Publications
Partners
- AfriForum has launched a two-part application to fight the decision to grant former president Jacob Zuma medical parole.
- AfriForum wants an order forcing National Commissioner of Correctional Services Arthur Fraser to disclose information relating to the medical parole.
- It also wants the decision to grant Zuma medical parole to be reviewed and set aside.
AfriForum has approached the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria with an urgent two-part application to force National Commissioner of Correctional Services Arthur Fraser to disclose his reasons for granting former president Jacob Zuma medical parole and to have that decision set aside.
The lobby group filed the application on Wednesday after Fraser did not respond to a legal letter requesting Zuma's medical report and the reasons relied on to grant him medical parole.
Earlier this month, the Department of Correctional Services announced that Zuma had secured medical parole after serving a fraction of his 15-month sentence at the Estcourt Correctional Centre in KwaZulu-Natal. He was jailed for contempt of court after refusing to appear before the State Capture Inquiry.
Last week, during an interview with SABC, Fraser revealed that he had decided to release Zuma on medical parole even though the Medical Parole Advisory Board had not approved his release.
Part A
In part A of the urgent application, AfriForum wants a court order forcing Fraser to disclose certain information relating to his decision to grant Zuma medical parole.
AfriForum contended that Fraser did not respond to their lawyer's letters demanding the following information:
- whether Zuma suffers from a terminal illness that justifies medical parole;
- if not diagnosed with a terminal illness, particulars of the injury, disease or illness that severely limits Zuma's daily activity and self-care to the extent that medical parole is justified;
- how Fraser concluded that Zuma was a low risk for reoffending;
- a copy of the application for medical parole; and
- a copy of the medical report justifying Zuma's placement on medical parole.
AfriForum argued that while Fraser had said he would disclose his reasons for the medical parole to Parliament, a public official was not at liberty to elect which forum he chose to be accountable to.
"Our correspondence addressed to the first respondent (Fraser) was clear regarding our intentions to exercise our remedies for judicial review," AfriForum's head of policy Ernst Roets said in the court papers.
READ | Zuma's medical parole: Court applications mount
"The first respondent is duty-bound to respond to requests for reasons or information in an appropriate way, but refused to do so."
AfriForum said Fraser could rely on the argument of confidentiality, but it had a right, as the applicant, to request and receive the documents for the sake of transparency and open and accountable public administration.
Part B
In the second part of AfriForum's application, they seek to have the decision to place Zuma on medical parole reviewed and set aside.
AfriForum argued that Fraser's powers to grant medical parole were subject to procedural constraints envisioned in the Correctional Services Act and regulations.
As such, Fraser was precluded from granting medical parole if the Medical Advisory Parole Board had not made a positive recommendation.
READ | Zuma's medical parole: Did Arthur Fraser have the right to override the board? We ask the experts
AfriForum said the legislation does not entitle the national commissioner to override the report and recommendation of the advisory parole board.
If Fraser did not override the report by the board, then he ignored the recommendation, which made his actions irrational and unreasonable, AfriForum argued.
"Where the second respondent (Medical Advisory Parole Board) concluded that the third respondent (Zuma) is not sufficiently ill to warrant the granting of medical parole, the logical deduction is that the first respondent (Fraser) granted medical parole for a reason not authorised by the empowering provision or for an ulterior purpose or motive in terms of section 6 of PAJA (Promotion of Administrative Justice Act)," the organisation said.
AfriForum said because the decision to grant medical parole constituted an administrative action, the grounds for a review in terms of PAJA was applicable.
News24 previously reported that both the DA and Helen Suzman Foundation had launched similar urgent applications to have the decision reviewed and set aside.
We want to hear your views on the news. Subscribe to News24 to be part of the conversation in the comments section of this article.
