ANALYSIS

In response to Mogoeng, Zuma returns to claims of ConCourt judicial bias, possibly orchestrating his own demise

By Greg Nicolson 15 April 2021

Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng. (Photo: Sebabatso Mosamo / Sunday Times) | Former president Jacob Zuma. (Photo: Gallo Images / Netwerk24 / Felix Dlangamandla)

Requested to submit an affidavit on his potential sentence for violating a Constitutional Court order, former president Jacob Zuma sent a letter to Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng repeating allegations of judicial bias and suggesting his potential imprisonment could lead to a challenge to the judiciary’s powers.

During the State Capture Inquiry’s Constitutional Court application to hold Jacob Zuma in contempt of the court’s January 2021 judgment, which said the former president must appear in front of Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo and answer questions, multiple justices questioned the commission’s call for Zuma to be imprisoned for two years.

Final order: ConCourt rules Jacob Zuma must appear and answer questions at Zondo Commission

Zuma hasn’t participated in any of the court proceedings launched by Zondo’s commission since he walked out of its hearings in November 2019, when Zondo denied Zuma’s recusal application.

During a March 2021 Constitutional Court hearing on the commission’s application to send Zuma to prison, Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga asked Tembeka Ngcukaitobi SC, representing the commission, for examples of courts sentencing individuals to prison for contempt when they had failed to argue their case.

Madlanga suggested the court could request Zuma’s input on his punishment, should he be found in contempt, which Ngcukaitobi rejected.

Last week, Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng, who did not sit on Zuma’s recent cases but issues all Constitutional Court directives, wrote to the former president asking him to file an affidavit on an appropriate sanction if the court finds him in contempt of its order to appear before the commission.

Zuma replied with a letter, rather than an affidavit, on Wednesday, 14 April, claiming he did not want to validate “a sham and an attempt to sanitise the gravity of the repressive manner in which the Court has dealt with my issues”.

Letter to the Chief Justice – 14.04.2021

The former president claimed the Constitutional Court was determined to send him to prison. He repeated the arguments he has made from the sidelines of the State Capture Inquiry, where his participation has been extremely limited, and the Constitutional Court hearings, in which he did not participate.

Zuma’s letter to Mogoeng tackled his legal challenges on multiple fronts. He criticised the lawfulness of the State Capture Commission, made broad statements about judicial bias, questioned details of the Constitutional Court case against him and challenged the court to imprison him and make him an example of supposed judicial overreach.

While claiming that Mogoeng’s directive was aimed at justifying the foregone conclusion of a prison sentence, Zuma said he was only given three days to respond (he had three working days and the weekend) and should have been given a chance to respond to the merits of the contempt case, which he had already declined the opportunity to do in court.

“If the Court is of the view, as it does, that it can impose a sanction of incarceration without hearing the ‘accused’ I still leave the matter squarely in its capable hands,” he said.

He questioned the Constitutional Court’s somewhat controversial decision to grant the State Capture Inquiry direct access to the court when it applied to force Zuma to testify, which he said convinced him the court did because of the commission’s “political nature”, claiming it was “established to destroy the work that I did when I served my country as President”.

If Zuma had participated and argued the point of direct access in the Constitutional Court, his claims might have stood a chance. Instead, he repeatedly declined to participate, claiming “conscience objection”.

Citing the lofty ideals of the Constitution, his letter criticised the apex court for stripping his right to remain silent under 35(3)(h) of the Constitution. That section reads: “Every accused person has a right to a fair trial, which includes the right… to be presumed innocent, to remain silent, and not to testify during the proceedings.”

But the Constitutional Court’s judgment clearly upheld Zuma’s right not to incriminate himself and said the section of the Constitution he cites relates only to arrested or accused persons, not witnesses.

Zuma said of the ideals for the apex court: “The Constitutional Court would represent freedom for everyone, and with it, I believed that we would be safe from the unjust and oppressive political narratives that had routinely found credibility in the courts of oppression. It is no secret that dominant narratives come from the dominant and moneyed classes in our society.”

The day before Zuma’s letter, the Supreme Court of Appeal upheld a judgment that said Zuma should repay at least R16-million which the state had spent on his personal legal fees. During his time as president, Zuma repeatedly delayed cases against him by using the state’s budget to defend, obstruct and appeal matters in court.

The big buck stops with Jacob Zuma as court rules state will not pay legal fees for graft case

“Broadly speaking, I believe, having examined how the courts have dealt with cases involving my constitutional rights, I came to the conclusion that there is inexplicable judicial antipathy towards me,” said Zuma.

“I do not accept that I committed contempt of court when I decided not to participate in the Commission proceedings in circumstances where my rights would be violated. It is clear for all to see that nothing can persuade the Constitutional Court not to incarcerate me.”

While Zuma launched the State Capture Inquiry in January 2018, with Zondo as its head, he has repeatedly argued that its foundations were unlawful. Former Public Protector Thuli Madonsela recommended that Mogoeng, rather than the president, who was implicated in her State of Capture report, appoint an inquiry chair. Zuma took the matter to court and lost. He appealed, but Cyril Ramaphosa withdrew the appeal application when he became president.

While Zuma claims Zondo and the judiciary are biased against him, the reality appears to be the opposite. His comments about the “moneyed classes” getting a fairer shake ring true, but there’s no doubt, at least when it comes to court costs, that many of South Africa’s top lawyers have made a handsome income off Zuma’s cases.

While Zuma didn’t participate in any of the State Capture Inquiry’s Constitutional Court cases, it’s clear, as Madlanga’s comment and Mogoeng’s directive suggests, the justices were cautious not to send the former president straight to prison, despite his obvious failure to adhere to the court’s order, without hearing his views.

Zuma claimed he was being treated unfairly, but the Constitutional Court criticised Zondo for not taking a harder line on the former president, suggesting he had been treated unequally compared to an average citizen – treated with kid gloves because of his status.

Zuma is playing a political game with a judicial process. He recently questioned the foundations of South Africa’s constitutional democracy, suggesting the judiciary should not have any oversight over the executive.

In his letter on Wednesday, Zuma suggested his potential conviction could further the fight to diminish the judiciary, the only arm of the South African state that called him to account during his ruinous reign, albeit while being careful not to step on other tiers’ toes.

Zuma’s letter said: “As stated above, I am ready to become a prisoner of the Constitutional Court and since I cannot appeal or review what I see as a gross irregularity, my imprisonment would become the soil on which future struggles for a judiciary that sees itself as a servant of the Constitution and the people rather than an instrument for advancing dominant political narratives,” he said.

The former president appears to be trying to push the Constitutional Court justices into a corner, suggesting his conviction will result in social and political unrest. It’s a crisis of Zuma’s own making as he slanders the judiciary that will have no choice but to judge him in absentia.

What happens next? Sentencing someone straight to prison for a civil contempt case appears unprecedented, so Zuma might avoid direct jail time, although his response to the court doesn’t do him any favours.

If Zuma is sent to jail, will his suggested threats of social unrest come true? The former president appears to have at least some support from a coalition of fellow corruption suspects, from Ace Magashule to Julius Malema and their allies and supporters.

There’s been no indication, however, that any group has or is able to mobilise a mass movement behind Zuma’s current cause. DM

Gallery

Comments - share your knowledge and experience

Please note you must be a Maverick Insider to comment. Sign up here or sign in if you are already an Insider.

Everybody has an opinion but not everyone has the knowledge and the experience to contribute meaningfully to a discussion. That’s what we want from our members. Help us learn with your expertise and insights on articles that we publish. We encourage different, respectful viewpoints to further our understanding of the world. View our comments policy here.

All Comments 34

  • Well, well, no surprises here. If the CC fails to act, it will be the beginning of the end of law and order in SA as we used to know it. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry will then follow the same route, providing he has enough looted money up his sleeve. End of guilty accused testifying anywhere.

    • Spot on. The judiciary pillar is already very unstable, and the only one that keeps our democracy going. There will be nothing left if the CC scews up this one.

  • What an unmitigated idiot and moron! A poor pathetic excuse of a man – squirming whineing, whingeing, wailing etc. The world is against me, barring some like- minded degenerates and it is all a WMC plot to put me in prison. I’ve done nothing wrong except stealing and bankrupting a country blind.

  • THat this guy ruled South Africa is bizarre. Even with the help of the most expensive lawyers in the land, he paints himself squarely into a corner.

  • If he does get to go to jail for refusing to appear, what happens to the rest of the cases against him ? How and when ? Anybody?

    • Him being in jail should have no effect on any cases against him. He can be brought to court as necessary, or attend remotely from prison, and the cases would continue, regardless of his incarceration. or otherwise.

  • “It is no secret that dominant narratives come from the dominant and moneyed classes in our society.” – And he doesn’t see the irony in this statement?
    He is part of the dominant and (ill gotten) moneyed class in our society..
    Pathetic that he has any following at all!

  • . . . “established to destroy the work that I did when I served my country as President”. Your work, Mr Zuma, almost destroyed South Africa, and left it with huge debt and a situation that left the gap between rich and poor even greater than it was before you became president.

    • If you’ll allow me, a correction: “Your work, Mr Zuma, has destroyed South Africa…….”

      I can’t see how we can ever get out of the deep hole that Zuma & the ANC have thrown SA into. Failed SOEs, infrastructure collapsing, lack of basic service delivery in many towns & tens of billions stolen….

  • The judgement will be a watershed for the judiciary in SA and may mean speeding up the country’s total collapse. The longterm implication of not sending this pathetic individual to jail is vast and much worse than the assumed shortterm upheaval by well-known corrupt characters.

  • Anybody who listened to Zuma’s “interview” by Thuli Madonsela should realise that even when asked if he wants a cup of tea, he would obfuscate and lie. He has more fairy stories than the Brothers Grimm!

  • “What happens next? Sentencing someone straight to prison for a civil contempt case appears unprecedented”
    He wants to be a martyr,
    Do not let him, sum up the commission and lay charges

  • I can think of 2 possible options for the CC: first is to find a penalty that will cut off his financial resources, to him and/or his family. Second is to look at traditional/customary law/practices on what to do in situations such as these, possibly in consultation with the Zulu royal house.

  • Zuma was and still is South Africa’s Trump – getting everyone else to pay his enormous bills, playing the victim, saying and doing anything he likes. It makes the tragedy of all that wasted money even more pathetic when they leave power, and the legal battles overtake the lines of patronage.

  • Still puzzles me why he did not go to Zondo and then:
    1 – sling mortars at his enemies (he knows where their skeletons are).

    2 – refuse to answer those questions he doesn’t want to. Nobody expected or has seen an implicated person doing a mea culpa at Zondo in any event.

  • So, succintly, Chief Justice and team, exercise your authority and lock him up for 5 years (arrange a Siberian one !!). Also, refer him to The Hague, ICC, for crimes against humanity in facilitating the theft of billions from “our” people and blighting our progress on a par with apartheid.

  • I don’t see any problem for Zuma to go to jail because his pals run the jails. They will insure that he gets a 5 star cell with all amenities and flunkies to see he is comfortable.

      • Re-open Robben Island for just one? Visitors can visit Mandela’s cell every day and reflect on the good Madiba did before seeing Zuma breaking rocks in the quarry and ponder on the bad. A pipe dream of course, Zuma would be out soon on medical grounds. After Stalingrad, the Shaik strategy!

  • The only proper sentence would be house arrest at Nkandla for the rest of his life with no right to leave and severe restrictions on visitors. All state privileges must be withdrawn and his state pension and all assets ceded to the state, whether under his control or the control of someone else.

    • Dont give him the fuel to light a fire, it is what he wants
      He has a corruption case on the go, has to payback state funds, let Zondo draw conclusions from his absence
      and then lay charges make his life a misery.

  • It seems to me that the mistake here is the the Constitutional Court asked Zuma for his views on what penalty should be imposed on him. What court ever asks a person who has been (it seems) already found guilty to suggest what his/her sentence should be? Justice should be blind, so here I agree with Zuma: it now seems to be playing to the audience. Bad move.

  • Enough already from this source of the Zumavirus infection plagueing our land! Jail the thief now after recovering the 12 million rand legal fees he owes. This idiot is NOT the law of the land nor it,s constitution decider.

  • At the SCA, guess who came hard on Zuma: “To have persisted in the unjustified criticism of not just the high court, but more generally the judiciary, is plainly deserving of censure. Little wonder then that the EFF submits that Mr Zuma should be penalised with a punitive costs order …” THE IRONY

  • Covid-19 Vaccines

    Nearly 500,000 teachers and education sector workers to be vaccinated over 10 days, starting on Tuesday

    By Marianne Merten