Fri Oct 28 04:44:36 CAT 2016
Order restored at Sun City Prison after fiery protest over inmates’ TVs

Correctional Services said that “matters are under control” at Johannesburg’s Sun City Prison on Wed.

Concourt rejects JZ e-mail

By unknown | Feb 04, 2009 | COMMENTS [ 0 ]

Anna Majavu

Anna Majavu

The Constitutional Court yesterday rejected the electronic court papers filed for ANC president Jacob Zuma, saying they were insufficient.

The court rules stipulate that 25 hard copies plus one electronic copy must be filed.

The decision means that Zuma has now missed the deadline for the submission of his application appealing the recent Supreme Court of Appeal judgment that effectively allows the National Prosecuting Authority to continue pursuing its corruption case against him.

Zuma's lawyers and the NPA were to return to the Pietermaritzburg high court today as the NPA revived its court action against Zuma.

In the electronic application, Zuma's lawyers argue that the SCA erred in overturning a ruling by Pietermaritzburg high court Judge Chris Nicholson that Zuma should have been allowed to make representations to the NPA before he was recharged.

The lawyers say the SCA erred by ignoring his argument that the decision to charge him was politically motivated.

They also argue that NPA boss Mokotedi Mpshe acted illegally by charging him without affording him the opportunity to make representations in terms of Section 179 (5) (d) of the Constitution.

In his ruling, SCA Judge Louis Harms held that this contention was irrelevant to the question whether the NPA had erred by not affording Zuma an opportunity to make representations before charging him.

Zuma was first charged in 2005 by then national director of public prosecutions Vusi Pikoli.

The case was struck off the roll on September 20 2006, after Judge Herbert Msimang turned down the state's application for a postponement.

However, Pikoli's successor Mpshe reinstated charges against Zuma in late 2007.

Zuma then lodged an application in the Pietermaritzburg high court, arguing that the decision to recharge him was illegal - more so because he was not given an opportunity to make representations. He was successful.


Login OR Join up TO COMMENT