WATCH: Zuma application to set aside State Capture report dismissed with costs


The North Gauteng High court will rule on whether President Jacob Zuma must pay for his failedstatecapture interdict from his own pocket.




Editor&39;s note: This live event has ended. You may watch a recording above.

JOHANNESBURG - President Zuma&39;s application for an order reviewing and setting aside the Public Protector&39;s State Capture Report and her finding that a judicial commission of inquiry be instituted into State Capture, under a judge nominated by the Chief Justice, was heard in the North Gauteng High Court on Wednesday.

The court will have to decide whether the president is able to retain control of how a commission of inquiry into state capture is instituted.

Then Public Protector Thuli Madonsela ordered that this control be taken away from Zuma, as he was deeply implicated in state capture himself – and therefore too conflicted.

In proceeding with his judgment, Justice Mlambo noted that the decision was unanimous.



He began by summarising the history of allegations of state capture that had led to then public protector Thuli Madonsela&39;s State of Capture report.

Mlambo then outlined the investigation into President Zuma&39;s alleged violation of the Executive Members Ethics Act in his relationship with the Guptas - essentially, whether he&39;d served the family&39;s interests in his actions or decisions to favour the family, enrich himself, them.





Justice Mlambo pointed out that the public protector ws there to defend the country from corrupt actions.



He said that the executive powers granted the public protector were of the widest ambit and included the power to take appropriate action when remedial action was required.


Last week, this same court – ruling that Zuma’s appointment of prosecutions head Shaun Abrahams was unlawful – had some scathing words about the president’s apparent legal strategy.

“There is the broader pattern of the president’s conduct in litigation of defending what turns out, on the president’s version, to have been the indefensible all along", said Judge President Dustan Mlambo.



Mlambo and his fellow judges removed Zuma’s constitutional power to appoint Abrahams’ replacement away from him on the basis that the looming prospect that he would face corruption charges had left him too conflicted to act.

That ruling was met with outrage from certain quarters of the ANC, with Minister Bathabile Dlamini suggesting the judges had been told what to write.



If this court finds that Zuma is too conflicted to control the terms of the state capture inquiry, this pushback may only intensify.

Zuma Judgment 13 December 2017 by on Scribd