Mauritian Prime Minister Navinchandra Ramgoolam has denied being asked by Jacob Zuma to ”intervene” in the African National Congress (ANC) president’s legal fracas on the Indian Ocean island.
This comes after Ramgoolam was quoted in a Financial Times interview this week as saying: ”I explained to him [Zuma] that we have an independent judiciary. We don’t intervene. The courts will have to decide.”
An ex parte court application by Zuma to stop the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) from securing original copies of 13 documents seized from the Mauritian office of French arms company Thales, was recently rejected by the Mauritian Supreme Court.
Judge Rehana Mungly-Gulbul ruled that the Mauritian Attorney General, Rama Valayden, had to be informed of Zuma’s plans in order to decide whether to oppose the application.
City Press reported two weeks ago that Zuma, while in Mauritius for the court application, met Ramgoolam and requested him to tell Valayden ”to stop ignoring his lawyer, Michael Hulley”.
Hulley replied: ”Neither Mr Zuma, nor myself, nor anyone representing him met the prime minister with a view to discussing the litigation.”
Ramgoolam has now confirmed the visit from Zuma, but denies that the ANC president asked him to intervene.
Ramgoolam issued his denial at a combined press conference with President Thabo Mbeki who was in Mauritius for the island’s celebrations of 40 years of independence.
Mbeki was also scheduled to meet Mauritian Chief Justice Govan Pillay, but the meeting was cancelled after the South African government decided it could be ”misinterpreted as interference in the justice system of that country” in light of Zuma’s application.
At a press briefing on Wednesday, Ramgoolam was asked by a South African Broadcasting Corporation reporter whether Zuma had requested him to interfere in his court application. His response was: ”No, he didn’t ask me to assist him in his case. We can’t assist him, even had he asked.
”He came to see me, to call on me when he was here in Mauritius to say, just to tell me — what he was doing, that he wanted to challenge in court and I explained to him that in Mauritius we have a very independent judiciary, that he has to go through the court system and the courts will decide; nothing more than that.”
According to Hulley, this statement is consistent with the Zuma team’s version of events.
When questioned about what prompted Ramgoolam’s comment to the Financial Times that ”we don’t intervene”, his director of communication, Dan Callikan, said that Zuma ”evoked his judicial problems” and Ramgoolam explained the Mauritian legal system to him.
”Mr Zuma spoke about his legal problems and the prime minister told him that the courts are independent and when matters are before court, the court deals with them. Our system is clear. There is a separation of powers,” Callikan said. He reiterated that Zuma did not ask for Ramgoolam’s help.
NPA spokesperson Tlali Tlali this week confirmed that Valayden was ”strongly opposed” to the applications by Zuma and Thint — Thales’s South African affiliate — to have the 13 original document quashed and that the NPA will participate in Valayden’s opposition.
”In doing so, the attorney general consults with us almost daily, as they handle all MLA [mutual legal assistance] requests between prosecuting authorities. We are grateful to them and the NPA will do the same for other countries,” he said
On Wednesday and Thursday, the Constitutional Court heard arguments by Zuma and Thint on why they should be allowed to intervene in the NPA’s attempts to bring the 13 documents to South Africa.
This comes after the Durban High Court agreed in April 2007 to issue a letter of request to Valayden, asking him to provide the documents to the NPA for their case against Zuma and Thint. The appeals of Zuma and Thint against this decision were turned down.
Zuma’s counsel Kemp J Kemp argued that the original documents would ”negate” his legal team’s ability to challenge the documents in court.