The High Court in Pretoria has found that former NPA head, Mokotedi Mpshe's decision to drop corruption charges against President Jacob Zuma in April 2009 was irrational.
The Court also said that Mpshe ignored the importance of his oath of office when he dropped charges.
Judge Aubrey Ledwaba questioned why Mpshe withheld his decision from the prosecution team until the last minute, and ignored its recommendations.
Ledawaba said; "The recommendation of the prosecution team that, even if the allegations regarding Mr McCarthy are true, the decision to stop the prosecution was to be made by a court of law.”
Afternoon Drive's Xolani Gwala unpacks the legal meaning of this ruling with Dr James Grant, former associate professor of law.
I have to agree with the DA [that the interpretation of today's judgement is Zuma is facing corruption charges] and with part of ANC's statement, which says we must all understand that the court's decision does not find that Jacob Zuma committed any sort of offence. However, as James Self points out, effectively what happened this morning is that the decision to withdraw and hold prosecution was knocked down, that then leaves the decision to prosecute.— Dr James Grant, former associate professor of law.
I expect that the new indictment will be served to Mr Zuma and he will be called to court.— Dr James Grant, former associate professor of law.
Listen to the full interview below...
Barry Bateman, EWN reporter who was in court during the ruling, also spoke to Xolani about what was said in court.
Listen to the conversation below...