President Zuma’s decision to appeal the Pretoria High Court’s ruling to reinstate 783 corruption charges against him has been described as an abuse of taxpayers’ money.
Disheartened by the duration of the case and the amount of money lavished in the entire court process, the federal executive chairperson of the Democratic Alliance (DA), James Selfle, said it is apparent that President Zuma is running away from taking responsibility and admitting his wrong.
“We believe this has become the abuse of court processes which is fine if the individual concerned is funding it but in this case, it is being funded by the South African taxpayers,” he said.
The arms deal and other corruption charges – which could carry serious jail time – have haunted President Jacob Zuma for 15 years and the Democratic Alliance (DA) has for years maintained that the seriousness of the charges against Zuma demands he stands trial.
In 2009, the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) dropped the corruption charges heaped on president Zuma; saying recordings of intercepted telephone calls showed his prosecution was being influenced for political ends.
After many court challenges, counter-challenges, and appeals, the DA took delivery of the spy tapes; and again started gearing up to challenge the dropping of the 783 corruption charges.
In April 2016, the court finally taught Zuma a lesson in a bitter way by reinstating the fraud, racketeering and corruption charges against him.
Defeated and disappointed, Zuma and the National Prosecution Authority (NPA) announced that they would be challenging the reinstatement of the corruption charges.
Check Out: Spy Tapes Saga; Another Headache For Zuma
In May, the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) promised to approach the Constitutional Court directly to appeal the high court ruling again on behalf of Zuma.
In June, the high court in Pretoria spanked the NPA and President Zuma harder by flinging away his application for leave to appeal the April 2009 judgment. According to Judge President Aubrey Ledwaba, the appeal was not based on merits and lacks reasonable prospects of success.