Former president Jacob Zuma on Thursday raised serious objections to what he termed the Johannesburg High Court's attempt to muzzle him by limiting his time.
This happened after the full bench of the high court urged legal teams to complete their arguments at 13:30 which shortened the proceedings from two to one and a half days.
The request left Zuma's long-winded legal representative Advocate Dali Mpofu with only 90 minutes to wrap up his argument.
Having failed to conclude his arguments within the requested time, Mpofu announced after the tea break that his client, Zuma felt prejudiced by the time constraints.
"My client has asked me to convey to the court that it was his understanding that the matter was set down over two days not one and a half days.
"He learnt only this morning that the matter was now set down over a shorter period. He was of the understanding that the two days was the time he had to make out his case which is why he cancelled all his engagements and travelled all the way here," said Mpofu.
He feels that since the court will not allow him to use the entire time to ventilate his case we should convey the fact that in his view he has never seen anything like this and it can only be a manifestation of [what he described as] the Zuma law."
Presiding over the case, Judge Lebogang Modiba said the time allocation that had been proposed by the legal teams themselves and was why the full bench utilised in making the requested changes to the time allocation.
She added that Mpofu had consistently ignored her warning to watch the time and was granted even more time on Wednesday when he made his arguments.
"The notion that this court is unfair to this client has no basis because this court has allocated him more time than the other parties and that gives him an unfair advantage," said Modiba.
She added that the remarks about the unfair treatment were utterly unacceptable.
"There is no new law that has been applied only to Zuma, as I have demonstrated, the court has actually given him more time," said Modiba.
Before the tea break, Mpofu had made the argument that court should not allow itself to be a playground of the rich and powerful.
He was responding to arguments made the previous day by President Cyril Ramaphosa's legal team when it accused the former president of pursuing frivolous legal proceedings that breached his successor's Constitutional rights.
An animated Mpofu alleged that there was a growing sense that the law was being applied, based on who is being accused.
Mpofu argued that Ramaphosa was "using his immense wealth to employ a Stalingrad approach" to proceedings by pursuing a civil application after Zuma had already pursued criminal proceedings in the same matter.
A full bench ruled in January that Ramaphosa's urgent application against Zuma's private prosecution bid be granted.
The interdict was an interim one and would last until the courts had decided whether the prosecution was lawful and constitutional — Part B of the case, which commenced on Wednesday until Thursday.
Mpofu argued that "there is no logical reason why anyone trying to go to Pretoria from Johannesburg would first take a detour to the North West, then the Free State before making their way to their initial destination."
"This only happens when someone is trying by all means to evade justice. As the younger generation would say, who does this?" said Mpofu.
At the core of Zuma's case against Ramaphosa is his claim that he "demanded" an urgent investigation into Advocate Billy Downer's so-called transgressions but that the president did not act.
Zuma claimed that this alleged action was done to enable the perpetrators or accomplices to escape or evade justice.
He also argued that Ramaphosa "was acting with personal animosity and to drive a personal campaign of undue vilification" of his predecessor.
Mpofu argued that the reason why Zuma's legal team had sent a summons to Ramaphosa's residence was because he was being accused in his p...