[ad_1]
Former President Jacob Zuma. (Photo: EPA / Dai Kurokawa)
The escape of the former president and his legal team was part of an orchestrated maneuver aimed at showing the middle finger to the Vice President of the Supreme Court, the Zondo Commission of Inquiry and the people of South Africa.
We had to wait an additional 48 hours for Supreme Court Vice President Raymond Zondo to rule on Jacob Zuma’s request for his recusal to hear Jacob Zuma’s testimony before the State Capture Commission. It turned out to be the precursor to an eventful day, which has far-reaching implications for constitutional democracy and the rule of law.
Having initially set the ruling for Tuesday at 10 a.m. M., There were several delays before it was duly dictated at 10 a.m. M. From Thursday. This was mainly because Zuma filed a new affidavit with the commission on Wednesday seeking to rebut the statement made by Zondo at the start of the proceedings on Monday in which he rebutted the notion that he and Zuma were friends.
In a detailed ruling that took nearly an hour to read, Zondo meticulously dismantled the arguments presented by attorney Muzi Sikhakhane on behalf of Zuma. He gave little thought to the skewed interpretation that Sikhakhane put into the legal challenge test: Zondo cited the Constitutional Court ruling in the Sarfu case (in which Louis Luyt requested the challenge of Judge Arthur Chaskalson) that stated the test as if a A reasonable person (not the applicant), being in possession of all the relevant facts, would realize that a presiding officer would not be able to bring an open, inquisitive, and fair mind to the consideration of matters presented to him. Sikhakhane’s argument that Zuma felt that Zondo was not being impartial was dead in the water.
But it was what happened after the ruling was made that has sparked the most interest and concern. Attorney Paul Pretorius, the commission’s evidence leader, suggested that Zondo should consider directing Zuma to the witness chair to begin his testimony. From the moment the recusal sentence was issued, the summons to Zondo to testify before the commission from November 16 to 20 returned to “live.” Therefore, Zuma was obligated to testify.
However, in response, Sikhakhane made it clear that he had instructions to review the decision of the Vice President of the Supreme Court in court and stated that we “apologize” from the commission. It was at this point that I think Zondo made a tactical mistake.
As we’ve gotten used to it, Zondo decided to take a tea break; this was an occasion when the affable Zondo should have sacrificed his concoction. I think he should rather have directed Zuma to the witness stand immediately to face Pretorius’s questions, thus enforcing the subpoena. Zuma may have left anyway, either openly defying the man he appointed to head this commission and refusing to take the stand, or planning his escape during the postponement of lunch. Had it been the latter, we would have had at least two hours of Zuma on the witness stand, albeit repeatedly refusing to answer questions.
But that was clearly never part of Zuma’s strategy. The escape of Zuma and his legal team was part of an orchestrated maneuver aimed at showing the middle finger to the Vice President of the Supreme Court, the Zondo Commission of Inquiry and the people of South Africa, who are paying for this costly exercise after all.
As the press release from the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution (Casac) put it, “There can be only one conclusion: that Mr. Zuma has no intention of appearing or testifying before the commission. Instead, he seems determined to undermine his credibility and authority. to avoid or delay having to tell the country the truth about his time in office.
Casac also stated: “As the Constitutional Court reminded the country in its decisive ‘Nkandla’ judgment in 2016, the President is a ‘Constitutional Being’, with an important responsibility to defend and protect the Constitution. We believe that Mr. Zuma’s responsibility to uphold the rule of law did not end with his resignation from office. “
Surprisingly, seeking a full-on confrontation with Zondo, Sikhakhane also announced his intention to file a judicial misconduct complaint with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC). In this sense, Zuma is on the same corner as his partner involved, Lucky Montana, who has filed a similar complaint. The basis for this complaint would be that Zondo was a witness and judge in the matter of the challenge. This was little more than a publicity stunt for Sikhakhane, as he knows well that it is customary for the challenged president to listen to requests for disqualification.
Rather, we should focus on the behavior of Sikhakhane and other members of the Zuma legal team. If they were in fact complicit in their flight from the commission in flagrant breach of its rules (as they appear to have been), they too should be held accountable for their actions. Complaints to the Council on Legal Practice appear to be justified. They knew very well that an excuse for a subpoenaed witness requires the approval of the president. They simply ignored the Vice President of the Supreme Court and his professional responsibilities; they have discredited the legal profession. They should not be allowed to get away with such improper conduct.
The Commissions Act 1947 clearly stipulates that any person who fails to comply with a subpoena to provide evidence for an investigation “shall be guilty of a crime and, at the time of his conviction, may pay a fine not to exceed fifty pounds or one imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months, or both a fine and imprisonment ”.
It is up to the commission to exercise its muscles and institute the appropriate criminal actions and sanctions against Zuma. You can do this by ensuring that an arrest warrant is urgently issued for Zuma’s defiance of the subpoena, that he is arrested and brought before the commission on Friday while the subpoena is still alive.
In addition, you can bring criminal charges against Zuma in accordance with the Commissions Act and have the National Prosecutor take the case to court. Such action is essential to ensure that the commission is not viewed as a toothless animal and to hold accountable. It is this same culture of impunity, which Zuma continues to try to exploit, that led to the establishment of the commission in the first place, which was the hallmark of state capture and looting of public resources.
The commission must send a strong message to Zuma and other witnesses who may attempt to exploit a perceived weakness and avoid testifying. Our Constitution demands no less. DM
Lawson Naidoo is the executive secretary of the Council for the Advancement of the Constitution of South Africa (Casac).
