President Jacob Zuma has filed court papers appealing the decision of the High Court in Pretoria which said he could not appoint the National Director of Public Prosecutions because he was conflicted.
On December 8‚ the court ordered that Zuma may have no say in the appointment of a new NDPP because he faces the prospect of criminal prosecution himself‚ and is thus conflicted.
But Zuma‚ in papers filed on Thusday‚ which have been seen by the publication‚ Zuma claims the court erred – arguing that the court’s decision was akin to having two presidents.
“The Court a quo erred in law in holding to be constitutionally permissible to have two presidents in the country at the same time and both exercising presidential powers‚” Zuma argues in his papers.
He also states that the court’s decision was flawed in that believe he could perform to perform some of his job functions‚ but not all.
“Having found that the first respondent in the court a quo is conflicted within the meaning of section 96 of the Constitution‚ 1996‚ the Court a quo erred in law in holding that the first respondent [Zuma] is unable to perform his power as president to appointment of a National Director of Public Prosecutions and yet able to perform his other functions as President. A position not authorised by the Constitution‚” the papers state.
I am the only president of the country, Zuma tells court
President Jacob Zuma has filed court papers appealing the decision of the High Court in Pretoria which said he could not appoint the National Director of Public Prosecutions because he was conflicted.
On December 8‚ the court ordered that Zuma may have no say in the appointment of a new NDPP because he faces the prospect of criminal prosecution himself‚ and is thus conflicted.
But Zuma‚ in papers filed on Thusday‚ which have been seen by the publication‚ Zuma claims the court erred – arguing that the court’s decision was akin to having two presidents.
“The Court a quo erred in law in holding to be constitutionally permissible to have two presidents in the country at the same time and both exercising presidential powers‚” Zuma argues in his papers.
He also states that the court’s decision was flawed in that believe he could perform to perform some of his job functions‚ but not all.
“Having found that the first respondent in the court a quo is conflicted within the meaning of section 96 of the Constitution‚ 1996‚ the Court a quo erred in law in holding that the first respondent [Zuma] is unable to perform his power as president to appointment of a National Director of Public Prosecutions and yet able to perform his other functions as President. A position not authorised by the Constitution‚” the papers state.