Publication: Cape Argus Issued: Date: 2008-10-21 Reporter: Ella Smook

Zuma's Lawyers Strike Back at Mbeki Appeal

 

Publication 

Cape Argus

Date

2008-10-21

Reporter Ella Smook

Web Link

www.capeargus.co.za



Jacob Zuma's legal team is expected to return to court tomorrow to oppose the National Prosecuting Authority's bid to appeal against the judgment which suggested that the ANC president had been a victim of a politically motivated prosecution.

Judge Chris Nicholson, whose September 12 ruling provided the catalyst for the ousting of former president Thabo Mbeki, will again preside, hearing argument for and against the application for leave to appeal to a higher court.

In his judgment, Judge Nicholson found that the State's decision to prosecute had been unlawful because it had not taken representations from Zuma ahead of its decision to prosecute. He also inferred that the decision had been politically driven and suggested that an inquiry into the arms deal should be re-opened.

The National Director of Public Prosecutions, Mokotedi Mpshe, appealed against the Nicholson judgment on 16 grounds, based on the interpretation of the section in the constitution dealing with the NPA, the decision to prosecute Zuma, Zuma's right to be heard before a prosecution being instituted and the right of the court to have made findings about al-leged political meddling in the prosecution.

Yesterday Zuma's legal team filed papers dealing only with the argument that the judge had overstepped his mandate when making inferences about political meddling. The other arguments were expected to be dealt with during argument in court tomorrow, Zuma's attorney, Michael Hulley, indicated.

Elaborating on Zuma's arguments in opposing another ap-plication for leave to appeal, brought by Mbeki about the "unnecessary" findings made about him by Judge Nicholson, Hulley reiterated that the judge had been obliged to address the issue of political meddling as a result of the State's insistence that such allegations in Zuma's application be scrapped.

Because argument on the issue took place in the judge's chambers, the judge's recollections would have to be accepted as the correct version of what transpired, Hulley said.

With acknowledgements to Ella Smook and Cape Argus.