Zuma v Democratic Alliance and Others; Acting National Director of Public Prosecutions and Another v Democratic Alliance and Another (771/2016, 1170/2016) [2017] ZASCA 146; [2017] 4 All SA 726 (SCA); 2018 (1) SA 200 (SCA); 2018 (1) SACR 123 (SCA) (13 October 2017)

Zuma v Democratic Alliance and Others; Acting National Director of Public Prosecutions and Another v Democratic Alliance and Another (771/2016, 1170/2016) [2017] ZASCA 146; [2017] 4 All SA 726 (SCA); 2018 (1) SA 200 (SCA); 2018 (1) SACR 123 (SCA) (13 October 2017)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the decision by the Acting National Director of Public Prosecutions (ANDPP) to discontinue the prosecution of Mr Zuma was irrational and unlawful. The ANDPP wrongly invoked section 179(5)(d) of the Constitution, which does not empower the NDPP to review his own decisions. The reasons advanced for discontinuation, namely alleged abuse of process by Mr McCarthy in manipulating the timing of the indictment, were based on conjecture and did not affect the merits or integrity of the prosecution. The exclusion of the prosecution team from final deliberations was deliberate and irrational. The NDPP's stated purpose of preserving the integrity of the NPA was...

Citation
[2017] ZASCA 146
Parties
Appellant: Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma; Respondent: Democratic Alliance; Appellant: Acting National Director of Public Prosecutions; Appellant: Head of the Directorate of Special Operations
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 October 2017
Case Number
771/2016, 1170/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court of Appeal Judgment on Consolidated Applications for Leave to Appeal and Merits
Outcome
Appeals dismissed with costs; decision to discontinue prosecution set aside; original decision to prosecute Mr Zuma revived.
Judges
Navsa, Cachalia, Bosielo, Leach, Tshiqi
Legal Topics
Prosecutorial Discretion, Rationality Review, Abuse of Process, Review of Administrative Action, Separation of Powers, Permanent Stay of Prosecution
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Administrative Law Prosecutorial Discretion Rationality Review Abuse of Process Review of Administrative Action Separation of Powers +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma

Appellant

Democratic Alliance

Respondent

Acting National Director of Public Prosecutions

Appellant

Head of the Directorate of Special Operations

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court of Appeal Judgment on Consolidated Applications for Leave to Appeal and Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the decision by the Acting National Director of Public Prosecutions to discontinue the prosecution of Mr Zuma was rational and lawful.
  2. 2 Whether the invocation and reliance on section 179(5)(d) of the Constitution was legally permissible.
  3. 3 Whether the alleged abuse of process by Mr McCarthy justified discontinuation of prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the decision by the Acting National Director of Public Prosecutions (ANDPP) to discontinue the prosecution of Mr Zuma was irrational and unlawful. The ANDPP wrongly invoked section 179(5)(d) of the Constitution, which does not empower the NDPP to review his own decisions. The reasons advanced for discontinuation, namely alleged abuse of process by Mr McCarthy in manipulating the timing of the indictment, were based on conjecture and did not affect the merits or integrity of the prosecution. The exclusion of the prosecution team from final deliberations was deliberate and irrational. The NDPP's stated purpose of preserving the integrity of the NPA was...

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed with costs; decision to discontinue prosecution set aside; original decision to prosecute Mr Zuma revived.

Orders

  • Applications for leave to appeal are granted.
  • The appeals are dismissed with costs, including the costs of three counsel and costs related to the applications for leave to appeal.