Advertisement Scroll To Keep Reading
South Africa

What happened to Jacob Zuma’s ‘urgent’ ConCourt rescission? | Muhabarishaji News

Advertisement Scroll To Keep Reading

Despite securing his release from prison on medical parole, Jacob Zuma and his legal team are still seeking a swift resolution from a case that seems to have run cold. The ‘urgent rescission’ bid launched by the former president shortly after his arrest was meant to pass swiftly through ConCourt – but the issue has dragged.

Advertisement Scroll To Keep Reading

What is happening with ConCourt’s rescission case?

It has been 64 days since the application was first heard in court. Msholozi’s lawyers argued that ConCourt ‘must rescind’ the verdict which infamously put Jacob Zuma behind bars, over two months ago. They relied heavily on snippets from the minority judgment handed down by the bench, which argued jail was ‘too strict a punishment’ for JZ.

Indeed, the JGZ Foundation still feels like they’ve been hard done to. Releasing a statement on Tuesday morning, they lamented the delay in the rescission case, claiming that ‘justice had been denied’. They have pressed ConCourt to deal with the matter on an urgent basis – as promised back in July:

“Justice delayed is justice denied. Former President Jacob Zuma’s Rescission Application was heard on Monday 12 July 2021. The hearing was on an urgent basis, following directions that had very short timelines. Today, 64 days later, it’s Tuesday 14 September 2021 and counting, where we are still awaiting the outcome.”

Why did Jacob Zuma go to jail?

Zuma landed himself in a world of trouble after he repeatedly skipped and evaded sessions of the State Capture Inquiry. According to the Commissions Act, any individual summoned to appear at a public inquiry must avail themselves, or they could face up to two years in prison. Sure enough, uBaba was sentenced to a 15-month stretch.

Those around Jacob Zuma often claim he was ‘denied an opportunity’ to argue against his imprisonment. But the fact of the matter is that the 79-year-old frequently dodged hearings and court sessions that would have allowed him to air his grievances. The time for bickering in the dock had long passed before ConCourt’s ruling.

Advertisement Scroll To Keep Reading

Related Articles

Back to top button

AdBlock Detected

If you enjoy our content, Please support our site by disabling your adblocker. We depend on ad revenue to keep creating quality content for you to enjoy for free.