“I would celebrate tonight if the NPA and the Hawks can at least phone to say they have stopped investigating me. I am being investigated to determine whether my powers are binding. It would be nice if the decision triggered them into saying I am not a criminal, I am a public protector,” Advocate Thuli Madonsela told media at a press briefing after the Constitutional Court’s unanimous and damning ruling on Thursday that President Zuma and the National Assembly had violated the constitution.

She also thanked (yes, she is gracious) President Zuma for making the concessions he did before the Constitutional Court ruling as had he not done so the matter would have precipitated a serious constitutional crisis. She added that the National Assembly had shown a “sophisticated disregard” for her office but that this had been, in retrospect, “a blessing”.

“We needed a point at which we define clearly what the constitution means when it says take appropriate remedial action. It had never been done before,” she said.

Referring to respect for the rule of the law in South Africa she cited the example of the Supreme Court of Appeal’s dismissal of government’s appeal that it’s failure to arrest Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir during a visit to South Africa was unlawful. The court described government’s explanation for how the Sudanese president left the country, seemingly unnoticeable, as laughable.

“A head of state would not sneak in like a criminal but would have been driven in the daylight, properly like a head of State. It was wrong what happened and the ruling displays a respect for the rule of law. Since 1994, once the courts have spoken the executive has acted. It might have been tardy but that is why we have come up with timelines after the SCA judgement,” she said.

Madonsela said one of the lessons that could be taken from the Constitutional Court ruling is that those who exercise authority in public or in private should be “careful of surrounding themselves with praise singers. You need a diverse team with diverse views. Don’t reject those who disagree with you as you might head for a cliff if you surround yourself with ‘yes’ people” she said in a thinly concealed nod to those who have rallied to protect and shield President Zuma during the drawn-out Nkandla scandal.

She said she would also welcome an apology from Deputy Minister of Justice, John Jeffries, “who made it his mission to find people to disagree with me. One professor who had never said a word before became an instant celebrity and expert on the matter. All he was repeating was what a court had said about an English ombudsman.”

This was in reference to Jeffries’s comments that the Public Protector’s remedial actions were not binding and that her office fulfilled the position of an ordinary “ombudsman”. The professor she was referring to is Mtende Mhango, Deputy Head of the School of Law at the University of the Witwatersrand, who said that the PP’s powers were “not adjudicative or binding” and that the Public Protector was accountable to Parliament.

“Why would the law seek the Public Protector to go to Parliament if her decisions are enforceable or binding?” he asked at a 2015 Law Society of South Africa colloquium.

Professor Mhango also said that the remedies of the Public Protector were “political and not judicial.”

The Professor, and many others, are now left eating dust in the light of the Constitutional Court ruling.

She said that the figure of R10 million in her report that President Zuma was to personally repay was not a final figure and that she would leave it up to Treasury (read accidental Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan) to decide on the final amount.

“We do expect Treasury might consult us but we are not experts in quantity surveying. Most of us are lawyers. The R10 million was not decisive.”

Madonsela added that the Constitutional Court case was also about the power of state and that the crafters of the country’s constitution knew that different levels of democracy were required to keep the state in check.

“The executive, parliament and the judiciary are not adequate,” she said implying that this was the role that Chapter 9 institutions, like the Public Protector, play in enhancing democracy.

She quoted Chief Justice Moegeng Moegeng’s statement that the “law is the sword that cuts the head of impunity” and that the country’s democracy was “built to last. When one part fails you cannot say the entire system has failed. And today was that day.”

She rather graciously suggested that a “mistake was made by the executive and parliament” and that “we all make mistakes” including the many who had tried to divert attention from the matter by focussing on her as a person.

“Everyone has had the opportunity to reflect and that is why the president had a different message for me and for the nation, apart from the Minister of Police, and I have faith in the system and a belief that everyone has learnt their lessons.”

She added that lawyers had to make sure when they were consulted by government not to tell politicians what they wanted to hear but rather what they needed to hear.

Meanwhile, a new measure of standing of an individual in South African society, or rather a badge of honour, is whether the Hawks are investigating them or not. So far the Hawks have targeted both Pravin Gordhan and Thuli Madonsela instead of violent criminals and the corrupt. Another day, another battle. And as battles go, this has been a good one. DM