Ramaphosa vs Zuma: President ‘remains vulnerable’ to ANC step-aside rule
Former president Jacob Zuma’s lawyers say despite his re-election as the party’s leader, President Cyril Ramaphosa remains vulnerable to the African National Congress’s (ANC) step-aside rule whether the court grants him the urgent interdict or not.
On Thursday, Zuma and Ramaphosa’s legal teams made representations before a full bench of the High Court in Johannesburg in the president’s urgent application to have the summons served on him declared unlawful.
Zuma is accusing Ramaphosa of several crimes, including being an accessory after the fact in relation to his medical records that he claims senior state prosecutor Billy Downer leaked to journalist Karyn Maughan.
Zuma’s foundation has previously denied that the litigation was meant to sabotage Ramaphosa’s political campaign, seeing as it was served on the eve of the party’s elective conference.
The former president’s lawyer Dali Mpofu said the while they tried to avoid bringing it, the president’s lawyers “forced” the step-aside debate on them.
He said only two developments can save Ramaphosa as both ANC and state president: “On their own version, the harm to the step aside rule kicks once you are charged, and that’s happened already on the 15th December 2022. Let’s assume, for a minute, this court grants him the relief that is being asked for here; the step-aside rule would still be operational. Because there are only two things that could get President Ramaphosa out of that jeopardy. One, that the summons and charges are set aside in part b, not here. Two, is if the private prosecutor withdraws the whole thing.”
Arguing on the urgency of the application Ramaphosa’s legal representative, Hamilton Maenetje, warned of far-reaching implications should the president be forced to step aside over this matter.
“If he [Ramaphosa] is hauled before the criminal court those of his detractors will say now you are criminally charged so you must step aside. But you step aside not only from your ANC position, but you also step aside from the national position as president. So, the impact is not just on the immediate interest transcends into the interest of the public. So, that’s the urgency for it.”
Meanwhile, legal expert William Booth says while he can’t pre-empt the court’s decision, he believes Zuma’s case against Ramaphosa is flawed and should not have been allowed to come this far.
Booth says the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) should move to clarify who can be prosecuted under the nolle prosequi certificate granted to Zuma.
Mpofu argued the nolle prosequi certificate can be used against Ramaphosa because his name appears in the docket relating to Downer and Maughan.
“If somebody’s named in a docket that doesn’t mean there’s a case that’s specifically laid against them for a particular incident,” says Booth.
“To really have clarified, the NPA should say this docket was not relating to Ramaphosa there was no complaint against him with regards to any conduct, it was solely in respect of downer and Maughan and it’s on those bases that we have considered, and declined to prosecute. There was in fact no case against President Ramaphosa so he is not included in the decision to issue a decline to prosecute certificate.”
Judgment in the matter has been reserved until Monday morning.