The decision not to prosecute President Jacob Zuma on corruption charges
had not resulted in any prejudice to the Democratic Alliance, defence
contractor Richard Young or his company CCII Systems, the Pretoria High
Court heard on Tuesday.
The National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) and Zuma were
opposing interim applications by the DA for the record of the
proceedings leading to the controversial Zuma decision. They also wanted
to stop an application by Young, a former arms deal bidder, and CCII to
intervene in the DA's application to set aside the decision.
The NDPP's lawyer, Paul Kennedy, argued that the DA, Young and CCII had
no direct legal interest in the decision not to prosecute Zuma and
therefore had no legal standing to bring a review application.
It was "simply not enough" for the DA to say it had an interest in
justice being done and the rule of law being respected. They had to have
a direct and substantial legal interest in Zuma's prosecution.
"One accepts that in a constitutional state every citizen and political
party has a right in seeing that the government does its job and applies
the rule of law, but that interest does
not translate to a legal interest *1
," he said.
The Democratic Alliance's contention that every South African had the
right to challenge the decisions of public officials could cause courts
to be inundated with cases of citizens and political parties who felt
aggrieved for some or other reason.
Concerning Young and CCII, Kennedy argued
they had made many allegations *2
never that any action by Zuma had
resulted in prejudice to them *3
. Their complaint about the arms
deal had also not resulted in the decision to prosecute Zuma in the
Kennedy further argued that the decision did not adversely affect
anyone's rights, including Zuma's, and that
the state could at any time decide to
prosecute him again *4
The DA contended the decision not to prosecute was irrational, arbitrary
and taken for political reasons.
The DA's lawyer Sean Rosenberg, argued that Zuma's alleged crimes of
corruption were crimes against the public.
"He is alleged to have provided political patronage and protection for
"Every South African would accordingly be entitled to enforce compliance
with the rule of law since every South African is affected by crimes of
this kind. This is in itself sufficient to confer standing on the
He said the fact that the NDPP had received submissions from the DA,
which ought to have been considered alongside submissions from Zuma
regarding the discontinuance of the prosecution, resulted in the DA
having sufficient interest in the decision.
Legal argument continues before Acting Judge Natvarial Ranchod. - Sapa
With acknowledgements to Sapa and Cape Times.
*2 All of which were found to be true.
And more later.
*3 Nonsense, the main prejudice was caused by
Thomson-CSF (now Thint). Zuma has been proven in court to be Thints'
co-conspirator along with Scabir Shaik.
It's an open and shut case.
*4 Well, do its duty and do it.