Welcome to Africanews

Please select your experience

Watch Live

News

news

SA Prosecutor heads to highest court over Zuma's 783 corruption charges

SA Prosecutor heads to highest court over Zuma's 783 corruption charges

South Africa

The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) of South Africa on Friday disclosed that it would appeal a High Court ruling ordering it to reinstate corruption charges against President Jacob Zuma.

‘‘The NPA has decided to apply for leave to appeal directly to the Constitutional Court against the judgement,’‘ it said in a statement.

The Constitutional Court is the highest court in the country. The last time Zuma’s case appeared before the ConCourt as it is often referred to, he was ordered to make refunds for non security upgrades to his private Nkandla residence.

The NPA has decided to apply for leave to appeal directly to the Constitutional Court against the judgement.

The South African treasury reported to the court that the President would have to refund monies amounting to half a million dollars for the said expenses.

“The sum that the President should personally pay corresponds to 7,814,555 rand ($500,000), the equivalent of part of the work done on his property with public money,” the National Treasury quoted in a document delivered to the Constitutional Court.

The case relating to corruption in an arms probe was brought by the opposition Democratic Alliance (DA), which insists that Zuma is culpable in the arms procurement scandal that dates back to 1999 when he was a deputy president.

A court in late April had ruled that 783 charges of corruption, fraud and racketeering which were dropped against Zuma, was ‘irrational’ and ordered that the president be made to stand trial over the case.

The NPA failed in an earlier appeal to the High Court court not to try the president. In dismissing the application, Judge Aubrey Ledwaba said the arguments raised by the NPA and Zuma were irrelevant and had no merit.

The opposition DA have said in the past that appeals by the NPA and Zuma would amount to nothing. They maintain that the president has a case to answer and must have his day in court.

View more