Niehaus claims judiciary is captured not based on reality says legal expert

A legal expert has told The Citizen that expelled African National Congress (ANC) member Carl Niehaus’ claims that the “judiciary is captured” is not credible.

Niehaus conveyed his dissatisfaction at the South Gauteng High Court’s decision to grant President Cyril Ramaphosa an urgent interim interdict against private prosecution by former president Jacob Zuma.

The full bench of the high court in Johannesburg, on Monday, delivered its judgment on the matter after it heard marathon arguments last week from Ramaphosa and Zuma’s legal teams.

Zuma accused Ramaphosa of being an accessory after the fact in the case against state prosecutor, Billy Downer, and journalist, Karyn Maughan.

The former president alleges that the duo leaked his medical records, which were used as evidence in his arms deal corruption trial.

ALSO READ: ‘Ramaphosa received preferential treatment’, says Jacob Zuma Foundation

Judiciary to blame

Niehaus said the ruling by the court “is an outrage”.

“If there is any institution that will lead this country to collapse, it is the judiciary.

“It once again confirms my long-held view that our courts are captured. How can the public be expected to have trust in the judgments of our courts, with such partisan rulings? How can the court say that it is ‘novel’ for someone to be charged in his/her official capacity.”

Legal expert weighs in

However, attorney and legal expert Aslam Moosajee told The Citizen, Niehaus has no evidence to support his claims.

“Mr Niehaus’ view that the courts are captured is not supported by any credible evidence and there is no factual foundation for an attack on the judges that constituted the full bench in President Ramaphosa’s application for the interim interdict.”

“The judgment of the full bench is a well reasoned judgment and if former president Zuma disagrees, he can consider applying for leave to appeal,” Moosajee said.

Court decision welcomed

Meanwhile, President Ramaphosa has welcomed the decision by the South Gauteng High Court to interdict the private prosecution by Zuma from proceeding until the application to set aside the private prosecution is heard. 

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 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,” Magwenya said.

Zuma’s ulterior motives

Magwenya said Zuma has ulterior motives.

“The judgement confirms the position of the president that the private prosecution is motivated by the ulterior purpose based on spurious and unfounded charges, constitutes an abuse of private prosecution provisions and demonstrates flagrant disregard for the law,” Magwenya said.

Additional reporting by Thapelo Lekabe

ALSO READ: High court grants Ramaphosa urgent interdict against Zuma’s private prosecution