South Africa’s ex-president should be jailed, argues lawyer

Legal Business

Lawyers for a commission investigating corruption in South Africa have asked the country’s highest court to jail former president Jacob Zuma for two years for failing to cooperate with its probe.

The commission of inquiry into high-level graft, chaired by Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo, is probing wide-ranging allegations of corruption during Zuma’s tenure as head of state from 2009 to 2018.

Zuma, who has been implicated by several witnesses, has refused to testify and has accused Zondo of bias. Zuma has publicly said he will not appear before the commission despite an order for him to do so by the country’s highest court. He said he is prepared to go to jail over the matter, in an outspoken statement issued publicly.

For this contempt of court, Zuma should be convicted and sentenced to two years in prison, Tembeka Nqcukaitobi, a lawyer for the commission, argued Thursday at the Constitutional Court.

Any lesser penalty for Zuma would minimize the seriousness of his defiance of the country’s apex court and would encourage others to do the same, said the lawyer. As a former head of state, Zuma has a duty to abide by the constitution, said Nqcukaitobi.

The judges of the constitutional court said they will deliberate on the matter and deliver a decision, but they did not specify when.

Among allegations against Zuma are claims that he allowed members of the Gupta family to influence his cabinet appointments and the awarding of lucrative state contracts to their businesses. Members of the Gupta family have since fled the country to Dubai and have not agreed to appear before the commission. Zuma is already facing corruption charges in a separate matter.

Zuma’s open defiance of the commission has created a political problem for President Cyril Ramaphosa who is under pressure to take tough action against corruption.

But the ruling party, the African National Congress, is divided over how to respond to the widespread allegations of corruption. Zuma retains support from about half of the party including several influential members who are opposed to Ramaphosa. They don’t want to see firm action against Zuma or other party members accused of corruption.

About 20 of Zuma’s supporters braved rain in Johannesburg on Thursday to demonstrate in front of the Constitutional Court to show their unwavering support for him. More than 30 others demonstrated against Zuma, urging the court to take strong measures against corruption.  This week, the commission announced that Ramaphosa will testify in April.

Related listings

  • Courts finds suspect in neo-Nazi trial guilty of 10 killings

    Courts finds suspect in neo-Nazi trial guilty of 10 killings

    Legal Business 07/09/2018

    A German court on Wednesday found the main defendant in a high-profile neo-Nazi trial guilty over the killing of 10 people - most of them migrants - who were gunned down between 2000 and 2007 in a case that shocked Germany and prompted accusations of...

  • Supreme Court addresses question of foreign law in US courts

    Supreme Court addresses question of foreign law in US courts

    Legal Business 06/16/2018

    The Supreme Court says United States federal courts should consider statements from foreign governments about their own laws but do not have to consider them as binding.Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for a unanimous court that federal courts shoul...

  •  Arkansas officials ask court to keep voter ID law in place

    Arkansas officials ask court to keep voter ID law in place

    Legal Business 04/26/2018

    Arkansas officials asked the state's highest court on Monday to allow them to enforce a voter ID law in the May 22 primary despite a judge blocking the measure and calling it unconstitutional.Secretary of State Mark Martin asked the Arkansas Supreme ...

Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC

A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party

Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party

However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.