The Zondo commission has requested the Constitutional Court for an pressing order declaring former president Jacob Zuma in contempt of courtroom and sentencing him to 2 years in jail for defying summonses served to testify earlier than the inquiry into state seize.
The appliance was filed with the apex courtroom on Monday after Zuma defied the third summons in a row from the fee, the final one to look earlier than it from Monday to Friday final week.
In a supporting affidavit, the secretary of the fee, Itumeleng Mosala, says Zuma “deliberately” defied the summons, which was made an order of the courtroom in a ruling handed down on January 28.
This speaks to the requirement in regulation and authorized precedent for defiance of a court order to be mala fides earlier than it will possibly result in discovering an individual responsible of contempt, which is a prison offence.
Mosala cited each the minister and nationwide commissioner of police as respondents within the matter, following Zuma, for they’re required to present impact to his arrest.
He mentioned the fee was bringing the applying earlier than the courtroom at “the earliest alternative” after Friday final week, the final day to which the five-day summons utilized. Zuma signalled on Monday final week that he would defy the courtroom and the fee and launched a unprecedented assault on each the judiciary and the fee, through which he personally impugned Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo.
“Mr Zuma didn’t attend in any respect throughout the entire week. This utility is introduced instantly after the final day of the contempt of courtroom, being February 19,” he pressured.
The 209-page courtroom utility then proceeds to cope with the previous president’s ongoing attacks on the integrity of the bench, and cites these as an additional purpose for urgently discovering him in contempt.
There was no assure that Zuma would stop his assaults on the judiciary and the rule of regulation, and it carried the chance that he would encourage others to undertake an identical stance, Mosala submitted. This carried “the grave threat” that the rule of regulation could be basically weakened.
“The seriousness of the menace that Mr Zuma’s conduct poses to public belief in, and respect for, the authority of the courts and the rule of regulation requires this courtroom to intervene and assert its authority at once,” the applying learn.