[ad_1]
Former President Jacob Zuma. Image: Felix Dlangamandla / Netwerk24
NEWS
The Council for the Progress of the Constitution of the SA (Casac) has asked the Constitutional Court to join as “friend of the court” in the request of the Zondo commission to order former president Jacob Zuma to comply with a new summons to appear and testify in advance . next year.
Casac intends to argue in favor of the commission’s position that Zuma should respond to any questions put to him by the trial leader and the president, Supreme Court Vice President Raymond Zondo, “subject to the privilege of not self-incriminating, and it cannot be based on the right to remain silent. “
Having seen how hostile a witness can be, during the testimony of former SAA president Dudu Myeni last month, Casac, through his executive secretary, Lawson Naidoo, submitted the urgent request on Friday.
In its request, the civil society organization argues that the country’s highest court should rule that witnesses before the commission are legally bound to answer questions as established in the commission’s terms of reference.
Naidoo refers to section 3 (4) of the Commissions Law of 1947 (Law No. 8 of 1947) which states: “A self-incriminating response or a statement given by a witness before the commission will not be admissible as evidence against that person in any criminal proceeding initiated against that person in any court … “
It maintains that “the privilege of not self-incrimination or the right to remain silent cannot, therefore, be understood in the sense that a witness may refuse to answer a question that is asked during the commission,” since they are duly protected by the commission’s own rules. and regulations.
READ: Trump and Zuma selling their souls to the devil
Urges the court to oblige the witnesses before the commission to remember that they are “legally bound to answer all questions put to them and that the privilege of not self-incrimination or the right to remain silent cannot be understood to mean that a witness may refuse to answer. ” a question that was asked during the commission ”.
“The regulations and norms that govern the commission protect the rights of the people who can be accused. Their testimony before the commission, where they are obliged to respond fully and satisfactorily to all the questions posed to them, is inadmissible against them in any subsequent criminal proceeding. [other than for perjury or failing to fully and satisfactorily answer a question].
“This ensures that the fact-finding function of an investigation commission is fulfilled, without damaging the rights of any person in future criminal proceedings,” argues Naidoo.
Casac filed the lawsuit in terms of rule 10 (4) of the 2003 Constitutional Court Regulations that allows any person interested in any matter before a court to request the written consent of the parties to the matter, who in this case are the secretary of the Zuma commission, to be admitted as a “friend of the court.”
The secretary has already approached the court to force Zuma to appear before the commission after the former president withdrew from the process without Zondo’s permission.
READ: The ANC’s mishandling of the step aside policy is likely to plunge the country into a kakistocracy
Naidoo argues that Casac’s “friend of the court” request should be granted, as the commission’s secretariat has already given its consent.
“Before submitting this request, our attorneys sent correspondence to the parties on December 15, in which they requested their written consent for the admission of Casac as amicus curiae[amástardalas11aMDel17December17″[bynolaterthan11amonDecember17)”[amástardaralas11aMDel17dediciembre”[bynolaterthan11amonDecember17)”
They had received the consent by telephone on December 15.
“The attorneys for the defendant, Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma, did not respond to the aforementioned correspondence from our attorneys,” he said, adding that his lack of response was not unexpected as Zuma’s legal team had already written to the court stating that his client he was unwilling to participate in the commission’s proceedings.
Naidoo said that as a result of this, the court should grant his organization’s request.
|
||||||
 |
