Riyaz Patel
Former President Jacob Zuma was not in court Friday where his legal team is appealing the decision to dismiss their application for a permanent stay of prosecution.
Advocate Muzi Sikhakhane argued that in rejecting Zuma’s bid for a permanent stay of prosecution, three KwaZulu-Natal judges had ignored “the prejudicial conduct of the National Prosecuting Authority” towards him.
Lawyer Daniel Mantsha said the former president was being targeted unlawfully and the Pietermaritzburg High Court must decide if the country could tolerate what he called a “prosecution which was conducted inconsistently with the law.”
Zuma faces multiple charges of fraud, corruption and racketeering linked to the multibillion-rand arms deal.
He had previously argued in court that the case against him was concocted by his political enemies.
Last month, he failed to have charges quashed by the Pietermaritzburg High Court.
Mantsha said they wanted to take that decision to the Supreme Court of Appeal because Zuma would be prosecuted out of line with the law if the matter proceeded.
“The issue today is whether this country should tolerate prosecutions, which are conducted inconsistently with the Constitution, inconsistent with the law. That is the action this court should deal with today.”
Jacob Zuma’s Lawyer Daniel Mantsha
The NPA said in its papers that Zuma had participated in the hearing before the full bench from May 20 to 24 2019 “without demur.”
“The objection is based on the incorrect premise that Mr Zuma’s trial has started. It has not. It will only start when he is called upon to plead and when he does so.
“Zuma’s notice of application for leave to appeal is regrettably marred by disrespectful and intemperate language and allegations directed at the full bench which do not belong in a proper court process.
“We respectfully submit that, as a mark of its displeasure, this court should order Mr Zuma to pay the costs of this application on the attorney-and-client scale, regardless of the outcome.”
