President Jacob Zuma will be facing his corruption charges. Pretoria High Court has dismissed his leave to appeal its rule which stipulated that the President face his 783 corruption charges.
The National Prosecuting Authority and the President’s lawyers, applied for leave to appeal the court’s ruling on April 29.
They wanted the court to abandon its decision and discontinue the 783 corruption charges prosecution of Mr Zuma.
Rejecting the application for leave to appeal, the High Court pointed out that there are no questions of law in the case that need to be settled by Supreme Court of Appeal.
Judge Aubrey Ledwaba said the leave to appeal cannot be granted because the court is certain there are no reasonable prospects of success that will come with the appeal.
“We conclude there are no merits,” stated the judge.
A High Court in Durban dismissed the charges in 2009, but the Pretoria High Court reinstated the charges this year and ruled that the President face the corruption charges.
Thereafter, Shaun Abrahams – the national director of public prosecutions divulged that Mr President will be taking the quest of getting the 783 corruption charges dismissed to the next level.
Zuma’s 783 corruption charges to Abrahams, “needs the decision of an appeal court.”
“My decision has been made after much consideration…I will carry out my duties without fear or favor or prejudice. I will always do what is correct, irrespective of whether the individual is an ordinary person, a cabinet minister or a sitting President,” Abrahams stated.
Opposition party, DA reacted to that saying NPA’s decision is a blatant delaying tactic to shield Jacob Zuma from facing the 783 charges of corruption, fraud and racketeering leveled against him almost a decade ago.
“The reasons advanced by Adv. Abrahams – that he was acting in the best interests of prosecutorial independence – is a farce. Abrahams is preoccupied with protecting President Zuma at all costs – no matter what the implications are for the Constitution, the taxpayer or due process…,” DA asserted.