The acting national director of public prosecutions, Mokotedi Mpshe, was
trying to block from judicial scrutiny
the record which led to his decision to drop charges against President Jacob
Zuma, the Democratic Alliance (DA) said in an affidavit on Sunday.
The affidavit forms part of the DA's High Court application to have the decision
reviewed whereby the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) dropped all criminal
charges against President Jacob Zuma in April this year.
The DA is asking the court to direct Mpshe to
supply it with the record of what was before him
which led him to drop charges against Zuma.
Zuma's legal team and the national director of public prosecutions have
submitted their affidavits against the DA's application and on Friday the DA
submitted its replying affidavit. The case has been filed at the Gauteng North
High Court in Pretoria.
"If any such documents were before (Mpshe) when making his decision, or were
relied upon by him, they must be produced," the DA said in the replying
affidavit.
The DA's affidavit argued that the NPA's failure to produce these records raised
serious questions as to what they contained and whether they justified the
decision to drop the charges.
The NPA was obliged to prosecute suspected
wrongdoers.
"The prosecution of (Zuma) was and is a matter of
extraordinary importance. Vast public resources have been invested in the
investigation and preparation of the prosecution, to the point where it had
become clear that there was a formidable case against (Zuma)... Yet (Mpshe)
strives to block from judicial scrutiny a decision to discontinue a prosecution
against (Zuma) when there was a mass of evidence pointing to his guilt on
serious charges, which had been painstakingly accumulated over a period of
several years," the papers said.
At no stage had the national director of public prosecutions revoked a statement
made earlier that a prima facie case existed against Zuma.
The DA argued that the proceedings were manifestly in
the public interest.
This was not a case where the prosecution had been discontinued at the request
of the complainant, or because there was no prima facie case, or because a
witness statement was outstanding. It was a case where no representations on the
merit had been made, and where there was a powerful body of evidence in support
of a range of serious charges.
"The review application is aimed at
upholding the rule of law and
vindicating the Constitution,"
the papers said.