President Cyril Ramaphosa and his predecessor Jacob Zuma will face off again in court as the president seeks an order to review and set aside his private prosecution by Zuma.
The matter is set to be heard in the Johannesburg High Court with the hearing scheduled for the 17th and 18th of May.
Private prosecution
Zuma instituted a private prosecution in December 2022 against prosecutor Billy Downer and journalist Karyn Maughan based on Downer giving Maughan a copy of a medical records that were later disclosed in court proceedings.
Zuma then instituted a private prosecution against Ramaphosa on 15 December in a bid to have Downer removed from the arms deal corruption trial.
He based his attempt to prosecute Ramaphosa on an accusation that the president failed to act after he complained that Downer had behaved improperly.
Zuma’s lawyers has since brought a new application in the KwaZulu-Natal High Court in Pietermaritzburg to remove Downer from his arms deal corruption trial.
Interim interdict
Ramaphosa then approached the high court on an urgent basis and obtained an interim interdict against Zuma by a full bench of the South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg in January, preventing any further steps in the prosecution.
In delivering judgment, deputy judge president Roland Sutherland said Ramaphosa’s application was found to be urgent by the high court.
Jail time
However, in opposing Ramaphosa’s application for an urgent interdict, Zuma argued that the president’s application should be struck off the court roll with costs.
He disputed Ramaphosa’s claim that he could not prove the crime of accessory after the fact or defeating the ends of justice against Ramaphosa.
The Jacob Zuma Foundation said the charge against Ramaphosa was serious and carries a “maximum sentence of 15 years imprisonment”.
Permanent interdict
Ramaphosa is now seeking to make the interdict permanent, putting an end to the prosecution that he says is doomed to fail and has an ulterior purpose.
His spokesperson, Vincent Magwenya, said the court affirmed all of the president’s key contentions.
“The judgment confirmed the position of the president that the private prosecution is motivated by the ulterior purpose based on spurious and unfounded charges, constitutes an abuse of private prosecution provisions and demonstrates flagrant disregard for the law,” he said.
