Zuma fights 'two Presidents' ruling in ConCourt

President Jacob Zuma isn’t going down without a fight, and he appears to have every intention of keeping Shaun Abrahams as his prosecutor-in-chief for as long as possible, notes Legalbrief. That much is evident from his notice to appeal against a December judgment by the Gauteng High Court (Pretoria) that instructed Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa to appoint the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) because Zuma was conflicted. The country cannot have two Presidents at the same time, Zuma argued in the notice of appeal filed in the Constitutional Court yesterday. A Business Day report points out that Zuma is meant to submit fresh representations to the NPA by 31 January on why he should not face charges of fraud, corruption and racketeering linked to the arms deal after he conceded in the SCA that the 2009 decision to drop the charges against him was irrational. The High Court ruled that Zuma was too conflicted to appoint the NDPP and that it had to be done by Ramaphosa. The judgment also set aside Abrahams’ appointment as prosecutions chief by Zuma. The NPA has lodged its own appeal against the judgment. Abrahams was widely seen to be protecting Zuma and doing his bidding, notes Business Day. The case was brought by Corruption Watch, Freedom Under Law and the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution. The judgment held that as long as Zuma was in office, the Deputy President would be responsible for decisions relating to the appointment, suspension or removal of the NDPP.

Zuma's argument is based on the opinion that the High Court erred in law by finding he was unable to perform his powers as President to appoint the prosecutions chief but at the same time able to perform his other functions, says a TimesLIVE report. ‘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 it believed he could 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.