SOUTH AFRICA’s main opposition party has rejected a submission to the high court by Jacob Zuma’s legal team that asserts the newly appointed president cannot be prosecuted while he holds the country’s highest office.
Democratic Alliance (DA) leader Helen Zille said yesterday she will oppose the submission lodged this week in Pretoria’s high court as part of her party’s efforts to overturn the National Prosecution Authority’s (NPA) decision to drop corruption charges against the ANC leader on April 6th last.
Until three weeks before last April’s general election, Mr Zuma was facing corruption, bribery and fraud charges relating to a government arms deal in the late 1990s worth hundreds of millions of euro.
The charges, which date back to 2003, have been withdrawn and re-entered twice by the NPA. Mr Zuma has continuously maintained his innocence.
The NPA said it decided to drop the charges in April in light of phone-tapped evidence it acquired that showed political interference in the case, allegedly by people connected to South Africa’s previous elected president, Thabo Mebki.
Mr Zuma was recharged just days after he secured the ANC presidency in a contest against Mr Mbeki, who was both South African and party president at the time. Shortly after the general election, which was won by the ANC, Ms Zille indicated the DA would pursue the matter through the courts, as she said the NPA had dropped the case because of pressure from the ruling party.
As part of his submission to the court on behalf of Mr Zuma, lawyer Michael Hulley said the DA’s case was a politically motivated attempt to undermine the ANC and that, under the constitution, his client could only be prosecuted if he leaves office or was impeached. “I have been advised that the incumbent state president, like the president of the United States, cannot be charged with criminal conduct during his incumbency.
“Charges can only be brought if he is successfully impeached in terms of the constitution or after his term of office ends,” a paragraph in the submission reads.
Ms Zille said this was an inaccurate interpretation of the law, and a sitting president was not immune to prosecution.