President Jacob Zuma said on Friday he was “disappointed” by a Supreme Court of Appeal decision to uphold a High Court ruling to reinstate hundreds of corruption charges filed against him before he became president.
In a statement from his office, Zuma said he now expects the National Prosecuting Authority to consider representations on the case before making decision to prosecute him.
” The decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal today, whilst disappointing, was much anticipated”, the Presidency said.
“The Supreme Court of Appeal ruled that the then Acting National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) had invoked the incorrect provisions in considering President Jacob Zuma’s representations to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA). As such, the decision made to discontinue the prosecution against President Zuma is invalid.
“The effect of the decision is that the only legitimate decision made by the NPA is to prosecute President Zuma. Importantly, it means that the representations have not been considered and the expectation is that the NDPP will now consider these representations under the correct prescripts of the law and make a legitimate decision relating thereto”.
The presidency stressed that any person “has the right to make such representations and an expectation that a legitimate decision will be made”.
It added that the representations had been validated by subsequent events, and hinted that this included the controversy embroiling audit firm KPMG.
“The representations will be amplified in light of developments in the ensuing period, not least of all are the recent revelations around the integrity of the audit report which underpins the prosecution.”
KPMG was recently forced to withdraw its report into the alleged “rogue” intelligence unit within the South African Revenue Service. The same firm reportedly compiled a forensic report that was to form part of the evidence in the Zuma case.
Earlier on Friday, the SCA dismissed Zuma and the NPA’s appeal against the North Gauteng High Court ruling that the decision to drop the charges had been irrational.