The High Court has no jurisdiction to hear Zuma’s offer …

Itumeleng Mosala, secretary of the Zondo Commission. (Photo: State Capture Commission)

Jacob Zuma’s request to stay the execution of his arrest “should not be granted”. It is, in its naked form, just a ploy on [his] part to avoid the inevitable – serve his prison sentence.

The State Capture Commission told the Pietermaritzburg High Court, which will virtually hear a request filed by former President Jacob Zuma on Tuesday for a stay of execution of his arrest, that the court “does not have jurisdiction. required to know about this case “.

Commission Secretary Itumeleng Mosala further stated in an affidavit filed with the court that Zuma’s claim in provincial court “is a continuation of a pattern of abuse committed by [Zuma] of the judicial process ”and that“ the courts should no longer hear such abuses ”.

“[Zuma] simply refuses to comply with the orders legally issued against him. It is his operating mode“Mosala said.

He said that while the court has jurisdiction to stay or suspend court orders, that jurisdiction extends “only to its own orders.”

“He cannot annul, modify or suspend the execution of orders made by another court, in particular a higher court. To suggest otherwise would totally undermine the hierarchy of our judicial system, as prescribed by the Constitution. Only the Constitutional Court is competent to make the order that the petitioner invites this court to make, ”Mosala said.

See the previous report here: Zuma tells his supporters that he is a prisoner of conscience and that he is preparing to fight “injustice”.

Zuma had until Sunday to get to Nkandla Police Station and be transported to Westville Correctional Center in Durban, where he will serve a 15-month prison sentence for contempt of court. If he does not surrender, the SA Police Department has until Wednesday to arrest him.

However, on Friday Zuma filed an application with the Court of Justice to hear an application to quash the sentence, or at the very least a more lenient sentence. At the same time, he filed a request for a stay of execution of his arrest with the Pietermaritzburg court.

Although the Court of Appeals agreed to hear Zuma’s request to quash on July 12, that does not automatically suspend his arrest.

Other persons interviewed in connection with the suspension or prohibition of arrest are the Minister of Police, the National Commissioner and the President. Zuma’s lead attorney, attorney Dali Mpofu, told media on Sunday night that all three have filed notices of compliance, meaning they will accept the court’s ruling.

In Mosala’s affidavit, he argues that Zuma’s request to quash under rule 42 of the Uniform Rules of the Court does not apply because Zuma had chosen not to participate in the contempt hearing. in court at the supreme court.

He said that in order to comply with rule 42, Zuma must show that his conviction was the result of fraud or error, that new evidence was revealed, or that the order was made by fault.

“The applicant does not provide these reasons. Its cancellation request has no chance of success because it does not even come out of the first blocks. This request for a stay must therefore not be granted. This is, in its purest form, just a ploy on the part of the applicant to avoid the inevitable – serving his prison sentence, ”Mosala said.

In its majority judgment on Tuesday, the Constitutional Court found Zuma in contempt for disobeying his order earlier this year to appear before the Zondo Commission, chaired by current interim chief justice Raymond Zondo , to respond to the allegations of dozens of witnesses. on its role in the looting of state entities.

Zuma did not make representations in court, choosing instead to make a series of public statements.

In his affidavit, Mosala lists the events as they unfolded, including the summons issued when the case appeared before the Constitutional Court, and the public statements released in February and April by Zuma in which he said he would not participate in any court proceedings or the commission. .

“The petitioner has persistently and belligerently refused to acknowledge and engage in the legal proceedings leading to the order convicting him of contempt of court and imposing a prison sentence on him. Rather, the Applicant has chosen to make public statements in which he willfully and vexatiously undermines the dignity and authority of the courts and the rule of law; and suggests that members of the public should do the same.

Mosala said that Zuma’s rights were not compromised as the former president claims, and that instead, Zuma had “gone to great lengths to avoid the consequences of his actions” and had “been given” several opportunities to assert these rights in court, but has challenged or transformed them all. down”.

Zuma has asked the Court of Justice to overturn or vary his sentence, based on his age, state of health, the Covid-19 pandemic and the fact that he had received poor legal advice.

Mosala dismissed the “bad legal opinion” argument and said that while Zuma’s concerns about his health and age may be valid, these were issues for the Corrections Department, “including in any case. request that he could do for early parole ”.

“This is the path that all others sentenced to a term of imprisonment would be required to follow,” he said. DM

Thelma J. Longworth

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.