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

The final day of arguments in President Cyril Ramaphosa’s legal challenge against the private prosecution proceedings initiated by his predecessor, Jacob Zuma, continued on Thursday in South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg.

Ramaphosa vs Zuma

Advocate Dali Mpofu, representing Zuma, raised objections to the state attorney’s office acting as legal representation for Ramaphosa in his attempt to review and set aside the private prosecution proceedings.

Mpofu argued that Ramaphosa’s use of the state attorney in his review application was an abuse of state resources because the charges brought by Zuma against him were in his personal capacity, and unrelated to his role as the country’s president.

ALSO READ: Zuma’s state covered legal fees up from R15.3 m to R17m

Mpofu based his arguments on the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) ruling in 2021 regarding Zuma’s legal fees.

The SCA confirmed a high court judgment that the state attorney recovers at least R15 million it paid for Zuma’s legal fees in his arms deal corruption case.

“The function of the office of the state attorney and its branches shall be the performance in any court or in any part of the republic of such work on behalf of the government of the republic as it is by law, practice, [or] custom performed by attorneys,” he said, reading from the appellate court’s ruling.

‘Zuma law’

Advocate Mpofu argued that Ramaphosa was, therefore, not entitled to such state support for his private legal costs.

RELATED: Ramaphosa vs Zuma: Mpofu reprimanded after accusing NPA of lying

Mpofu claimed that Ramaphosa was being treated differently compared to Zuma, insinuating the existence of a perceived “Zuma law”.

“That only seemingly applies to former president Zuma…

“So, there is no basis upon which there is locus standi (standing) for the organ of state (the state attorney).”

Zuma’s private prosecution

Zuma charged Ramaphosa with being an “accessory after the fact” or for criminal liability in relation to charges the former president is pursuing against senior state prosecutor Billy Downer and journalist Karyn Maughan for allegedly leaking his confidential medical information 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 corruption trial.

The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) declined to prosecute Downer over the matter due to insufficiency of evidence and issued Zuma with a nolle prosequi certificate to pursue private prosecution proceedings against Downer, which he has now included Maughan and Ramaphosa in the case.

According to Zuma, Ramaphosa should be tried as an “accessory after the fact” for not acting against Downer and Maughan when he lodged a complaint with his office on 19 August 2021 for allegedly leaking his medical information.

Ramaphosa has contended that he did not engage in any criminal activity. The president has argued that on 25 August 2021, he corresponded with Zuma’s legal team, informing them that the issue had been forwarded to Justice Minister Ronald Lamola.

Ramaphosa further disclosed that he had requested Lamola to refer the complaint to the Legal Practice Council.

The case continues.

NOW READ: Mpofu says NPA falsely claimed Ramaphosa was not named in Zuma’s case against Downer