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 Democratic Alliance (DA) case regarding the discontinuation of the prosecution of Jacob Zuma on corruption charges commenced yesterday at the North Gauteng High Court. The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) devoted immeasurable preparation and public resources to the case against Mr. Zuma. Indeed it has been described by some as the best prepared case in South African legal history. However, the case was stopped by the then acting National Director of Public Prosecutions, Mokotedi Mpshe. The Public has a right to know why.

Broadly speaking, the DA's case is not about whether Jacob Zuma is innocent or guilty of the charges. We are asking the court to review, correct and set aside Mr Mpshe's decision to discontinue the prosecution. We are doing this in the interest of equality before the law and we ask that the Court declare this decision to be inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid. Today's proceedings, however, do not directly deal with these matters, but rather focus on:

• Whether the DA may have access the documentation upon which Mr Mpshe relied in coming to his challenged decision: the DA believes that it is so entitled to the documentation to support its contention that the NPA did not act without fear, favour and prejudice in discontinuing the prosecution
• Whether intervening parties will be permitted: the DA contends that Richard Young and CCII be admitted as intervening parties in this case

There are another two aspects that will be debated over the coming days:

1. The standing of the DA - we believe that as a political party, our responsibility is to act in the public interest, as is it our duty to ensure that the Constitution is upheld and that all are equal before the law; no individual person should be favoured because of the special position that they hold
2. The reviewability of NPA's decision not to prosecute - we believe that a decision to discontinue a prosecution is reviewable both because it is an administrative action under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA), and because it is reviewable under the principle of legality underpinning the Constitution.

Our responsibility to all South Africans is to ensure that the NPA conducts its business without fear or favour and with due regard for justice. This is the reason that we are taking up this matter in the High Court.

This application was initially brought in April 2009, over a year ago. Since then, proceedings have been unnecessarily delayed by the opposing parties, with the result that these preliminary matters are only now being dealt with by the Court. Had it not been for the delays, this matter could have been heard and resolved much earlier.