The Supreme Court of Appeal has confirmed that Jacob Zuma's private prosecution of State advocate Billy Downer and this writer was "without foundation", part of his Stalingrad litigation campaign and aimed at delaying, obstructing and preventing his corruption trial.

In a scathing ruling that was supported by SCA President Mahube Molemela and three other SCA judges, Judge Nathan Ponnan dismissed Zuma's appeal against the enforcement of the KwaZulu-Natal High Court's invalidation of his private prosecution. 

Zuma had sought to privately prosecute Downer and this writer on the basis that his corruption trial prosecutor had violated the National Prosecuting Authority Act by allowing court papers – which contained a note from one of his military doctors – to be shared with this writer by another NPA counsel, Andrew Breitenbach, SC.

Ponnan found on Friday that the private prosecution was "without any foundation in either fact (Mr Downer did not disclose Mr Zuma's doctor's report to Ms Maughan and there was no breach of confidentiality or privacy) or law (no cognisable offence has been committed, even if all of the facts alleged by Mr Zuma are true)". 

"The respondents (Downer and this writer) appearing as accused persons in an abusive private prosecution will undeniably compromise public confidence in the courts and the administration of justice," he said.

In a major boost for the State's efforts to ensure that Zuma's arms deal corruption trial is not delayed by the former president's planned second application to force Downer's removal, Ponnan further ruled: "The private prosecution is part of the 'Stalingrad strategy' announced by Mr Zuma's counsel to Hugo J over a decade and a half ago, when he said: 'This is not like a fight between two champ fighters. This is more like Stalingrad. It's burning house to burning house.' It is further demonstrated by the patent lack of substance to the charges; by the fact that Mr Zuma has clearly not pursued the prosecution as would someone intent on obtaining a conviction; and, by Mr Zuma's identification of witnesses," he added, in a ruling that confirmed the High Court's finding that the private prosecution was an "abuse of the process of court" that had been pursued for an ulterior purpose.

As such, he contended, the enforcement ruling should stand because it prevented that abuse from continuing, while Zuma continued his bids to appeal the invalidation of his private prosecution.

"On each occasion that the respondents (Downer and this writer) are compelled to appear in the criminal dock, their personal liberty is further inhibited and human dignity further eroded. The indignity is compounded by the personal insults that they, and in particular Ms Maughan, has to endure especially on social media. Mr Zuma shrugs that the social media abuse of Ms Maughan is 'an occupational hazard' and 'comes with the territory. Nothing could be further from the truth," Ponnan stated.

"What Mr Zuma fails to appreciate is that these violations constitute a steady erosion not just of her liberty and dignity but will also likely discourage other journalists from reporting on powerful individuals for fear of similar reprisals. Guaranteeing the freedom of the press and public confidence in judicial authority and the administration of justice is an ongoing process and requires constant vigilance."

"In the case of Ms Maughan, it bears emphasis that freedom of the press and the principle of open justice are closely interrelated. Free speech goes hand in hand with open justice, which is a fundamental principle of the common law. There is a necessary interdependence between the court and the press. It has thus come to be accepted that the media, reporting accurately and fairly on legal proceedings and judgments, make an invaluable contribution to public confidence in the judiciary and, thus, to the rule of law itself," he stressed earlier.

Ponnan further expressed the full Bench's unhappiness over Zuma's attacks on it.

"There is nothing on record to sustain the suggestion that the presiding judges in this matter were biased or not open-minded, impartial or fair. The allegations were made with a reckless disregard for the truth. And, whilst not advanced during oral argument, they were not retracted. However, they ought not to have been made at all," the judge said.

"The propensity to accuse judicial officers of bias, absent a proper factual foundation, is plainly deserving of censure. The respondents argue that Mr Zuma should be penalised with a punitive costs order as a mark of this court's displeasure and to vindicate the integrity of the High Court and the judiciary, a submission with which I cannot but agree.

"In the result, the appeal must fail and it is accordingly dismissed with costs, including those of two counsel, to be paid on the attorney and client scale," he said.