Jacob Zuma’s software for a keep of execution of his arrest, ‘ought to… not be entertained. It’s, in its naked type, only a stratagem on [his] half to keep away from the inevitable – serving his jail sentence.’
The State Seize Fee has instructed the Pietermaritzburg Excessive Courtroom, which is able to hear nearly an software introduced by former president Jacob Zuma on Tuesday for a keep of execution of his arrest, that the courtroom “lacks the requisite jurisdiction to entertain this matter”.
Fee Secretary Itumeleng Mosala additional mentioned in an affidavit filed with the courtroom that Zuma’s software to the provincial courtroom “is a continuation of a sample of abuse by [Zuma] of the courtroom course of” and that the “courts shouldn’t entertain such abuse any longer”.
“[Zuma] merely refuses to adjust to orders lawfully issued towards him. That’s his modus operandi,” mentioned Mosala.
He mentioned that whereas the courtroom does have jurisdiction to remain or droop courtroom orders, this jurisdiction extends “solely to its personal orders”.
“It can not rescind, fluctuate or keep the execution of orders issued by every other courtroom, notably a better courtroom. To counsel in any other case would wholly undermine the hierarchy of our courtroom system, as prescribed within the Structure. Solely the Constitutional Courtroom has the jurisdiction to grant the order that the applicant invitations this courtroom to grant,” mentioned Mosala.
See earlier report right here: Zuma tells his supporters he’s a prisoner of conscience and is put together to combat the ‘injustice’.
Zuma had till Sunday handy himself over to the Nkandla Police Station and be transported to the Westville Correctional Facility in Durban, the place he’s set to serve 15 months of imprisonment for contempt of courtroom. Ought to he fail handy himself over, the SA Police Service has till Wednesday to arrest him.
Nonetheless, on Friday Zuma made an software to the ConCourt to listen to an software for rescission of the sentence, or on the very least a extra lenient punishment. On the identical time, he made the applying for keep of execution of his arrest to the Pietermaritzburg courtroom.
Whereas the ConCourt has agreed to listen to Zuma’s rescission software on 12 July, this doesn’t robotically keep his arrest.
The opposite respondents within the matter to have the arrest stayed or interdicted are the police minister, nationwide commissioner, and the president. Zuma’s senior counsel, advocate Dali Mpofu, instructed the media on Sunday evening that every one three had filed notices to abide, that means they are going to settle for the courtroom’s determination.
In Mosala’s affidavit, he argues that Zuma’s software for rescission beneath Rule 42 of the Uniform Guidelines of Courtroom doesn’t apply, as Zuma had elected to not take part within the contempt of courtroom listening to on the apex courtroom.
He mentioned that to adjust to Rule 42, Zuma should present that both his conviction was the results of fraud or error, that new proof had come to mild, or the order was granted by default.
“The applicant doesn’t present these grounds. His rescission software bears no prospects of success as a result of it doesn’t even get out of the primary blocks. This software for a keep ought to subsequently not be entertained. It’s, in its naked type, only a stratagem on the applicant’s half to keep away from the inevitable – serving his jail sentence,” mentioned Mosala.
In its majority judgment handed down on Tuesday, the Constitutional Courtroom discovered Zuma responsible of contempt for disobeying its order earlier within the yr that he seem earlier than the Zondo Fee, chaired by now-Performing Chief Justice Raymond Zondo, to reply allegations from scores of witnesses about his position within the looting of state entities.
Zuma didn’t make representations earlier than the courtroom, as an alternative opting to make a sequence of public utterances.
In his affidavit, Mosala lists occasions as they unfolded, together with the summons issued, when the matter appeared earlier than the Constitutional Courtroom, and public statements launched in February and April by Zuma whereby he mentioned he wouldn’t take part in any courtroom proceedings or on the fee.
“The applicant has persistently and belligerently refused to recognise and have interaction within the courtroom processes main as much as the order holding him in contempt of courtroom and imposing a sanction of imprisonment. The applicant has as an alternative chosen to make public statements wherein he intentionally and vexatiously undermines the dignity and authority of the courts and the rule of legislation; and means that members of the general public ought to do the identical.”
Mosala mentioned Zuma’s rights weren’t being undermined as the previous president claims, and as an alternative Zuma had “gone to nice lengths to keep away from the implications of his actions” and had “numerous alternatives to claim these rights in courts, however both defied or turned all of them down”.
Zuma has requested the ConCourt to both rescind or change his sentence, primarily based on his age, well being, the Covid-19 pandemic, and that he had obtained unhealthy authorized recommendation.
Mosala dismissed the “poor authorized recommendation” argument, and mentioned that whereas Zuma’s issues about his well being and age could also be legitimate, these had been points for the Division of Correctional Providers, “together with in any software that he could make for early parole”.
“That is the route that every one others sentenced to a interval of imprisonment can be required to comply with,” he mentioned. DM