If former president Jacob Zuma's legal team were to take the decision by NPA head Shaun Abrahams to re-instate corruption charges against him on review, this would mean nothing for the case.
That's according to visiting law professor at Wits University James Grant.
The former president faces 18 charges of fraud, corruption and money laundering related to 783 payments from his former adviser Shabir Shaik.
For the case ordinarily it means nothing and the reason for that is because there is difference between appeals and reviews. Where when one brings a review of the decision the default is that it doesn't affect the effectiveness of the decision you are reviewing whereas the appeal is the opposite.— James Grant, Visiting law professor at Wits University
Grant says he has done a diligent search of the case law and the statute and he can't find the basis for why the government will be paying for the legal fees of Jacob Zuma. He says the opposition parties are right to head to court to challenge this decision on paying for Zuma's legal fees.
In South Africa it is a valid defense to say you didn't know it was a crime.— James Grant, Visiting law professor at Wits University
The Constitution might have been a basis for Zuma, listen how...