- President Cyril Rampahosa, in court documents, said that the private prosecution that Jacob Zuma wants to bring against him is illegal, unconstitutional and invalid.
- He says the basis of Zuma’s charges does not constitute a criminal offense and there are ulterior motives for the private prosecution.
- Ramaphosa further said that granting private prosecution against him would infringe his rights.
President Cyril Ramaphosa says the private prosecution former President Jacob Zuma intends to bring against him has an ulterior motive and is illegal.
Last year, on December 15 and 21, Zuma issued a summons to Ramaphosa accusing him of being an accessory or, alternatively, frustrating the ends of justice.
This linked to his other private indictment, that of top state attorney Billy Downer and News24 legal journalist Karyn Maughan, with Zuma offended that Downer provided a medical report on Zuma to Maughan which was later filed with the court.
Zuma accuses the two of violating the National Tax Authority Act.
Now he further accuses Ramaphosa of being criminally responsible because he failed to act after he wrote to the president asking him to investigate the matter.
In an affidavit from Ramaphosa delivered to the High Court this week, the president called the subpoena “illegal, unconstitutional and invalid” and asked the court to strike it down.
He stressed that Zuma had relied on the nolle prosequi certificate, a document issued by the NPA indicating that it did not intend to prosecute, which had expired when a subpoena was issued against him.
EXPLAINER | Zuma vs. Downer and Maughan: Everything you need to know
The private prosecution also contravened the constitution, Ramaphosa argued, adding that the charge in the summons was “frivolous and vexatious.”
“The private accusation has a ulterior purpose. The complaint on which the alleged offense against me is based does not constitute a criminal offense.
Former President Jacob Zuma.
“The prosecution could not genuinely have the purpose of obtaining a criminal conviction. It is an abuse of judicial process for an ulterior purpose.”
Zuma vs. Maughan, Downer
In his affidavit, Ramaphosa further asserts that when the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in KwaZulu-Natal reviewed Zuma’s complaint against Maughan and Downer, it was concluded that his medical document was public “because It was presented as part of the judicial process”. documents”.
“This was not confidential material because it had no details about the nature of the disease or the treatment,” Ramaphosa said of the DPP’s assessment of whether or not to prosecute.
He added that the DPP had also concluded that there was no evidence that Downer or any member of the prosecution team committed any wrongdoing, leading the State to decline to prosecute.
Ramaphosa further said that the nolle prosequi certificate related to Downer’s private indictment did not relate to him as a suspect.
“It is also not related to a charge against me. It relates to an offense allegedly committed on August 9, 2021, which is the principal offense of the NPA Act.
“He [the certificate] It is not for the crime of concealment or to the detriment of the ends of justice.”
Ramaphosa added that he was not known to have been a suspect under investigation for breaching the NPA Act.
Adrian Basson | Zuma vs. Maughan: Press freedom goes on trial
“The absence of a nolle prosequi certificate relating to me and a charge against me means that Mr Zuma is trying to circumvent the NPA by privately accusing me of alleged crimes that were never considered by the NPA and in respect of which the DPP has never received a nolle prosequi certificate.
This contravenes the provisions of the [criminal procedures act] and is unconstitutional and invalid.”
Ramaphosa said the nolle prosequi certificates also establish that the crime allegedly committed occurred on August 9, 2021.
“It is practically impossible that I could have committed the crime of concealing or frustrating the ends of justice on August 9, 2021, before the request to investigate was made.”
Last month, the Gauteng High Court granted Ramaphosa an urgent injunction halting Zuma’s private prosecution. The order prohibits her from pursuing his private prosecution at this stage.
On Tuesday, TimesLive reported that Zuma had directly approached the Constitutional Court to quash the High Court’s interim injunction.
