SA President Zuma must face corruption charges, court rules

  • SA President Zuma must face corruption charges, court rules

SA President Zuma must face corruption charges, court rules

DA leader Mmusi Maimane told reporters that his party's interpretation is that the court had compelled the prosecutor to go ahead with the case.

The High Court in April 2016 ruled that the 2009 decision to withdraw the 783 charges was irrational and should be set aside, which had the automatic effect of the charges being reinstated against the president. President Nelson Mandela was required to testify in a civil (as opposed to a criminal) case, after which the Constitutional Court imposed limits on when a sitting president would be required to testify in a civil case.

The NPA was appealing the matter on the basis that the high court was encroaching on the independence of the institution and violating the separation of powers by ordering that the charges be reinstated. Zuma has been a compromised politician ever since his original benefactor, Schabir Shaik, was found guilty on similar charges in May 2005.

"These representations will be amplified in light of developments in the ensuing period, not least of all of which are the recent revelations around the integrity of the audit report which underpins the prosecution", he said.

The ANC said in a statement that it had noted the court decision and would comment once it had studied the judgment.

South Africa's sitting president can be charged. "Let's allow that process to take its course and then the ANC will decide thereafter", he said.

The SCA's decision was not a surprise after counsel for the NPA and Zuma conceded that Mpshe's decision was taken under the wrong section of the Constitution and that - in line with an earlier judgment of the Constitutional Court, this invalidated the decision. He said politics often played out in this manner.

Can a sitting president be put on trial? Some former loyalists in the ruling party have called for Zuma's ouster as a way to restore confidence in the ANC.

The NPA argued that determining the date for the serving of an indictment on Zuma was politically motivated.

Both the NPA and Zuma turned to the SCA after the High Court denied them direct access for an appeal.

The effect of the decision is that the only legitimate decision made by the NPA is to prosecute President Zuma.

Zuma will likely face a legal claim of more than R10 million from the Democratic Alliance after the failure of his appeal.

Selfe said Abrahams must formally charge Zuma and haul him before a court of law, saying that "after the formal charges, Zuma can then make representations to the NPA".