South African President Zuma has filed a notice of application for leave to appeal the decision of the Gauteng High Court which had held that halting his prosecution in 2009 was irrational.
In a statement issued late on Monday night, the Presidency said it was of a strong view that the court had erred in a number of respects and that there were “reasonable prospects of success”.
“The President believes that the decision of the Court affects him directly and is of a strong view that the Court erred in several respects in its decision.”
Earlier on Monday, the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) had indicated that it was appealing the decision of the High Court in Pretoria, with National Director of Public Prosecutions Shaun Abrahams saying the judgement “seriously affects the separation of powers”.
Zuma was the third respondent in the matter between the Democratic Alliance, which brought the application for a review of the 2009 decision to drop charges against Zuma, and the Acting National Director of Public Prosecutions.
In the statement, the Presidency outlined the grounds on which the application for leave to appeal the decision was based.
This included that “the Court erred as a matter of law in matters including the interpretation and application of the case law relating to rationality as a ground for a legality challenge, and in holding that the National Director of Public Prosecutions is not entitled to terminate a prosecution on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct and the abuse of the prosecutorial process.
“The Court erred in its evaluation of the evidence placed before it by the respondents, particularly in failing to accept the President’s allegations and those of the NDPP, which were undisputed or were not meaningfully disputed by the applicant.”
The Presidency further said: “It also erred in finding that Mr Mpshe’s decision was a consequence of his (subjective) feelings of anger and betrayal and that those feelings caused him to act impulsively and irrationally.
“The Court erred in finding that Mr Mpshe was subjected to undue pressure which deprived him of the time and space to properly apply his mind to the matter.
“The Court erred as matters of fact and law in accepting that the ‘Browse Mole Report’ revealed an unofficial attempt to besmirch the person and integrity of the President, but failing to conclude on the available evidence that the Report compromised the fairness and integrity of the prosecution process entitling the NDPP to terminate the prosecution.”
The statement added: “President Zuma believes that the appeal raises important issues of law and fact and also believes that the appeal has reasonable prospects of success.”
Last month, the court set aside the decision by former acting national director of public prosecutions Mokotedi Mpshe, to withdraw the raft of charges against Zuma, back in 2009.
Delivering the judgement on April 29 on behalf of a full bench, Judge Aubrey Ledwaba found that the decision taken by Mpshe to drop the corruption charges against Zuma in 2009 was irrational and thus set it aside.
Ledwaba further ruled that the matter needed to be reviewed.
The case around the so-called “Spy Tapes” was brought by the Democratic Alliance which asked the court to review the decision to drop 783 charges of fraud, corruption and racketeering against Zuma.
Abrahams on Monday said due to the far-reaching significance of the case, “it needs the decision of an appeal court”.
“In principle, the judgement also affects each and every person who is a subject of a prosecutorial consideration and the discretionary powers of a prosecutor which is exercised on a daily basis and at various stages of the process,” Abrahams told reporters in Pretoria.
“The judgement of the full bench of the Pretoria High Court is also a matter that seriously affects the separation of powers.”
“It has far reaching ramifications for the for the powers of this institution and for the very citizenry of our republic,” said Abrahams.
“In my view, if this is now general principle, then prosecutors are now deluded of much of their powers. Article B of the code of conduct for members of the National Prosecuting Authority reads ‘the prosecutorial discretion to institute and to stop a should be exercised independently in accordance with the prosecution policy and policy directives, and be free from political, public and judicial interference’.”
– African News Agency (ANA)
