Johannesburg — THE 384 prisoners whom the Constitutional Court found to have sued the wrong party last year have now brought another application, challenging the president for not expediting their requests for pardon.

The court ruled last year that the prisoners, who belong to the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) and who had applied for a presidential pardon in 2004, should have sued the president instead of the justice minister.

In that judgment, the Constitutional Court upheld Justice Minister Jeff Radebe 's appeal against a Supreme Court of Appeal judgment that his predecessor, Brigitte Mabandla , had a constitutional obligation to process applications for a presidential pardon and to take steps to enable the president to pardon prisoners. According to the constitution, only the president has the power to grant pardons.

The judgment expressed no view on the prospects of a future challenge against the president.

The prisoners have now made an application for direct access to the Constitutional Court, with President Jacob Zuma as the respondent.

Assisted by the IFP, the prisoners brought applications for presidential pardons between March and October 2003. The applications for pardon were based on the fact that they were convicted for crimes performed with a political objective or political motive.

They believed their applications were similar to those of 33 African National Congress and Pan Africanist Congress members who were granted presidential pardons during the course of 2002.

In 2007, the prisoners launched an application in the high court against Mabandla. The North Gauteng High Court directed Mabandla to take all the necessary steps to enable the president to exercise the powers conferred on him.

In September, the prisoners relied on that court's judgment , which noted that despite undertakings by former president Thabo Mbeki and Mabandla to expedite a response to the applications, the prisoners had waited in vain. The Constitutional Court said this was unacceptable.

The court also said that good governance and social trust were premised at least partly on reasonable and responsive decision-making.

"Had the president acted diligently, without delay and in accordance with the principle of legality, he should have acted within a reasonable time ... by altering the screening process required from the minister of justice and/or by transferring the preliminary consideration of the applications for pardon elsewhere," the prisoners' advocates, Johan Kruger SC and Carel van Jaarsveld, said in their written submissions to the court.

In his reply, Zuma's advocates stated that he assumed office in May last year and had started processing the applications of the 384 prisoners.

"His intention is that by the time that this matter is heard, he will have completed his consideration of these applications for pardon," Zuma's advocates, Marumo Moerane SC and Leah Gcabashe, wrote in their submission.

They said that had the prisoners initiated proceedings directly against the president, this application would have been finalised in 2007.

The matter is set to be heard tomorrow.