Political parties argue case at state capture interdict hearing

The president is expected to ask that the matter be postponed to allow him more time to read through additional affidavits.

President Jacob Zuma announcing his cabinet at Union Buildings in Pretoria. Picture: EWN

PRETORIA - The High Court in Pretoria is hearing submissions from various political parties to establish who is part of the application by President Jacob Zuma to interdict the release of the state capture report.

The president is expected to ask that the matter be postponed to allow him more time to read through additional affidavits submitted by people opposing his application.

The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), Congress of the People (Cope), Democratic Alliance (DA) and United Democratic Movement (UDM) have been joined by former African National Congress MP Vytjie Mentor in opposing the matter, while minister Des van Rooyen and Mosebenzi Zwane have joined to support Zuma.

About 150 EFF supporters have gathered outside the court to demand the release of the report.

Judge President Dunstan Mlambo reminded the court that the main applicant in this matter is President Zuma, but the judge wanted to establish who the other parties were, to determine their interest in the matter.

The DA has argued that its role and rights in this case should not be questioned because it was the party which brought the complaint to the Public Protector which led to the investigation.

The EFF has argued that the report is of national importance because it involves the highest office in the country and the public has a right to know what’s contained in it.

The UDM argued that Zuma wants to prevent the release of the report because it could be used to impeach him.

WATCH LIVE: State capture interdict hearing

However, the president’s legal team has told the court that the opposition parties do not have a direct and substantial interest in the matter. Advocate Anthea Platt has argued that Zuma has procedural rights, which do not attach to anyone else. She says that on these grounds, the intervening parties have no direct interest in the matter and should not be permitted to oppose the application.

(Edited by Shimoney Regter)