Judgment reserved in Ramaphosa’s urgent interdict application against Zuma

The South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg has reserved judgment in President Cyril Ramaphosa‘s urgent interim interdict application against private prosecution by former president Jacob Zuma.

Ramaphosa vs Zuma

The full bench of the high court on Thursday heard marathon arguments from Ramaphosa and Zuma’s legal teams in the president’s application to block the summons for him to appear in court on 19 January in private prosecution proceedings instituted by Zuma.

ALSO READ: Ramaphosa’s legal team argues Zuma is trampling on his constitutional rights

Ramaphosa applied for an urgent interim interdict application after Zuma – on the eve of the ANC’s 55^th 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.

Civil court’s jurisdiction

Advocate Ngwako Maenetje SC, acting on behalf of the president, argued that the high court had the jurisdiction to hear Ramaphosa’s interdict application and to grant interim relief on an urgent basis.

This after Zuma’s lawyers argued that a civil court wasn’t empowered to suppress a criminal charge before an accused person had pleaded in a criminal court.

Advocate Maenetje referred to several case laws to back up his arguments that the high court was empowered to hear the matter.

“We establish that in terms of its inherent powers [the high court] can intervene by way of review – setting aside or by way of granting a final interdict stopping the private prosecution,” he said.

Advocate Maenetje added: “There is established authority; we haven’t seen authority to the contrary, other than authorities relating to the context of public prosecutions”.

Ramaphosa accused of ‘abusing court processes’

Zuma’s legal team, on the other hand, accused Ramaphosa of abusing court processes and state resources to avoid his day in court.

Advocate Dali Mpofu, acting on behalf of Zuma, argued that Ramaphosa was abusing court processes by seeking to interdict his predecessor’s private prosecution bid against him.

Mpofu argued that Zuma did not charge Ramaphosa in his capacity as the president of South Africa, but rather in his personal capacity.

RELATED: Mpofu accuses Ramaphosa of using state resources to avoid his day in court

This is despite the fact that Ramaphosa is being accused by Zuma of being “an accessory after the fact” for allegedly failing to act as the president of South Africa against Downer and Maughan for the alleged crime against them.

Zuma charged Downer and Maughan for allegedly contravening the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) Act over the disclosure of a medical note from his doctor – without the authorisation of the national director of public prosecutions – that was filed during Zuma’s arms deal corruption trial in August 2021.

Advocate Mpofu said: “This abuse of a court process by those who are rich and who, in this case, are actually using state resources wrongly, because he [Ramaphosa] has not been charged as the president. It amounts to these 4 000 pages [Ramaphosa’s court papers] to try and do what?

“This case is about one thing and one thing only; to avoid the appearance [in court] next week. All these other gymnastics forget about them.”

Judgment reserved for Monday

Deputy judge-president Roland Sutherland of the South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg reserved judgment to Monday.

“Judgment will be delivered at 9.30am on Monday in this courtroom,” he said.

NOW READ: Ramaphosa vs Zuma: ‘If it’s a cooked court outcome, we’ll not accept it’ – Manyi