Former president Jacob Zuma has criticised the Constitutional Court judgment that handed him a 15-month penal advanced sentence for contempt, saying it became once “judicially emotional and not consistent with our structure”.
In an announcement launched quickly after 11.30pm on Wednesday, the Jacob G Zuma Foundation stated the outdated president believed that the majority judgment, delivered by performing chief justice Sisi Khampepe, confirmed that the country’s courts did not act independently and without bias.
The observation came after the Constitutional Court sentenced Zuma to 15 months in penal advanced after discovering him guilty of contempt of court — this after he refused to conform with the apex court’s negate in self belief to appear sooner than the train capture commission. He became once given five days to hand himself over or face arrest.
Within the observation, the foundation stated it became once talking to its fair correct advisers “on the selections on hand” to Zuma.
The muse became once excessive of the court’s majority judgment’s observation that Zuma “attacked” the Constitutional Court, saying this became once “utterly false”.
“If appropriate, it’s unconstitutional and a foremost war for the identical ‘vilified’ panel of judges, which is supposedly embroiled in a running, bitter controversy with the alleged contemnor, to preside as judges of their beget case. No-one so cruelly slandered is at probability of assign up that accrued detachment wanted for a gorgeous adjudication.
“The characterisation of our patron [Zuma] by the majority panel paints a describe of a for sure offended panel of judges,” the observation be taught.
The muse stated that the “primacy of our structure” became once not upheld in Khampepe’s majority judgment.
“Actual or perceived bias is unacceptable in our constitutional allege. Judicial authority is an integral and vital cog of our constitutional structure. [The constitution] commands that courts must characteristic without apprehension, favour or prejudice, and subject superb to the structure and the legislation. It follows that, at all times, the judicial characteristic needs to be exercised in accordance with the structure. Judges are not above the legislation.
“At a bare minimum, this implies that courts must act independently and without bias, with unremitting constancy to the legislation, and needs to be viewed to be doing so. That did not happen within the Constitutional Court, as evidenced by this judgment,” the observation be taught.
The muse became once additionally excessive of the true fact that train commission chair, deputy chief justice Raymond Zondo, had petitioned the apex court, which is what, indirectly, led to the contempt judgment.
“The theory of equality sooner than the legislation became once clearly violated, and the Zondo commission became once given a bonus in a case that became once adjudicated by DCJ Zondo’s colleagues, whom he supervises,” the observation be taught.
The observation additionally repeated Zuma’s launch criticism of the commission, saying that it became once being conducted in a biased manner and had been “remodeled accurate into a slaughterhouse and a dialogue board in which all manner of defamatory allegations had been made in opposition to” Zuma.
The muse made no allege reference to the 15-month penal advanced timeframe handed down to Zuma, nor did it train whether the outdated president would abide by the five-day timeframe to hand himself over.