Africa-Press – South-Africa. Former president Jacob Zuma on Thursday raised serious objections to what he termed the Johannesburg High Court’s attempt to muzzle him by limiting his time.
This happened after the full bench of the high court urged legal teams to complete their arguments at 13:30 which shortened the proceedings from two to one and a half days.
The request left Zuma’s long-winded legal representative Advocate Dali Mpofu with only 90 minutes to wrap up his argument.
Having failed to conclude his arguments within the requested time, Mpofu announced after the tea break that his client, Zuma felt prejudiced by the time constraints.
“My client has asked me to convey to the court that it was his understanding that the matter was set down over two days not one and a half days.
“He learnt only this morning that the matter was now set down over a shorter period. He was of the understanding that the two days was the time he had to make out his case which is why he cancelled all his engagements and travelled all the way here,” said Mpofu.
He continued:
Presiding over the case, Judge Lebogang Modiba said the time allocation that had been proposed by the legal teams themselves and was why the full bench utilised in making the requested changes to the time allocation.
She added that Mpofu had consistently ignored her warning to watch the time and was granted even more time on Wednesday when he made his arguments.
“The notion that this court is unfair to this client has no basis because this court has allocated him more time than the other parties and that gives him an unfair advantage,” said Modiba.
She added that the remarks about the unfair treatment were utterly unacceptable.
“There is no new law that has been applied only to Zuma, as I have demonstrated, the court has actually given him more time,” said Modiba.
Before the tea break, Mpofu had made the argument that court should not allow itself to be a playground of the rich and powerful.
He was responding to arguments made the previous day by President Cyril Ramaphosa’s legal team when it accused the former president of pursuing frivolous legal proceedings that breached his successor’s Constitutional rights.
An animated Mpofu alleged that there was a growing sense that the law was being applied, based on who is being accused.
Mpofu argued that Ramaphosa was “using his immense wealth to employ a Stalingrad approach” to proceedings by pursuing a civil application after Zuma had already pursued criminal proceedings in the same matter.
A full bench ruled in January that Ramaphosa’s urgent application against Zuma’s private prosecution bid be granted.
The interdict was an interim one and would last until the courts had decided whether the prosecution was lawful and constitutional — Part B of the case, which commenced on Wednesday until Thursday.
Mpofu argued that “there is no logical reason why anyone trying to go to Pretoria from Johannesburg would first take a detour to the North West, then the Free State before making their way to their initial destination.”
“This only happens when someone is trying by all means to evade justice. As the younger generation would say, who does this?” said Mpofu.
At the core of Zuma’s case against Ramaphosa is his claim that he “demanded” an urgent investigation into Advocate Billy Downer’s so-called transgressions but that the president did not act.
Zuma claimed that this alleged action was done to enable the perpetrators or accomplices to escape or evade justice.
He also argued that Ramaphosa “was acting with personal animosity and to drive a personal campaign of undue vilification” of his predecessor.
Mpofu argued that the reason why Zuma’s legal team had sent a summons to Ramaphosa’s residence was because he was being accused in his personal capacity.
“The reason why it was served at his residence was because he was being accused as a person. The entire failure to pursue the malicious and criminal distribution of his medical records was driven by his [Ramaphosa’s] personal animosity towards Zuma,” said Mpofu.
He went on to argue that if the medical records shared were of any other former president there would have been a serious uproar.
“Nobody alive would have thought it was not serious had it been the medical records of former presidents Thabo Mbeki, Nelson Mandela, or Kgalema Motlanthe but because it was Zuma who is a play-thing of the country and the media then it was seen as okay to share his medical records,” said Mpofu.
He also claimed it was unfortunate that having been served summons in his personal capacity Ramaphosa was still utilising the state attorney’s office in this matter.
Ramaphosa’s legal team, led by his senior counsel Ngwako Maenetje, on Wednesday argued that Ramaphosa was utilising the state attorney’s office given that the private prosecution stems from allegations of him having failed to discharge his duties as president.
Maenetje argued that it was therefore incumbent on the president as the custodian of the Constitution to challenge any accusations that seek to taint not only his name but the office which he held.
Mpofu also went on to argue that claims that Zuma’s private prosecution was a “frivolous and unlawful legal undertaking” that breaches Ramaphosa’s constitutional rights as the attempted litigation was merely instituted to ensure that Ramaphosa did not get a second term as ANC president were false and merely an attempt at minimising the real issue.
“The real issue is a former president who is worried about the leaking of his medical record and Zuma states as such in his founding affidavit. Imagine any former head of state from any other country having their medical record shared… this would have been taken seriously.
“The ANC’s elective conference has since passed, and Zuma is still pursuing these charges. This should demonstrate that this legal action was not meant to derail Ramaphosa’s attempts to secure a second term,” said Mpofu.
For More News And Analysis About South-Africa Follow Africa-Press
