[ad_1]
Jacob Zuma’s dramatic departure from the state capture commission of inquiry Thursday morning may have been just a Pyrrhic victory for him, and the former president now faces the possibility of arrest.
Despite the fact that their defender, Muzi Sikhakhane SC, insisted that they were not “dating” but rather “apologizing”, the Commission Law does not allow it either.
It gives a commission the same powers to subpoena witnesses as the courts, which the state capture commission used to subpoena Zuma, who has been heavily implicated during the proceedings after a series of absences.
The act classifies as a crime – punishable by a fine and / or up to six months in prison – for witnesses who leave the process without being excused by the president of the commission. As for the act, anyone who “deliberately interrupts the procedure of a commission or who deliberately obstructs or obstructs a commission in the performance of its functions” is also guilty of a crime and is subject to the same penalty.
Legal experts and analysts say Supreme Court Vice President Raymond Zondo is now free to have the police arrest Zuma and drag him to the stand.
“The Vice President of the Supreme Court may request that a court order be issued and bring Zuma before the commission for a statement,” said the executive secretary of the Council for the Advancement of the Constitution of South Africa (Casac), Lawson Naidoo, on Thursday. and added that charges could also be brought against him.
Zuma abandoned the proceedings during the tea break, in the shadow of a strong decision by Zondo, which dismissed the former president’s request for his recusal as chairman of the commission.
Zuma had argued that they were friends, a claim that Zondo has vehemently denied, and that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias on his part. But Zondo eventually discovered they didn’t have the kind of relationship that would disqualify the vice president of the Supreme Court from presiding over the commission.
Sikhakhane had indicated that their instructions were to initiate a review of Zondo’s decision, as well as file a complaint against him with the Judicial Services Committee (JSC), and that they would “excuse themselves” from the proceedings. But test leader and defender Paul Pretorius SC had also indicated that he wanted to argue for Zuma to take the stand, and Zondo was expected to rule on a way forward after tea.
However, this was not the case. Zuma, apparently, took matters into his own hands.
The move has clearly raised Zondo’s ire.
“Mr. Zuma had been summoned to be here from Monday until tomorrow unless I excused him,” he said, anger visible on his face.
“He left today without apologizing to me. This is a serious matter “.
Proceedings were postponed to next week, and Zondo said the commission would “reflect” on the issues.
According to advocate Paul Hoffman SC, who heads the anti-corruption lobby Accountability Now, the existence of a pending review request does not entitle Zuma to withdraw from a commission or excuse him from the proceedings.
“If the commissioner insists that you remain present and answer questions, then your remedy is to seek an injunction that prevents your continued examination and attendance, pending the outcome of the review,” Hoffman said.
But as it stood, he said, Zuma had been duly summoned to appear before the commission and was now in contempt.
Of the pending review request, constitutional law expert Pierre de Vos said that he would likely see Zuma approach the higher court now, but that if he was unsuccessful, he could still go to the Supreme Court of Appeals and that if he failed again, then could do it. approach the Constitutional Court.
De Vos said that Zuma could try to approach the Constitutional Court directly, which would speed things up, but he doubted it would be successful.
“Zuma’s strategy is really about trying to delay as well,” he added. “So it probably doesn’t suit him.”
In the meantime, however, De Vos also said that Zuma could, in principle, be compelled to testify in parallel to a request for review.
“Nothing prevents the commission from issuing another subpoena,” he said, adding, however, that Zuma would also have options open to him, such as requesting an injunction, in that case.
He said that a JSC complaint against Zondo would be unrelated to the commission’s work and that the grounds for the complaint in question – which, according to Sikhakhane, Zondo had become “a judge in his own matter” – were “nonsense. “.
“A request for disqualification, by its nature, legally requires that the judge hearing the matter make the decision,” De Vos said.
Zuma’s attorney, Eric Mabuza, was not available for comment.
For more news your way, download The Citizen app to ios Y Android.
[ad_2]
