Cracks are being exposed in the “smokescreen” defence of former president Jacob Zuma and his former chief spy, Arthur Fraser, in their battle against the Democratic Alliance, the Helen Suzman Foundation and AfriForum, who are seeking to have the former president sent back to jail, arguing his medical parole was unlawfully granted, writes Legalbrief.
It was reporting on an analysis by News24 legal writer Karyn Maughan, which notes that Zuma is relying on his refusal to consent to the confidential release of his health records. “Without my medical records, it is impossible for the (DA) and its allies in this litigation to contend that the Commissioner (Fraser) acted unlawfully,” Zuma states in court papers. “It is equally so that a court cannot find that there is a basis on which to review and set aside the decision of the Commissioner in the absence of essential facts…”
But Zuma, is “very, very wrong”, writes Maughan. When Zuma refused to grant the initial limited access they wanted, the applicants agreed that they would accept a severely redacted record of Fraser’s decision.
Now, in court papers, DA leader John Steenhuisen has made it clear that the party is no longer seeking access to Zuma’s medical records. The reason, he reveals, is simple, writes Maughan: It doesn’t need to.
Under the provisions of the Correctional Services Act, the DA and HSF argue, medical parole can only be granted to an offender “suffering from a terminal illness or condition or if such an offender is rendered physically incapacitated as a result of injury, disease or illness so as to severely limit daily activity or inmate self-care”. While Zuma had stated that he suffered from an unspecified “condition” that “carries significant risk to (his) life”, Steenhuisen argued that he had failed “to assert that he has a terminal illness” or that he was incapacitated “as required by section 79(1)(a) of the Correctional Services Act”.
“Mr Fraser’s failure squarely to state that Mr Zuma has a terminal illness or is physically incapacitated is telling,” Steenhuisen adds. As previously reported in MedicalBrief, Fraser has said he considered “the events that occurred during the month of July 2021, and specifically around the period when (Zuma) was incarcerated, there was public unrests and destruction of property”, when he instructed that all decisions about the former president’s incarceration and care “should be done in consultation with myself as the national commissioner”. He said he feared “unrest” if correctional services acted “recklessly” in respect of Zuma’s health.
Steenhuisen has rubbished that contention, writes Maughan. “A prisoner cannot obtain medical parole because other people would riot if the prisoner is to die in prison,” he said.
HSF has also pointed out that there were serious deficiencies in Zuma’s application for medical parole – based on the very limited documentation provided by Correctional Services. While Correctional Services regulations require that prison doctors evaluate inmates who are applying for medical parole, Zuma’s military doctor – a ‘Dr Mafa’ – completed that required evaluation himself.
“How can the same medical practitioner who makes the application also evaluate the application? This defeats the whole purpose of a Regulation 29A(3) report,” the HSF states. While Fraser and Zuma insist that Zuma’s release on medical parole was legally and factually justified, their silence in response to the questions raised by the DA and HSF speaks volumes.
Tellingly, notes Maughan’s News24 report, neither claims that Zuma is terminally ill or physically incapacitated, the only basis on which his release on medical parole would be lawful.
See more from MedicalBrief archives:
Zuma was given medical parole ‘because of fears of unrest’
Top specialists find Zuma fit for trial, fuelling scepticism over earlier medical parole
Outrage over medical parole for Zuma by outgoing Commissioner