma accused Ramaphosa of being an “accessory after the fact” in a criminal offence charge levelled against advocate William Downer and journalist Karyn Maughan, who is accused of improperly sharing information in terms of the NPA Act.
Zuma alleged that Downer and Maughan leaked his medical information used as evidence in his arms deal corruption trial.
On Monday, a full bench of judges in the Johannesburg High Court granted Ramaphosa an urgent interdict, meaning Ramaphosa will not have to appear in a criminal court on Thursday.
In handing down judgment, Gauteng Deputy Judge President Roland Sutherland said the court had found that urgency had been proven by Ramaphosa’s lawyers, granting him an urgent interdict.
In a statement shared by his foundation, Zuma's spokesperson, Mzwanele Manyi, said he was disappointed but not surprised by the court's decision.
"It is by now very clear that our 'justice' system will do anything in their considerable power to protect Mr Ramaphosa.
“It is the unenviable task of all those who believe in equality before the law to tirelessly expose the double standards which are consistently applied in favour of those who carry out the agenda of the continuous oppression and landlessness of black people. History will record this sad era as a shameful one in the development of our constitutional democracy," he said.
Manyi said it was "glaringly strange" that judges say the very idea of a person being charged for conduct performed while in office is a "novel idea".
JUST IN 16-01-2023
— JGZuma Foundation (Official) (@JGZ_Foundation) January 16, 2023
JG ZUMA MEDIA STATEMENT.
TRAVERSTY OF JUSTICE pic.twitter.com/StGpX9Kkck
"It is clearly only novel when it affects Mr Ramaphosa and the darlings of our courts and big business, but not former president Zuma or Ace Magashule who are both facing charges for conduct allegedly committed while they were in office as deputy president and premier, respectively," he added.
Meanwhile, Ramaphosa has welcomed the decision.
In a short statement, Ramaphosa's spokesperson, Vincent Magwenya, said the court affirmed all of the president’s key contentions, namely on jurisdiction of the court to hear the interdict application; the urgency of the matter against a court appearance date based on a prima facie unlawful nolle prosequi.
"The court further found in the President’s favour on the violation of rights to personal freedom based on a prima facie defective summons," he said.
Magwenya said the judgement confirms the position of the President that the private prosecution is motivated by ulterior purpose based on spurious and unfounded charges, constitutes an abuse of private prosecution provisions and demonstrates flagrant disregard for the law.
IOL