DOCUMENTS

Jacob Zuma seeks clarity on SCA order

President's lawyers questions whether transcripts of tapes are part of reduced record

IN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA 

CASE NO: 19577/09 

In the matter between: 

DEMOCRATIC ALLIANCE - Applicant 

and 

THE ACTING NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS - First Respondent 

THE HEAD OF THE DIRECTORATE OF SPECIAL OPERATIONS - Second Respondent 

JACOB GEDLEYIHL.EKISA ZUMA - Third Respondent 

THIRD RESPONDENT'S NOTICE IN TERMS OF RULE 6(5)(d)(iii) 

SIRS 

1. TAKE NOTICE THAT the Third Respondent does not intend filing any affidavit in the application. 

2. The Third Respondent only intends to raise a legal argument based on the material put before this Court. The parameters hereof are set out below for the convenience and information of the parties. 

3. The only issue which the Third Respondent shall address is whether the Court Order which governs the production of the Record by the First Respondent requires the production of the materials sought in this application. 

4. This is simply a question of the interpretation of the Court Order which had been granted in the SCA. 

5. Given the factual circumstances and averments of the NPA it is clear that the material in issue do not form part of the qualified Record of Proceedings the production of which the Court Order stipulates. 

6. The terms of such Court Order are to be respected by all the parties. Full legal argument will be addressed to the Court hearing this application. The Third Respondent's contention is simply that the Court Order governs the Record process and that is what must be implemented. The Third Respondent thus has no issue with the Order described in paragraph 4.1 of the First Respondent's Answering Affidavit save that he has always recognised that to be the case. Obviously negotiations as to the production of Record material outside the ambit of the SCA Order are not governed by such Order's terms or time frames for the Record. 

7. In short, the Third Respondent's stance is that the provision of the transcripts etc. as part of the Record is governed by the Court Order covering that or not and he abides any implementation of that Court Order. 

DATED at DURBAN this 26 day of OCTOBER 2012. 

HULLEY & ASSOCIATES INC. 

Third Respondent's Attorneys 

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter