Lawyers Coin It in Court Battle
President Cyril Ramaphosa is seeking an urgent application at the High Court for an interdict to stop former president Jacob Zuma, the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and the court concerned from giving effect to the private prosecution certificate issued on November 21 last year.
Ramaphosa also asks the court to declare the certificate and summons issued unlawful, unconstitutional and to be set aside. The quality of his legal team is reflected in how they ask the court to order Jacob Zuma or his legal representatives to pay the application on an attorney and own-client scale.
This means if Ramaphosa's lawyers are successful, they have to be reimbursed for bringing the application in terms of an agreement or mandate by Zuma or his lawyers.
It is when lawyers prepare their opponent for the risk in litigating that they ask for this, as it is expected that an attorney's duty to advise his client and to perform professional work is of such a reasonable quality to avert the risk timeously.
However, in this case, Zuma's legal team decided to take the risk by opposing the application and filing an answering affidavit. It is either the quality of his legal team's advice was questionable or Zuma was resolute in his mandate because it was unnecessary to bring the president into this private prosecution that I wonder what is being deposed to in the answering affidavit about the crime.
One can only surmise that Zuma has frivolous intentions to deprive the president of South Africa a second term.
No comments:
Post a Comment