Zuma files application to appeal court’s decision on Cabinet reshuffle

2017-05-10 20:44
President Jacob Zuma. (Phill Magakoe, AFP)

President Jacob Zuma. (Phill Magakoe, AFP)

Multimedia   ·   User Galleries   ·   News in Pictures Send us your pictures  ·  Send us your stories

Cape Town - President Jacob Zuma has filed an application for leave to appeal the decision of the North Gauteng High Court, ordering him to submit the record and reasons of the decision to reshuffle Cabinet on 31 March.

Judge Bashier Vally made the ruling in Pretoria on Thursday, after listening to arguments.

The Presidency said the grounds of its appeal were based on the following:
 
- The High Court erred in finding that Rule 53 must be read to include executive decisions, even though nothing in the language of Rule 53 suggests that it should be interpreted to include executive decisions. Such an approach violates the separation of powers;
 
- Whereas the court held in paragraph 21 that rule 53 has not been amended to cater for the record in respect of executive decisions, the Court erred in holding that a purposive interpretation will, nevertheless bring executive decisions under rule 53;
 
- In so far as rule 53 does not cover executive decisions, there are processes for the making and amending of the rules of Court. The High Court erred to mero moto amend rule 53 to include the review of executive decisions, alternatively, executive decisions of the nature of the impugned decision.
 
- The High Court ought to have found that decisions of the nature of the impugned decision, do not fall within the ambit of rule 53 at all. It is not sufficient to end the enquiry at whether or not rationality applies. The nature of the executive decision and the remedy sought are important to consider.
 
- The court ought to have found that not considering the nature of the executive decision in determining whether or not to furnish the record, would lead to a violation of the separation of powers doctrine, which is part of our constitutional scheme.
 
- The court erred in not considering whether the remedy sought in the review can ever be obtained.
 
- The court erred in holding once it is found that an executive decision should be rational, it follows that rule 53 applies. The authorities do not make this claim at all.
 
- The High Court ought to have found that nothing in the language of rule 53 suggests that executive decisions should be included in its application.
 
- The High Court erred in holding that it was relevant for the first respondent to state whether or not the record was available. This question is irrelevant in determining the principle.
 
- The High Court erred in holding that the letter of 11 April 2017 gives the impression that the record would be furnished. No such undertaking is made. Instead, the State attorney requests that he ought to take proper instructions in order to reply to the request. Nothing suggests that the State Attorney’s undertaking to revert, is an undertaking to furnish the record. It does not follow.
 
- The High Court ought to have found that the executive decision in question is the exercise of a constitutional power, and is a decision of the nature that does not call for the production of the record and reasons in terms of rule 53. Alternatively, it ought to have found that the statement of 31 March 2017 from the Presidency is sufficient to meet the test of rationality and therefore no further record was required.
 
- The High Court ought to have found that the expansive reading of rule 53, failure to consider the nature of the executive decision and remedy, would lead to the violation of the separation of powers doctrine.

Spokesperson Dr Bongani Ngqulunga said Zuma is arguing that the court ought to have found that the applicant is not entitled to the record by reason of the nature of the executive decision and that the rule does not cover it. 
 
The Presidency further contends that there is a reasonable prospect that another Court will come to a different decision from that of the High Court and that the matter is one of considerable importance to the parties and the country.

Also read: Now Zuma lawyers want DA to produce 'intelligence report'


Read more on:    jacob zuma  |  politics

Join the conversation!

24.com encourages commentary submitted via MyNews24. Contributions of 200 words or more will be considered for publication.

We reserve editorial discretion to decide what will be published.
Read our comments policy for guidelines on contributions.
NEXT ON NEWS24X

Inside News24

 
Watch: Investing in the future through child development

An investment of R32-million into 11 early childhood development centres is changing the future for children in the Northern Cape.

/Africa
Traffic Alerts
There are new stories on the homepage. Click here to see them.
 
English
Afrikaans
isiZulu

Hello 

Create Profile

Creating your profile will enable you to submit photos and stories to get published on News24.


Please provide a username for your profile page:

This username must be unique, cannot be edited and will be used in the URL to your profile page across the entire 24.com network.

Settings

Location Settings

News24 allows you to edit the display of certain components based on a location. If you wish to personalise the page based on your preferences, please select a location for each component and click "Submit" in order for the changes to take affect.




Facebook Sign-In

Hi News addict,

Join the News24 Community to be involved in breaking the news.

Log in with Facebook to comment and personalise news, weather and listings.