The Constitutional Court on Wednesday is hearing argument on whether or not the appointment of National Prosecuting Authority boss Shaun Abrahams was unconstitutional.
Abrahams is challenging the judgment relating to the golden handshake that was awarded to former NPA head Mxolisi Nxasana. A full bench set aside Nxasana's settlement and ordered him to pay back the over R10 million he received as part of his exit package. t the same time, it found Abrahams' appointment was invalid.
EWN reporter Barry Bateman explains that the Nxasana and Abraham's case are closely intertwined.
He says the argument presented in court is that if the settlement awarded to Nxasana was unlawful and set aside by the courts, it subsequently created a situation where there was no vacancy to fill, which means Abrahams appointment had also been unlawful.
The big part of the argument has come from Freedom Under Law which relates to the question of the settlement of Nxasana and the impact this had on the appointment of Shaun Abrahams.— Barry Bateman, EWN reporter
Bateman says that there was no evidence of Nxasana submitting a request to the President to resign, which the president should in turn accept.
Instead, correspondence revealed that it was President Zuma who used tactics to try to get Nxasana to leave office.
There was a commission of inquiry into Nxasana's fitness to hold office, when that failed he came up with negotiations around settlement amounts that he is going to leave.— Barry Bateman, EWN reporter
In summing up the argument... Zuma abused his power to get rid of one NDPP and replace him with another. They say by so doing he violated the constitutional requirement of prosecutorial independence enshrined in the Constitution and the National Prosecuting Act.— Barry Bateman, EWN reporter
He unlawfully used public money to have his way and he did this all for his personal benefit and in order to minimise his risk of prosecution.— Barry Bateman, EWN reporter
To hear the rest of the report by Barry Bateman, listen below: