Zuma failed to show why contempt order was granted in error - ConCourt
A majority judgment of the apex court found that Jacob Zuma did not meet the requirements for his sentence for contempt of court to be rescinded.
JOHANNESBURG - The Constitutional Court said that former President Jacob Zuma has failed to demonstrate why the contempt order against him was granted in error.
A majority judgment of the apex court found that Zuma did not meet the requirements for his sentence for contempt of court to be rescinded.
In June, the court sentenced the former president to 15 months in prison after he repeatedly ignored an order forcing him to appear and answer questions at the state capture commission of inquiry.
In a strong judgment referencing "skullduggery" and Zuma's "creative use of the law", Constitutional Court Justice Sisi Khampepe laid out the final decision.
"It would fly in the face of the interest of justice for a party to be allowed to willfully refuse to participate in litigation and then expect the opportunity to reopen the case when it suits them. It is simply not in the interest of justice to tolerate this manner of litigious vaccilation."
Khampepe read out the dissenting judgment by Justice Leana Theron and Justice Chris Japhta.
The pair found that Zuma's imprisonment should be dismissed as correct procedures were not followed because Zuma did not have the right to appeal.
“Since here there was no trial, the second judgment concludes that the detention was invalid as it was inconsistent with Section 12 (1b) of the Constitution unless it constituted a reasonable and justifiable limitation."
WATCH: 'Litigious skullduggery': Zuma’s bid for rescission dismissed with costs