Everyone, including the international community, is waiting with keen interest for the outcome of the Constitutional Court and the reason for its decision regarding the legality of the warrants issued in November 2005 to raid the properties of ANC president Jacob Zuma and his lawyers.
Everyone, including the international community, is waiting with keen interest for the outcome of the Constitutional Court and the reason for its decision regarding the legality of the warrants issued in November 2005 to raid the properties of ANC president Jacob Zuma and his lawyers.
This is because the judgment is binding on all other courts, including the Supreme Court of Appeal. It also serves as a precedent that must be followed in the interests of justice to promote the spirit, purport and objectives of the bill of rights.
As such, the court must be seen to be fulfilling this obligation consistently with the principles and values contained in the Constitution and having regard for international law.
With regard to the latter, Zuma has every right to oppose the state from doing as it pleases. Any violation whatsoever might compel the defence to have the matter heard before the international Court of Justice in The Hague.
We cannot pretend the National Prosecuting Authority's bungling of the case did not prove that our justice system is incapable of fulfilling a basic legal requirement guaranteed in the Constitution.
It's very clear that there was never a case against Zuma but a political conspiracy by those who found the prima facie evidence of corruption unwinnable and resorted to a fishing expedition. The truth will come out.
Morgan Phaahla, Ekurhuleni
JZ has right to oppose state
Everyone, including the international community, is waiting with keen interest for the outcome of the Constitutional Court and the reason for its decision regarding the legality of the warrants issued in November 2005 to raid the properties of ANC president Jacob Zuma and his lawyers.
Everyone, including the international community, is waiting with keen interest for the outcome of the Constitutional Court and the reason for its decision regarding the legality of the warrants issued in November 2005 to raid the properties of ANC president Jacob Zuma and his lawyers.
This is because the judgment is binding on all other courts, including the Supreme Court of Appeal. It also serves as a precedent that must be followed in the interests of justice to promote the spirit, purport and objectives of the bill of rights.
As such, the court must be seen to be fulfilling this obligation consistently with the principles and values contained in the Constitution and having regard for international law.
With regard to the latter, Zuma has every right to oppose the state from doing as it pleases. Any violation whatsoever might compel the defence to have the matter heard before the international Court of Justice in The Hague.
We cannot pretend the National Prosecuting Authority's bungling of the case did not prove that our justice system is incapable of fulfilling a basic legal requirement guaranteed in the Constitution.
It's very clear that there was never a case against Zuma but a political conspiracy by those who found the prima facie evidence of corruption unwinnable and resorted to a fishing expedition. The truth will come out.
Morgan Phaahla, Ekurhuleni
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending
Latest Videos