THE QUESTION OF INTERPRETATION IN THE NICHOLSON JUDGMENT Jacob Zuma v The National Director of Public Prosecutions [2009] I AII SA 54 N

Abstract

It is interesting that prior to Nicholson J’s judgment in the matter of Jacob Zuma v The National Director of Public Prosecutions, that Judge President Tshabalala stated quite categorically that he did not want the judge who was to preside over the corruption trial of Jacob Zuma to be placed under scrutiny (see “Zuma Judge Gets Legal Professional’s Approval” 31 July 2008 Business Day 3). However, since Nicholson J’s decision of the Jacob Zuma trial, both the judge and his judgment have invariably become the subject of intense scrutiny. Nicholson J’s judgment is fraught with inconsistencies, incongruities and controversy. Nevertheless, no matter what the views are regarding the findings of Nicholson J, it has to be conceded that it resulted in one of the most far reaching political decisions in South African legal history, which resulted in the ousting of the country’s president (Thabo Mbeki). While the judgment raises a plethora of both political and legal issues, it is not the intention of the author to venture into the political arena; rather an analysis of
the approach adopted to statutory interpretation which influenced the court’s decision, is considered.