The content on this page is not written by Polity.org.za, but is supplied by third parties. This content does not constitute news reporting by Polity.org.za.

The statement by Jacob Zuma's lawyers, that the President cannot be prosecuted during his term in office, reveals the extent of the ANC's threat to the constitution. The statement was made in an affidavit by Zuma's legal team in answer to the DA's application in the North Gauteng High Court, to review the decision by the National Prosecuting Authority to withdraw charges against President Zuma shortly before the election of April 22 this year. The NPA's decision, which the DA believes was unlawful and unconstitutional, gave Zuma a legally unencumbered run to the Presidency. Zuma's reply to the DA, tabled by his lawyer Michael Hulley, contains blatant untruths in the attempt to continue the Zuma camp's strategy of spinning out the case indefinitely. Most sinister of all it undermines the constitution by falsely claiming that a sitting President is above the law. A copy of Hulley's affidavit is available from the DA Media Centre <http://www.mailfire.co.za/link/QlJVTj0xMDg5NiZMSUQ9MzE4OTImU0lEPTEwMTk1MzY=.aspx> :
www.damediacentre.co.za/documentvault/affidavithulley.doc Paragraph 86 of Zuma's legal submission reads: "I have been advised that the incumbent State President, like the President of the United States, cannot be charged with criminal conduct (or continue to be prosecuted) during his incumbency. Charges can only be brought if he is successfully impeached in terms of the Constitution or after his term of office ends. The President is presently 66 years old". This statement is false. The South African Constitution does not exempt a sitting President from criminal prosecution. Neither is the President of the United States immune from criminal prosecution. Paragraph 87 continues the assault on the Constitution by stating that "prosecution of an incumbent President will, inter alia, offend the doctrine of separation of powers by seriously interfering with the Executive and thereby subverting the entire constitutional framework". This statement is absurd and inverts the meaning of "separation of powers". In fact the "separation of powers" doctrine exists precisely so that the executive can be held to account by the judiciary as well as the legislative arm of government. In bringing the review application, the DA is reinforcing the concept of separation of powers. The latest move of President Zuma's lawyers demonstrates once again how important it is not to be beguiled by the President's personal charm. His public relations will not protect the Constitution. In fact, it is a convenient smokescreen behind which the assault on the Constitution continues unabated. The DA will continue to insist on the fundamental principle that everyone is equal before the law, and we will continue to seek a High Court review of the NPA's decision to shield the President from having to answer in court to over 700 counts ranging from corruption to racketeering that we believe were unlawfully dropped before the election. We will respond fully before the court in answer to this affidavit and those that must still be filed by the National Director of Public Prosecutions and the NPA.