Last week's decision by the Constitutional Court confirming the illegality of Arthur Fraser's decision to release former president Jacob Zuma on medical parole has brought upon even more frenzied debate about Zuma's future. For some, this brings back memories of what happened when he began his jail term in July 2021. For others, it is about the rule of law, for all of us. While there is no evidence for now that this will lead to violence, it is bound to turn into a barrage of emotional arguments.

Last week the Constitutional Court said it would not hear Zuma's application to overturn a previous decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal that he should not have been granted medical parole by his acolyte Arthur Fraser. He served two months in jail after the Constitutional Court said he had defied its earlier order that he finish his testimony at the Zondo Commission.

There is now much legal debate about what this means, with some consequences clearer than others.

It is obvious that Fraser's decision to overrule the decision of the Medical Parole Board was always wrong. Normally, this would mean that a decision would be reversed, and Zuma would be in the same position that he was in before the decision was made.

Here, it appears things are slightly different - much time has passed, and the 15-month sentence that was imposed on him has obviously finished.

However, medical parole is normally granted only to inmates who are terminally ill, and thus, insofar as is known, it has never before happened that a person granted medical parole should now go back to prison, not even Schabir Shaik. Particularly when their sentence would have been deemed to have ended....