- The Constitutional Court has made a decision to reserve its judgment in sentencing Zuma to -months in prison
- ConCourt spent hours hearing Zuma's urgent application to have his sentence rescinded on Monday
- The State Capture Commission of Inquiry argued that Zuma had no intention to appear before the commission even if his sentence was rescinded
On Monday 12 July the Constitutional Court spent 10 hours listening to argument's in former president Jacob Zuma's application to have his 15-month prison sentence rescinded.
After hours of deliberation, the Constitutional Court has reserved its judgment in Zuma's contempt of court decision.
The State Capture Commission of Inquiry represented by Advocate Tembeka Ngcukaitobi argued that Zuma's application should be dismissed because Zuma had no intention to appear before the commission and had publicly stated that he would not participate in proceedings according to IOL.
Ngcukaitobi also stated that Zuma's argument that a prison sentence at his age and his failing health would be detrimental to him given the Covid-19 pandemic was a factor Zuma always knew about when he refused to appear before the commission.
“Zuma always held the keys to his own prison door,” Ngcukaitobi said in a quote by IOL.
Ngcukaitobi also argued that Zuma could have avoided his judgment had he appeared before the commission as instructed and accounted for his presidential term.
Advocate Vuyani Ngalwana who joined the ConCourt proceedings in support of Zuma stated that the court's judgment in Zuma's contempt case was about sending a message to the general public and it was not in the interest of justice, reports EWN.
“This court must do that which it considers to be in the interest of justice. Is it in the interest of justice for this court to punish an octogenarian for having snubbed it?” he asked the court.
Constitutional Court hears Jacob Zuma's rescission application
Briefly News previously reported that Zuma's legal representative spent hours explaining ConCourt how Zuma's constitutional rights under section 35 were violated. Mpofu argued that Zuma deserved a trial based on rights afforded by the constitution.
Mpofu also argued that since Zuma did not get a trial ConCourt should grant him a rescission of his sentence.
When asked by Justice Zukisa Tshiqi if there was a remedy of rescindment available to a litigant who chose not to oppose an application on purpose, Mpofu answered that plaintiffs could exercise their rights at any time during the legal process.
Justice Tshiqi stated that Zuma was aware that there was an application for an order to hold him in contempt but he chose not to participate despite being afforded the opportunity to so.
Enjoyed reading our story? Download BRIEFLY's news app on Google Play now and stay up-to-date with major South African news!