South Africa’s top court on Friday rejected an application for contempt of court to annul former President Jacob Zuma’s 15-month prison sentence. Zuma surrendered himself in July when the Constitutional Court found him in contempt of court for refusing to return to the Commission of Inquiry in possession of the state, where several witnesses described his alleged role in a number of related issues. Is. Looting of state departments and parastatal organizations.
In a Constitutional Court majority decision, Judge Sissi Khampepe dismissed 79-year-old Zuma’s application with costs. Commenting on Zuma’s conduct, Khampepe said he had deliberately refused to participate in the trial and reopened the case when it suited him.
Khampepe said the majority vehemently reject any suggestion that litigants may be allowed to butcher the judicial process of their own free will, which has been carried out with regularity in all respects, only later absent from the victim. to plead. The former president began his sentence on July 7 this year and received controversial medical parole barely a month later.
The parole is being challenged by several institutions after it was found that parole was granted by a senior official in the Department of Correctional Services, who was appointed by Zuma during his tenure as chairman, and not by the parole board. Zuma is still in the hospital as the details of his medical condition are secret.
Zuma had previously argued that he was not allowed a fair trial because of his absence, but when the court had given him an opportunity to do so to reduce his sentence, he did not give reasons to the court. Elected absenteeism, like Mr. Zuma’s, constitutes more than litigation, which does not have the effect of turning a competently given order into a wrongful one.
Mr. Zuma had several opportunities to bring these matters to the attention of the court. That he chose not to, does not mean that the court made a mistake in ordering,” said Khampepe. A dissenting minority decision found that Zuma’s rights were violated in the context of international law and so the decision was upheld. can be cancelled.
However, the majority held that international law could not be enforced if it had not been accepted by the South African Parliament. The case is believed to be running into millions of rands, said Jacob Zuma Foundation spokesman Mazvanele Manni, reiterating his earlier plea for the public to contribute because Zuma did not have such resources.
Manny then said that Zuma’s palatial house did not belong to him, but to a trust that had given him permission to take over. Zuma is also expected to return to the High Court in Pietermaritzburg next week as hearings continue on the amount allegedly paid to him by the French company Thales to effect an billion-rand arms supply deal nearly two decades ago. Is.
The case was repeatedly postponed because of what analysts called a Stalinist approach to Zuma changing lawyers and adjourning it citing illness. Manni said the foundation would issue a statement on Saturday on whether Zuma would appear in court next week.
.
read all breaking news, breaking news And coronavirus news Here
.