After the axing of former finance minister Pravin Gordhan, The Democratic Alliance (DA) approached the High Court in Pretoria to ask President Jacob Zuma's to reveal his decision of firing Gordhan as well as produce the alleged intelligence report he reportedly relied upon to make his decision.
On Tuesday, Judge Bashir Vally handed down his reasons for ruling that President Zuma must provide his reasons for firing Gordhan. Judge Vally explained that the DA used rule 53 to show that the President's decision can be reviewed.
The Presidency has now filed an appeal against Judge Vally's order.
EWN reporter, Gia Nicolaides, says the President is arguing that there is a reasonable prospect that another court will arrive at a different decision.
Zuma's lawyers have gone to great lengths to question to question Judge Vally's interpretation of Rule 53.— Gia Nicolaides, EWN reporter
Nicolaides explains that rule 53 expects boards, offices and tribunals to give reasons and records for a decision when that decision is taken to court on review. Nicolaides adds that the rule does not mention that it applies to an executive decision.
Zuma argued in court that this didn't not apply to him.— Gia Nicolaides, EWN reporter
Nicolaides adds that Judge Vally opposed President Zuma's argument, saying that the court is allowed to exercise its duty to keep checks and balances on the exercises of power by government as per rule 53.
The Presidency has now asked the DA to hand over the so-called intelligence report because the party mentioned it in its application.— Gia Nicolaides, EWN reporter
Nicolaides says President Zuma is relying on another rule, rule 35 (12)
Which says when an opponent mentions something in their application and makes reference to a document then you are entitled to ask them for a copy on that.— Gia Nicolaides, EWN reporter
Take a listen below for the full report:
This article first appeared on 702 : Judge Vally's rule 53 vs President Zuma's rule 35 (12)