Judgment reserved in Ramaphosa’s challenge of Zuma’s private prosecution

The South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg has reserved judgment in President Cyril Ramaphosa’s legal challenge against the private prosecution proceedings initiated by his predecessor, Jacob Zuma.

Ramaphosa vs Zuma

After hearing the case on Wednesday, the full bench of the high court on Thursday listened to the final day of arguments in Ramaphosa‘s application to review and set aside Zuma‘s private prosecution bid against him.

In December of last year, the former president initiated a private prosecution against Ramaphosa, accusing him of being an “accessory after the fact” in a criminal offence involving State Advocate Billy Downer.

ALSO READ: ‘Utterly inappropriate’: Judge rebukes Zuma and Mpofu for alleging unfair treatment

Zuma has accused Downer – the lead prosecutor in his arms deal corruption trial – of violating the National Prosecuting Act (NPA) Act by allegedly leaking his confidential medical information to journalist Karyn Maughan in August 2021.

This is despite the fact that the information, including a sick note from Zuma’s doctors, was publicly disclosed in court documents related to the arms deal case.

According to Zuma, Ramaphosa should be tried as an “accessory after the fact” or criminal liability for not acting against Downer and Maughan when he lodged a complaint with the Presidency over the matter.

‘Ulterior purpose’

Ramaphosa’s legal team has characterised the charges levelled against him by Zuma as having an “ulterior purpose” and an abuse of the court process.

Advocate Ngwako Maenetje, acting on behalf of the president, argued that Ramaphosa is not a suspect in the purported leaking of Zuma’s medical information.

He also raised doubts about the validity of the nolle prosequi certificate issued by the NPA to Zuma for the private criminal prosecution, and whether it applied to Ramaphosa.

“When we complain about an ulterior purpose and then coupled with that we show you that the president was never a suspect – you can see that clearly the clearest case of illegality is presented to you. The court is duty-bound to intervene,” Maenetje asserted.

RELATED: Mpofu argues Ramaphosa isn’t entitled to be represented by state attorney

Advocate Maenetje further argued that Ramaphosa could not be considered an “accessory after the fact” to the alleged crime.

He pointed out that the president had taken action by referring Zuma’s complaint to Justice Minister Ronald Lamola and requested him to further refer the matter of the alleged crime to the Legal Practice Council.

“We don’t have to go to the criminal court and participate in an egregious breach of our client’s constitutional rights, which is an abuse of this processes of this court.

“This court has the obligation to protect its own processes against disrepute of that kind,” said Advocate Maenetje.

NOW READ: Ramaphosa vs Zuma: Mpofu reprimanded after accusing NPA of lying