SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL CLEARS WAY TO RECHARGE ZUMA

UNCLAS PRETORIA 000047 E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: KJUS PGOV KDEM SF SUBJECT: SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL CLEARS WAY TO RECHARGE ZUMA ¶1. Summary: South Africa's five-member Supreme Court of Appeal overturned on January 12 a September decision setting aside a corruption indictment against ANC President Jacob Zuma. Speaking for the court, Deputy Judge President Louis Harms upbraided the lower appeals court judge, Chris Nicolson, for comments on the subject of "political meddling" that were beyond the scope of the legal question before him. Harms said Nicolson had failed in his duties as a judge. Issuing a statement on judgment, the ANC expressed its respect for the court, and reaffirmed its determination that Zuma will be South Africa's next president. The text of the ANC statement and excerpts from the Supreme Court of Appeal Ruling are included below. End summary. -------------- - ANC Notes Appeal Court Judgment on NPA Appeal -------------- - ¶2. Begin Text: The African National Congress (ANC) has noted the Appeal Court judgment on the National Prosecuting Authority's appeal against the Pietermaritzburg High Court decision last September that halted the prosecution of ANC President Jacob Zuma. It is important to note that this judgment has nothing to do with the guilt or otherwise of the ANC President. Nor does it make any pronouncements on the merits of the charges previously brought by the NPA. The ANC respects the decision of the court without reservation. The ANC and its President reserve the right to pursue all options available in law. The ANC reiterated its position that the judgment will not affect the decision of the ANC that Zuma will be the anc's presidential candidate for the 2009 elections. The ANC will not accept that a decision democratically taken by the ANC membership be reversed on the basis of untested allegations. ¶3. End Text. -------------- -------------- Excerpts from the January 12 Court of Appeal Judgment -------------- -------------- ¶4. Begin Text Excepts: .... The litigation between National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) and Mr. Zuma has a long and troubled history and the law reports are replete with judgments dealing with the matter.... In the application, which is the subject of this appeal, Mr. Zuma sought am order declaring that both the Pikoli and Mpshe decisions (NDPP decisions to indict Zuma) were invalid and, consequently, they were to be set aside. Nicolson J (Judge Nicolson) obliged by setting aside he latter decision (the former having lapsed). This brought the prosecution to an end -- at least for the time being. .... It would be naive to pretend that we are oblivious to the fact that Nicolson J's judgment has had far-reaching political consequences and that there may be an attempt to employ the judgment to score political points. It is accordingly necessary to state at the outset what the case is about as opposed to what it is not about. An applicant is required to state out his case in the founding affidavit. This Mr. Zuma did. He asserted that his case for setting aside the two decisions to prosecute him was premised on ... not having been invited to make representations in fulfillment of a constitutional requirement.... .... It follows from this that "political meddling" was not an issue that had to be determined. Nevertheless, a substantial part of his (Nicolson's) judgment dealt with this question; and in the course of this discussion he (Nicolson) changed the rules of the game, took his eyes off the ball, and red carded not only players but also spectators. .... However, it must be understood that this aspect of the judgment is not about the guilt or otherwise of Mr. Zuma or whether the decision to prosecute him was justified. It is even less about who should be president of the ANC; whether the decision of the ANC to ask Mr. Mbeki to resign was warranted; or who should be the ANC's candidate for President in 2009. More particularly, this aspect of the judgment is not about there was "political meddling" in the decision-making process. it is about whether the findings related to political meddling were appropriate or could be justified on the papers.... .... The underlying theme of the court's judgment was that the judiciary is independent.... This commendable approach was unfortunately subverted by a failure to confine the judgment to the issues before the court.... ¶5. End text excerpts. BOST