(1) What is the real reason that the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) has decided to appeal against the finding of the High Court, in which it was found that the decision of the NPA to suspend the prosecution of the President, Mr Jacob G Zuma, in terms of the 783 charges of gangsterism, corruption and fraud, had been irrational; (2) why is the NPA not giving the President an opportunity to answer to the charges in a criminal court; (3) whether the NPA when they decided to appeal took into consideration the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal in the case National Director of Public Prosecutions v Zuma (2009), where the finding of Judge Nicholson was rejected, and the findings of the Constitutional Court in the case Albutt v Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation and Others (2010) and the case Democratic Alliance v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (2011); if not, why not; if so, (a) why is the NPA then persisting with an appeal when the margin for success is slim and (b) whether the NPA cannot therefore face prosecuting the President?