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

Judge Lebogang Modiba has reprimanded former president Jacob Zuma for his accusations of unfair treatment towards his lawyer, Advocate Dali Mpofu, by the South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg.

Ramaphosa vs Zuma

This, after Advocate Mpofu lodged a complaint on behalf of Zuma regarding the alleged curtailment of time to wrap up his arguments.

Mpofu claimed this amounted to a “Zuma law” being applied by the court and suggested that other lawyers in the court proceedings were treated differently.

The full bench of the high court is hearing the final day of arguments in President Cyril Ramaphosa’s application to review and set aside Zuma’s private prosecution proceedings against him.

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

In December of last year, Jacob Zuma initiated a private prosecution against Ramaphosa, accusing him of being an “accessory after the fact” in a criminal offence involving advocate Billy Downer. Zuma has accused Downer of violating the National Prosecuting Act (NPA) Act by allegedly leaking his confidential medical information to journalist Karyn Maughan.

Claims of unfair treatment

Following a tea break in the afternoon, Judge Modiba addressed Advocate Mpofu’s concern regarding the time allocated for concluding his arguments.

The judge clarified that all parties involved in the case had reached an agreement on how they would proceed. She emphasised that Mpofu’s allocated time, as the one presenting arguments prior to the tea break, had not been curtailed.

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

In fact, Judge Modiba said Mpofu was given additional time on Wednesday and Thursday, adding that Zuma’s complaint that the court was unfair to him was unfounded.

“The notion that this court is unfair to his client has no basis because this court has been extremely accommodating and has afforded substantially more time to Mr Mpofu to argue than what was agreed.

“And invariably that gives him an unfair advantage over the other parties because the other parties, as we have heard from their counsel, they have stuck to the allocated time,” she said.

Modiba said Mpofu had also “consistently ignored” her directives on sticking to the allocated time to make his arguments.

In a ruling, the judge declared that Mpofu would not receive additional time to complete his arguments because the court had a full set of arguments from all parties.

‘Zuma law’

At the same time, Judge Modiba also took issue with Mpofu saying there was a “Zuma law” being applied compared to other parties to the case. She said Mpofu’s remarks were “utterly inappropriate”.

“Those remarks are utterly inappropriate and from the reasons I’ve given in this ruling, clearly there isn’t any new law that is applied only to Mr Zuma.

“And I’ve demonstrated in my reasoning how he has been accommodated more than the other parties in this court. And it’s inappropriate for you to be accusing this court of unfairly treating Mr Zuma.”

Mpofu denied that the remarks about the “Zuma law” were from him, saying they came from the former president.

“I did not do any such thing except to, as I was at pains to point out, convey the sentiments of my client and I will convey similarly that response to him,” he said.

The case continues.

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