‘There’s no justice in SA’: Zuma heads to ConCourt in legal battle with Ramaphosa

Former president Jacob Zuma has turned to the Constitutional Court (ConCourt) seeking to overturn President Cyril Ramaphosa’s interim interdict.

Zuma’s legal team filed its leave to appeal application on Monday, asking the ConCourt to reverse the 16 January judgment which ruled in the president’s favour.

The Johannesburg High Court granted Ramaphosa an interdict pending the outcome of his challenge to the private prosecution bid against him.

The former president wants his successor to physically appear in court after the private prosecution case was postponed to 26 May.

“It is in respect of the future dates of appearance that this application is of crucial importance,” the former president’s lawyer said in his court papers.

‘Interest of justice’

Zuma has argued that he had direct access to approach the ConCourt application rather than the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) because the issues raised in his application were “clearly constitutional issues”.

“At the core of this application is the constitutional right of an aggrieved person, who is denied his right to access the courts by being stripped off his right to prosecute.”

He said it was in the interest of justice that the ConCourt should entertain his application.

“The interests of justice relate to the high court having opened the flood gates of the civil courts in instances where an accused person seeks to avoid appearance in the criminal court,” the application further reads.

ALSO READ: Zuma pursuing private prosecution against Ramaphosa as ‘last resort’ – Manyi

“This in itself, tramples on the administration of justice as this matter cannot wait to be exhausted in all the forums while the feared and predictable chaos created by the judgment of the full court persists. In other words, every litigant who wishes to challenge, for example the title to prosecute will avoid criminal proceedings on the basis that their right to freedom will be infringed, be it in private or public prosecution.”

The former president, who has asked the ConCourt to deliver its judgment before the next appearance, further argued that interim orders were appealable citing a previous judgment handed down by the apex court in a legal battle between the City of Tshwane and AfriForum.

In the matter, the ConCourt stated that the appeal should proceed “with no matter what the pre-Constitution common law impediments may suggest” if the granting of leave to appeal would “best serve the interest of justice”.

Prospects of success

Therefore, Zuma has asked the ConCourt to overturn the 16 January ruling and replacing it with “the application is dismissed with costs”.

He is further seeking costs if his leave to appeal application is opposed by Ramaphosa, who has been given 10 days to state whether he will do so or not.

The former president has also contended that Ramaphosa’s challenge against the legitimacy of the private prosecution had little prospects of success, adding that his grounds of appeal were good.

“Upon a proper and holistic evaluation of this matter, it will be clear that the first respondent has negligible prospects of success in respect of both Part B and the criminal trial itself.

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

“There is more than sufficient prima facie evidence to sustain the charges of being an accessory after the fact in the commission of the principal offence,” his court papers read.

According to Zuma, his leave to appeal application represented “easily one of the saddest chapters in the history of injustice in South Africa”.

“It deals with some of the most fundamental issues which flow into the DNA of South Africa past, present and future. These include the right to human dignity, access to justice and other rights to victims of crime, on the one hand and the rights to fair trial, personal freedom and reputation on the part of criminally accused persons.

“Our justice system generally has long been (wrongly) accused of favouring (alleged) criminals over and above the victims of crime. That issue also comes into sharp focus in this matter.”

Read Zuma’s application below:

Background

The former president wants to prosecute Ramaphosa, arguing he was an “accessory after the fact” in relation to charges he is pursuing against senior state prosecutor Billy Downer and journalist Karyn Maughan.

Zuma alleged that Ramaphosa committed a criminal offence by not acting against Downer and Maughan when he lodged a complaint with the Presidency’s office on 19 August 2021.

READ MORE: How Jacob Zuma is funding his private prosecution against Downer and Maughan

However, the president says he did not commit any crime because he wrote to Zuma’s legal team on 25 August 2021, informing them that the matter had been referred to Justice Minister Ronald Lamola, and he had asked him to refer the complaint to the Legal Practice Council (LPC).

He also argued that no nolle prosequi certificate was issued against him by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), saying Zuma’s move was an “abuse of private prosecution process”.

Part B of Ramaphosa’s application is expected to be heard on 17 and 18 May.