Jacob Zuma'S DAUGHTER

Photo via Twitter: @DZumaSambudla

‘You cannot butcher the law’: Judge slams Zuma, daughter ‘blames whites’

Jacob Zuma’s attempts to overturn his conviction were shot down in flames by ConCourt on Friday – and uBaba was lambasted to high heaven.

Jacob Zuma'S DAUGHTER

Photo via Twitter: @DZumaSambudla

ConCourt has once again stood firm in the face of pressure from Jacob Zuma’s legal team, after they rejected his rescission application on Friday morning. The highest legal authority in SA blasted Msholozi for ‘litigious skulduggery’.

Reaction to ConCourt: Jacob Zuma’s daughter vents anger

It’s not entirely clear what this verdict means for Jacob Zuma, other than the fact it will do nothing to quash his conviction. The 79-year-old was sentenced to 15 months behind bars in June, but he’s already secured himself ‘medical parole’.

Duduzile Zuma-Sambdula, an alleged riot instigator and the social media-savvy daughter of the former president, believes that there is a racial conspiracy to prosecute uBaba. Of course she does… here’s what she posted moments ago:

Justice Khampepe didn’t hold back in her assessment of Jacob Zuma’s rescission appeal either. She slammed the ex-head of state for ‘butchering the judicial process’, and called him out for ‘trying to play the absent victim’.

As it turns out, ConCourt isn’t the best institution to try and play games with…

“The majority emphatically reject any suggestion that litigants can be allowed to butcher of their own will judicial process which in all respects has been carried out with the utmost degree of regularity only to later plead the absent victim,”

“This is a relatively straightforward matter – Zuma is seeking to reopen the merits of the contempt proceedings which have been disposed of already. It is contrary to interest of justice to call that matter to life.”

“Elected absence like that of Mr. Zuma constitutes litigious skulduggery, which does not have the effect of turning a competently granted order into one erroneously granted. Zuma has not met the statutory requirements of a rescission.”

Tags: