The Helen Suzman Foundation (HSF) has filed a lawsuit to declare that the Penitentiary Division’s decision to grant medical parole to former President Jacob Zuma is illegal and overturned.
< This is the second lawsuit in the Pretoria High Court against the National Commissioner's decision to grant Zuma parole. Prosecutors filed their motion last Friday.
HSF said they wrote to Fraser last Monday to request the minutes and the reasons for his decision to put Zuma on parole.
The Foundation said Fraser had not responded to their request by September 13, the deadline for responding.
The Foundation then filed its urgent motion in two parts in court on Tuesday.
In Part A, HSF searches for the records and the reasons for Fraser’s decision to put Zuma on medical parole. This is to facilitate the discharge requested in Part B of their application, ie the review and reversal of Fraser’s decision.
The HSF also applies for an order that replaces the decision with a decision with Zuma’s application for parole on medical grounds.
In June, the Constitutional Court sentenced Zuma to a 15-month prison term for disobeying the court for failing to comply with a previous court order to comply with a state preliminary subpoena.
Zuma was released on September 5th, 58 days after he was admitted as an inmate to the Estcourt correctional facility in KwaZulu-Natal on July 8th.
In his founding declaration, HSF- Director Francis Antonie said that in an interview with SABC last week, Fraser said he made the decision to grant Zuma parole.
In that interview, Fraser gave up ch to the medical probation council, which has the medical expert committee established according to the Prison Act med. not approved parole because it indicated Zuma was in stable condition.
According to law, Antonie said the national commissioner can only grant medical parole if the medical parole board determines that the Offender suffers from an incurable disease.
He said that even if Fraser’s decision is reviewed and overturned, the interim time Zuma is being unlawfully released on medical grounds can still count towards his prison sentence. < / p>
“If so, Mr. Zuma would have benefited from an unlawful reduction in his sentence.”
Antonie said Zuma was not entitled to an unconstitutional stay of his sentence.
< p> “There is a lack of a complete and proper accounting that justifies him being dismissed on medical grounds, the rule of law requires the embarrassing and complete enforcement of the order of the Constitutional Court.”
Antonie said Zuma had been in jail for barely more than a tenth of his sentence.
“To rub salt into the deep wounds of the judiciary, the dictates of the National Commissioner have medicine overridden l experts. “
Antonie said this is not the first time a public figure with significant public influence has benefited from a lightning-fast probation decision.
He was referring to Zuma’s former financial advisor Shabir Shaik, who was given medical parole two years after his 15-year prison sentence for corruption and fraud in 2009.