South Africa

CRYING FOUL

Jacob Zuma Foundation hits back: ConCourt judgment was ‘emotional, angry and not consistent with our Constitution’

Former president Jacob Zuma had never believed he was above the law or Constitution, his foundation claims. Instead, he had all along 'insisted that he must be treated like every other citizen, and his right to equal protection of the laws must be respected and protected'. Picture: Thuli Dlamini

In a late-night statement the Jacob Zuma Foundation says the Constitutional Court judgment against the former president is constitutionally flawed and ‘paints a picture of a very angry panel of judges’

Late on Wednesday night the foundation denounced the Constitutional Court ruling that the former president be handed an unsuspended sentence of 15 months for contempt, calling the decision “judicially emotional [and] angry and not consistent with our Constitution”. 

The apex court handed down the judgment – penned by Acting Chief Justice Sisi Khampepe and supported by the majority – on Tuesday morning. 

The foundation has relied on the dissenting minority judgment of Justices Chris Jafta and Leona Theron to claim “that the majority judges breached the Constitution and their oath of office”. 

Jafta and Theron found that the majority ruling “fails, or refuses, to see the woods for the trees, with the result that, in seeking to justify a punitive order which satisfies an understandable desire to address Mr Zuma’s scandalous disrespect for this Court, it trammels over the constitutional rights of alleged contemnors (including Mr Zuma)”. A suspended sentence would have been appropriate, according to Theron. 

The contempt charges were filed by the Zondo Commission in February after Zuma failed to obey the top court’s order, made a month before, that he appear before the commission and respond to evidence of his alleged involvement in State Capture.

During its oral argument before the ConCourt in March, the commission sought that Zuma be sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. The former president did not respond to the application and judgment was reserved, eventually culminating in Tuesday’s ruling. 

Zuma has publicly, on numerous occasions, berated the judiciary and the commission, accusing both of undermining his constitutional rights and politicising the law, and has insisted that the commission, in particular its chairperson, Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo, was biased. Zuma sought to have Zondo recuse himself in 2020, but the latter denied the request.  

The Constitutional Court is the final arbiter, and while the minority judgment cannot be used in any legal manner, it will provide a public relations opportunity for Zuma’s habitual refrain that he is being maligned and prejudiced for political reasons. 

The late-night statement said that Zuma had never believed he was above the law or Constitution. Instead, he had all along “insisted that he must be treated like every other citizen, and his right to equal protection of the laws must be respected and protected.” said the statement, which was peppered with emotive salvoes. 

“Indeed, our Patron has expressed his doubts about the lawfulness of the Zondo Commission, the biased manner in which it is being conducted, and the fact that it has been transformed into a ‘slaughterhouse’ and a forum in which all kinds of unsubstantiated and defamatory allegations have been made against him.”

Zuma has intentionally avoided the opportunity to address the “unsubstantiated and defamatory allegations” – using the alleged bias of Zondo as justification – going so far as to walk out of the commission without permission in 2020 while on summons, when it was made clear that Zondo would not recuse himself. This led to the commission opening a criminal case against him for breach of the Commissions Act. 

According to the foundation: “Our Patron has a legitimate disagreement with DCJ Zondo and has taken steps to have that dispute ventilated in the High Court. The refusal of our Patron to comply with an order which he considered unconstitutional cannot be characterised as wilful or ‘mala fide’. He was acting in good faith and seeking to uphold the law.

“In addition, DCJ Zondo, through an affidavit that he deposed, is a complainant in a criminal case he has opened against our Patron. Surely it cannot be consistent with the rule of law for DCJ Zondo to continue to preside over a matter where our Patron is an implicated party wherein the same DCJ Zondo has to make credibility determinations. The common law maxim that a man may not be a judge in his own case unequivocally negates the power of DCJ Zondo to hear and decide a case in which he is an interested party.”

The foundation contends that the majority judgment’s claim that Zuma “attacked” the apex court was “spurious” and “utterly false”. It then uses this to contend that should the court have been so “cruelly slandered”, it would be difficult to maintain “the calm detachment necessary for fair arbitration”. In other words, Zuma did not attack the judiciary, but because the judges believe he did, they were unable to make a ruling based on evidence instead of emotion.

“The characterisation of our Patron by the majority panel paints a picture of a very angry panel of judges. We concur with the view of other justices who said the Constitutional Court majority acted contrary to the rule of law.” 

Zuma has until Sunday to hand himself over to the police, failing which the police minister and national commissioner must, according to Khampepe’s ruling “within three calendar days of the expiry of the period… take all steps that are necessary and permissible in law to ensure that [he] is delivered to a correctional centre in order to commence serving the sentence imposed.” 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 9

  • If anything is Constitutionally flawed, it’s you Mr Zuma. Pot calling the Kettle black?
    If Zuma is not jailed then Gary Porrit has all the evidence he needs to fight his incarceration and receive settlement for it on racist grounds! Going to be interesting to see how this all pans out and what excuse the ANC will use to give Zuma a “ get out of jail free” card.
    Will it be the “ Shaik virus” …or perhaps the Corona virus that enables him to see out his 15 months at home with an ankle bracelet? Or will he have to “travel overseas for Medical treatment”. Like Mugabe!!! Treatment in Dubai perhaps where his mates the Guptas will offer hospitality? Or Malaysia or Singapore? Possibilities are endless…..
    Time will tell.

  • Sunday midnight beckons. I hope he does not present himself : to see Cele and/or Sitole arrest Zuma would be like a double-feature show with free popcorn.

  • Is anything coming from Zuma, his family, or his foundation, really worth reading. Even a layman (such as me) could have written their a typical response.

  • What a load of absolute and utter rubbish! Your patron and all of you must read the article by Pierre de Vos in today’s Daily Maverick. Zuma has said many times that he’s prepared to go to goal for contempt of court, so why are you whinging and whining because the judgement has gone against you, 7 to 2.

  • When the Foundation Chair was /is Dudu Myeni and the new spokesperson is Jimmy The Mouth Manyi then you already know the kind of crap coming to the fan

  • I recall J Gedleyehlakisa (he who smiles while he hurts you) Zuma uttering something along the lines of “how can a judge tell him what to do; after all, he is elected and the judge not”. To my way of thinking this was suggesting – strongly – that J Gedleyehlakisa (he who smiles while he hurts you) Zuma – was expressing his stance as ‘above the law’! Gggonners, as the dreadful Nats et al used to say!

  • We all know what Zuma deserves, but now I speculate that Ramaphosa might just waiver jail time by offering a suspended sentence as a political Coop de’tat, defusing violence and winning political points with his detractors.

  • Please peer review 3 community comments before your comment can be posted