The Gauteng High Court sent social media into a raucous on Wednesday when it ruled that the controversial medical parole of former president Jacob Zuma was an abuse of power and grossly unlawful.
Jacob Zuma medical parole set aside, he must go back to jail
Zuma’s days as a parolee were cut short when the court determined that Corrections national commissioner Arthur Fraser acted outside of authority when, on 5 September 2021, he overruled the parole board’s decision and released the former president from Estcourt prison.
“The decision of the first respondent (Arthur Fraser) to place the third respondent (Jacob Zuma) on medical parole, taken on September 5 2021, is reviewed, declared unlawful, and set aside,” the court ruled.
At the time, Fraser had admitted to acting above his pay-grade, claiming that a prison cell was no place for a man as sickly as Zuma. Interestingly, however, the former president, during his parole, was spotted numerous times, either at public rallies, or at meetings held at Sibaya Casino in Durban.
These sightings whole contradicted claims made by the former president’s legal team that he was in a critical medical state.
The Gauteng High Court concurred with the applicants, including the Helen Suzman Foundation, AfriForum and the Democratic Alliance (DA), and ordered Zuma be sent back to prison to complete his 15-month term for contempt.
“It is hereby directed that the third respondent be returned to the custody of the department of correctional services to serve out the remainder of his sentence of imprisonment,” the court ruled.
Not only will the legal costs of the court bid be indebted to Zuma and Fraser, but the period of his unlawful medical parole will not be stricken off his 15-month bid.
Zuma had been in prison for two months before he was released. This means that once back in the orange overalls, he will commence his prison bid with 13 months left to do.
“It is declared that the time the third respondent was out of jail on medical parole should not be counted for the fulfilment of the third respondent’s sentence of 15 months imposed by the Constitutional Court,” the court determined.