In September 2022, Zuma served the two with summonses to appear in court. He argued that they breached the NPA Act when the State leaked a doctor’s note to Maughan. The pair subsequently challenged the summonses.
JACOB ZUMA PRIVATE PROSECUTION CASE ASIDE
In a ruling handed down on Wednesday, KZN judges Gregory Kruger, Jacqui Henriques and Thokozile Masipa also granted interdicts. Stopping Zuma from pursuing any further legal steps or private prosecutions against them. They also ordered that Zuma pay their legal costs.
Former President Zuma has been fighting to have Downer removed from his corruption trial, saying he is not impartial.
The High Court in Johannesburg has granted President Cyril Ramaphosa an urgent interdict against ex-president Jacob Zuma’s private prosecution bid.
The ruling means Ramaphosa won’t have to physically appear in court this week. The former president wanted to prosecute Ramaphosa for an alleged accessory after the fact.
This is in the case against State prosecutor, Billy Downer, and journalist, Karyn Maughan.
WHAT THE JUDGES SAID
But a full bench led by Deputy Judge President Roland Sutherland found that urgency had been proven by President Ramaphosa’s lawyers. Granting him an urgent interdict.
“As to the balance of convenience, the respondent suffers no harm if there was a delay in the private prosecution. In order to debate the controversies alluded to in this judgment. As mentioned earlier, the trial of the alleged principal offenders has yet to begin. There, conviction is a necessary condition for criminal liability by the applicant,” said Sutherland.
PRESIDENT CYRIL RAMAPHOSA STATEMENT
President Cyril Ramaphosa has since welcomed the judgement. He also says pursuit of this case infringes on his constitutional rights and affects the country as a whole.
“President Cyril Ramaphosa has welcomed the decision handed down by the South Gauteng High Court Division to interdict the private prosecution brought against him by Former President Jacob Zuma from proceeding until the application to set aside the private prosecution is heard.
“The court affirmed all of the President’s key contentions. Namely on jurisdiction of the court to hear the interdict application, the urgency of the matter against a court appearance date based on prima facie unlawful nolle prosequi. The court further found in the President’s favour on the violation of rights to personal freedom based on a prima facie defective summons.”
“The judgement confirms 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.”
Former President Jacob Zuma private prosecution case against a senior journalist and a state prosecutor has been postponed.
State advocate Billy Downer and News24 journalist Karyn Maughan made their first appearance at the Pietermaritzburg High Court on Monday. The pair appear to answer to the private prosecution former president Jacob Zumahas instituted against them.
It was a brief appearance, which saw the case postponed until early next year. Pending the finalisation of bids from Downer and Maughan to have the summonses they were served with last month set aside.
Why Jacob Zuma opened the case
The case relates to what the former president has described as the “leaking” of a “confidential” medical note. The note was allegedly submitted to the court as part of a postponement application in his corruption case.
It was filed with the court and forms part of the public record as a result.
Zuma believes the revelation of the medical note amounts to a breach of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) Act.
He opened a case against Downer – the lead prosecutor in his corruption case – with the police last year. But the NPA in April announced it had taken a decision not to prosecute due to insufficient evidence. Writing off the charges levelled against the veteran prosecutor as baseless and unsustainable.
Zuma has now decided to prosecute him – together with Maughan – privately.
In the summons, Zuma has accused Downer of two counts of contravening section 41 (6) (a) of the NPA Act – essentially disclosing information he acquired in the scope of his duties as a prosecutor without the National
Zuma has accused Maughan of contravening section 41 (6) (b). Disclosing the contents of a document in the possession of the prosecuting authority without the National Director of Public Prosecution’s (NDPP) permission when she reported on the note.
The former president has listed 21 witnesses whom he intends to call in the matter. This includes Justice Minister Ronald Lamola, NDPP Shamilla Batohi, KwaZulu-Natal DPP Elaine Zungu and President Cyril Ramaphosa.
Downer and Maughan have both responded with review applications in which they want the summonses set aside as an abuse of the court process.
Downer had also filed an application seeking to increase the security Zuma had put up for the trial from R90,000 to R1 million.
The court heard on Monday, though, that the parties had settled – with Zuma agreeing to put up R500,000.
In the meantime, though, Zuma’s corruption case returns to court next week.
It was last postponed pending the outcome of Zuma’s Constitutional Court appeal against former Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) president Mandisa Maya’s dismissal of an application he had lodged with her to try to get her to reconsider his failed special plea challenging Downer’s title to prosecute him.
Two other SCA judges dismissed an appeal bid out of hand.
The Constitutional Court has now dismissed that case but it’s not likely to be the end of the matter as the court has said Zuma can still appeal the original ruling.
Zuma is also likely to ask the court to stay his corruption case until the private prosecution has been finalised.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.