Zuma demands Ramaphosa remove Zondo as chief justice
Former president Jacob Zuma has sent a letter to President Cyril Ramaphosa in which he demands the removal of Raymond Zondo as the country’s chief justice.
Zuma sent a letter of demand to his successor through his legal team on Thursday.
Zondo was appointed as head of the judiciary in April after consultations with the Judicial Service Commission and leaders of parties in the National Assembly.
Zondo was up against three other nominees, Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, Justice Mandisa Maya and Justice Dunstan Mlambo.
Zuma believes Ramaphosa was irrational when he appointed Zondo to his current position.
“Our client has instructed us to demand, as we hereby do, that you reverse your illegal decision(s) to appoint Zondo as chief justice and to ignore or overlook the recommendations of the JSC. Such conduct was clearly in violation of your constitutional obligations conferred in terms of Section 178, read with Section 83 of the Constitution. You are required to do so on or before May 11,” the letter states.
“Second, we are instructed to demand, as we hereby do, that you furnish our clients with the reasons which led to your aforesaid ostensibly irrational decision(s) and/or conduct and to do so by the date referred to in the preceding paragraph.
ALSO READ: Mzwanele Manyi resigns from ATM, joins EFF
Zuma has also accused Ramaphosa of ignoring the issue of gender transformation.
“Judge Maya was also the only suitable candidate in that she had passed the threshold of 12 or more votes for appointment to the position of chief justice or any other judicial vacancy. At a bare minimum our clients deserve to be furnished with reasons justifying such apparently irrational conduct on your part,” said the attorneys.
Zuma has given Ramaphosa until 11 May to respond to his demands.
“For all the reasons mentioned above, which are by no means exhaustive, our client has instructed us to demand, as we hereby do, that you reverse your illegal decision(s) to appoint Judge Zondo as Chief Justice and to ignore or overlook the recommendations of the JSC. Such conduct was clearly in violation of your constitutional obligations conferred in terms of section 178, read with section 83 of the Constitution.
“Failure to comply with any or all the above-mentioned demands will result in our clients instituting urgent legal proceedings in the appropriate court without giving any further notice to you.”
