The medical parole granted to South Africa’s former president Jacob Zuma by his friend and former prison boss Arthur Fraser, with only two months served of his 15-month prison sentence last year, “was unlawful,” the Supreme Court of Appeal has ruled.
In a unanimous decision on Monday, the court ordered his return to prison to continue with serving his sentence.
Judge Tati Makgoka said the effect of its order that Zuma had unlawfully been granted medical parole was that “Mr Zuma, in law, has not finished serving his sentence.”
“He must return to the Estcourt Correctional Centre to do so,” the judge said.
He noted that whether the time spent by Zuma “on unlawfully granted medical parole should be taken into account in determining the remaining period of his incarceration, is not a matter for this court to decide.”
“It is a matter to be considered by the commissioner. If he is empowered by law to do so, the commissioner might take that period into account in determining any application or grounds for release,” Makgoka said.
Zuma was granted medical parole without the approval of the Medical Parole Board after he was hospitalised days after he handed himself in after the Constitutional Court found him guilty for contempt of court and was to serve 15 months in prison.
The Gauteng High Court in Pretoria reviewed and set aside Zuma’s initial successful application for parole in December 2021.
Sending Zuma back to jail served no “rehabilitation purpose”, the second opposition Economic Freedom Fighters of Julius Malema weighed in on Tuesday.
Reacting to a Supreme Court ruling regarding the medical parole granted to Zuma, the EFF flagged it as “irrational, unconstitutional and invalid.”
The main opposition Democratic Alliance (DA) and other parties took the matter to the Pretoria High Court which ruled that Zuma must return to jail – a decision the former president appealed at the SCA where he has since lost.
The DA is adamant that the former president is not above the law and should return to prison.
Zuma is expected to approach the highest court in the land to appeal once again – a move criminal law expert Ulrich Roux believed had “a slim to none” chance of success.
NM/jn/APA