Having stretched his resistance to his incarceration to the limit on Wednesday night, former President Jacob Zuma is considering seeking to secure his release while the Constitutional Court decides on his application for a rescission of its ruling that he was guilty of contempt for defying its orders to appear before the State Capture Inquiry.

He made this plain in his replying affidavit filed in the Constitutional Court just hours after he was taken into custody in accordance with last week's Constitutional Court order.

According to a TimesLIVE report, the former President has applied to the court to reverse or ‘rescind’ its earlier order sentencing him to 15 months in prison for contempt of court.

The KZN  High Court (Pietermaritzburg) is expected to hand down judgment in a separate application, in which Zuma sought to stay the execution of his arrest, this morning.

In his replying affidavit to the Constitutional Court, the former President said depending on what the High Court decided, his lawyers would either bring ‘fresh or consequential proceedings’ in the apex court or ask it for an interim order pending its decision on the rescission application.

Zuma also rejected the argument by the Zondo Commission that his rescission application was merely an appeal in another guise, notes the TimesLIVE report.

He said the commission had not put all the relevant information before the Constitutional Court when it asked the court to send him to prison. The commission had a duty to do this when it argued the case in his absence, he said.

‘The chairperson of the commission (Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo) was obliged to make full disclosure of all the material facts and circumstances, including those that could hurt his own case against me. He failed to do so and that is partly why I am seeking rescission judgment,’ said Zuma.

It was observedd that Zuma is also contesting the inquiry's claim he ‘deliberately chose not to participate’ in its litigation against him, and so could not complain about the fact that he had been convicted and sentenced for his contempt of the Constitutional Court. He reiterated that his decision not to participate in the inquiry's contempt proceedings against him was a ‘form of protest and conscientious objection against perceived abuse and bias’. 

Zuma also made the point that the Constitution clearly does not require that he be discriminated against due to his being a former President, adds a report in The Mercury.

‘I am entitled, whether as President or not, to hold beliefs, views and opinions on our judges and the judiciary. The arguments of the Helen Suzman Foundation are political rhetoric which supports the view that I should keep quiet and, in a supine manner, permit a discriminatory application of the law towards me simply because I was the President,’ Zuma states in the replying affidavit.

According to Zuma, the Constitution makes it clear that he is entitled to equal treatment, protection and benefit of the law.

‘This means that where I disobeyed summons from a commission of inquiry, I am subjected to the prescribed process of the Commissions Act and not yanked to appear before the Constitutional Court without following the prescribed processes of the Commissions Act,’ the ex-President maintained, arguing he wants to be treated no less than any ordinary person and in accordance with the law.

Full TimesLIVE report

Full report in The Mercury