The Court concluded on Monday that Zuma’s release on early medical parole was “illegal,” and that he should be returned to prison to fulfill his sentence for contempt of court.
South Africa’s Supreme Court of Appeal has sentenced former South African President Jacob Zuma to prison again.
The Court concluded on Monday that Zuma’s release on early medical parole was “illegal,” and that he should be returned to prison to fulfill his sentence for contempt of court.
Jacob Zuma, South Africa’s Former President, Released From Prison
Zuma was sentenced to 15 months in prison in 2021 after he refused to testify at a government inquiry into widespread corruption during his nearly ten years as president of South Africa.
Zuma was South Africa’s fourth president from 2009 to 2018, when he was succeeded by the current President, Cyril Ramaphosa.
The former president had served his jail term for a few months and was slated to be released on medical parole in September 2021, but the Supreme Court overturned the parole decision in December and ordered him to return to prison.
He appealed the high court decision, and the Department of Correctional Services announced in October that Zuma’s prison sentence had ended. According to Reuters, the Supreme Court of Appeal issued a decision on Monday ordering the former president to be returned to prison.
LATEST: Jacob Zuma Released From Prison, See Why
According to Reuters, the Supreme Court of Appeal decision stated, “In other words, Mr Zuma’s sentence has not yet been served. To do so, he must return to the Escourt Correctional Centre.”
The Supreme Court of Appeal also questioned the department’s contention that Zuma’s term had finished while the appeal was still being heard.
The court also ruled that the former national commissioner of correctional services’ decision to give Zuma medical parole against the opinion of a specialised body, the Medical Parole Advisory Board, was illegal.
The judgment added, “On any conceivable basis, the commissioner’s decision was unlawful and unconstitutional. The high court was correct to set it aside.”
Follow us on Facebook
Post Disclaimer
The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by the author and forum participants on this website do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of Anaedo Online or official policies of the Anaedo Online.