Scribd
Upload
139 views5 pages

ZA Practice Note

This document is a practice note submitted by the Second, Third and Fifth Respondents in the matter between the Helen Suzman Foundation and Freedom Under Law NPC (Applicants) and the President of South Africa and others (Respondents). The Applicants are seeking an urgent order directing the President to institute an inquiry and suspend the Respondents. The Respondents oppose the application on grounds that the matter is not urgent and premature as a decision has yet to be made. The Respondents also argue that the orders sought would violate the separation of powers and that there is no objective basis to take action against the Respondents. The duration of the case is estimated to be 1-2 days depending on

Uploaded by

Brendon Bradford
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
139 views5 pages

ZA Practice Note

This document is a practice note submitted by the Second, Third and Fifth Respondents in the matter between the Helen Suzman Foundation and Freedom Under Law NPC (Applicants) and the President of South Africa and others (Respondents). The Applicants are seeking an urgent order directing the President to institute an inquiry and suspend the Respondents. The Respondents oppose the application on grounds that the matter is not urgent and premature as a decision has yet to be made. The Respondents also argue that the orders sought would violate the separation of powers and that there is no objective basis to take action against the Respondents. The duration of the case is estimated to be 1-2 days depending on

Uploaded by

Brendon Bradford
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

CASE NO: 87643/16

In the matter between:

HELEN SUZMAN FOUNDATION First Applicant

FREEDOM UNDER LAW NPC Second Applicant

and

THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC


OF SOUTH AFRICA First Respondent

SHAUN ABRAHAMS Second Respondent

DR JP PRETORIUS SC Third Respondent

SIBONGILE MZINYATHI Fourth Respondent

THE NATIONAL PROSECUTING AUTHORITY Fifth Respondent

____________________________________________________________________

SECOND, THIRD AND FIFTH RESPONDENTS’ PRACTICE NOTE

____________________________________________________________________

1. ON ROLL : 24 November 2016


2. COUNSEL APPEARING

For the Applicants : D N Unterhalter SC


(011) 263 9000
082 569 2987

M du Plessis
(031) 304 5512
084 512 7406

For the 1st Respondent : I Semenya SC


(011) 223 8000
082 466 5135

A Platt SC
(011) 223 8000
082 579 7034

For the 2nd, 3rd & 5th


Respondents : H Epstein SC
(011) 535 1800
083 600 0220

K Tsatsawane
(011) 535 0800
083 326 2711

T Govender
(011) 535 1800
082 5068506

For the 4th Respondent : D Ntsebeza SC


(011) 676 2600
082 467 2490

S Mapoma
083 452 8418
3. NATURE OF APPLICATION AND ISSUES

3.1 Heads of Argument are filed together with this Practice Note.

3.2 The Applicants apply by way of urgency to review a decision of the 1st

Respondent not to institute an enquiry and suspend the 2nd, 3rd and 4th

Respondents (“the Respondents”) under section 12(6)(a) of the National

Prosecuting Authority Act (32 of 1998). The Applicants also seek orders

directing the 1st Respondent to institute an enquiry and suspend the

Respondents.

3.3 The Respondents oppose the application on inter alia the following bases:

3.3.1 The matter is not urgent;

3.3.2 The application is premature, not ripe for hearing, because the

decision has yet to be made;

3.3.3 The Applicants argument that the decision has been made by virtue

of the failure of the President to made the decision is meritless;

3.3.4 Because Respondents are entitled to be heard by the President

before he takes the decision;


3.3.5 The Orders violate the principle of separation of powers;

3.3.6 There is no objective basis for the President to take steps against

the Respondents;

3.3.7 Even to the extent that the Court finds that the President’s decision

(if made) to be rationale, the Court should not substitute his

decision, in as much as to do so would violate the principle of

separation of powers;

3.3.8 The Respondents contend that the Applicants should pay the costs

of this application.

4. READING OF PAPERS

The Respondents submit that it is necessary to read all the affidavits.

5. URGENCY

The application has been brought by way of urgency. The Respondents oppose

the urgency.
6. DURATION

1-2 days depending on the Courts’ determination as to urgency and ripeness.

_______________

Hilton Epstein SC
Kennedy Tsatsawane
Teneille Govender

Counsel for the 2nd, 3rd and 5th Respondents

Maisels Chambers
21 November 2016

You might also like