ConCourt unlikely to respond to Cele on Zuma arrest- expert
A prominent legal expert believes the Constitutional Court is unlikely to respond to a letter by Police Minister Bheki Cele seeking clarity on the arrest of former president Jacob Zuma.
Cele sent a letter to the apex court, saying he will wait for Zuma’s legal challenges to his jail sentence to play out in the courts before moving to arrest him.
Zuma’s application to stay his arrest was heard in the Pietermaritzburg High Court on Tuesday, but judgment will only be delivered Friday.
He is also expected back in the Constitutional Court on Monday for a rescission application to his sentence of 15 months in jail.
The high court ruling on Friday is way past the deadline of Wednesday given to Cele and National Police Commissioner Khehla Sitole to ensure Zuma is behind bars.
UCT’s Professor Cathleen Powell says Cele and Sitole should not have sent to the Constitutional Court a letter in the first place.
"They should not have sent it, it was not a letter asking for guidance. On its own terms, it was a letter telling the court that the police were not going to comply with the court order. So I think their own description as asking for guidance is dishonest. They said ‘we won't comply with the court order unless you tell us again’ and that is unacceptable.
ALSO READ: All quiet outside Nkandla as deadline looms for Zuma arrest
"I am not sure the Constitutional Court will respond. It should not respond first of all because this was a letter and not an application. It is a meaningless letter, you don't say to the court ‘are you sure you meant that'. It meant it and hence it said it. So he does not actually have any legal option, the legal option is to arrest Jacob Zuma.”
Powell warns there are attempts to play with the law by the lawyers representing Cele and Zuma.
"There is at the moment a great deal of playing with the law and it is distressing to see lawyers play along because it is misleading to the public. When the court comes out and says no or says nothing, the public is made to somehow think the court is misbehaving, when actually what was done should not be done and has no legal meaning.
"For instance, going to a high court and expect it to overturn a binding Constitutional Court order, that is simply unheard of. But when the high court says ‘no you can't do that it can somehow be presented as some form of bias from the court. It isn't, that's just how the law works," adds Powell.
