Former president Jacob Zuma was back in court on Thursday, 29 August, this time at the KwaZulu-Natal Division of the High Court in Pietermaritzburg. (Illustrative image. Original photo: Sharon Seretlo) 
uMkhonto Wesizwe (MK) leader Jacob Zuma’s address on Youth Day was his first public response to the formation of the new coalition government and the National Assembly’s election of Cyril Ramaphosa for another term as President late on Friday night.
Zuma stated:
“uMkhonto Wesizwe is of the strong view that the 2024 elections were rigged and that the results announced by the IEC are not a true reflection of the will of the people. Before and after the results, we have presented concrete evidence to the IEC showing widespread irregularities in the voting process and the voting system. It has all fallen on deaf ears.”
Zuma is far from the truth.
His party has not presented any evidence of “vote-rigging”. Even in legal papers supporting the party’s court challenge to the National Assembly sitting on Friday, it claimed that it had evidence the election results were not correct, but that it would not provide the evidence “at this stage”.
The MK spokesperson, Nhlamulo Ndhlela, has refused to provide any evidence to back up what his party says, despite many opportunities to do so.
The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that MK has no evidence, that the evidence does not exist and that they are deliberately lying.
Accordingly, Zuma’s claims that they will go to international courts will also fall flat.
Evidence matters.
MK has displayed none.
‘Roman and Dutch people’
This leads to Zuma’s attack on our legal system (MK states in its manifesto that there should not even be a Constitution and that Parliament should be sovereign, the final decision-maker in everything).
Zuma appeared to say in his prepared statement that SA’s legal system “cannot be the best if it has eyes to choose who does not be suitable to Roman and Dutch people [sic], but not for us as Africans”.
Again, this is about his claim that the legal system is biased against him.
However, it should not be forgotten that historically the “law” has never really worked for black people in SA. First, were the colonial laws, followed by the laws of apartheid. While the current system is supposed to fundamentally change that, the lived experience of many black people is that police officers abuse their powers and still use violence against them.
This is why Zuma attacks the law so often, as he knows that for most people listening to him, the law has not only not worked for them, but often worked against them. That he was president and head of the state while this happened was conveniently unimportant for this argument.
His closing comments will also have a strong resonance. He quoted the founders of the original, ANC-inspired Umkhonto weSizwe, whom, he said, in 1961 stated, “There comes a time in the life of any nation where there remain only two choices: submit or fight.”
Obsession and vendetta
Zuma appears to be obsessed with Ramaphosa, claiming the apartheid government “regimes could not have lasted even one day without black collaborators such as Ramaphosa”.
First, on the historical record, his claim cannot be substantiated. Ramaphosa spent several months in solitary confinement and was interrogated by apartheid agents. He
style="font-weight: 400;">has explained these events in Parliament. Biographers have referred to it, and there is nothing in the historical record to suggest that what Zuma claims is true.
Second, if this was true, why then did Zuma ask Ramaphosa to be the deputy leader of the ANC in 2012 (at the suggestion of Ace Magashule), and then appoint him Deputy President?
Again, this is about his vendetta against the person who defeated his side at the ANC’s 2017 conference and then worked him out of power in 2018. (For those who doubt the depths of Zuma’s feelings on this, it is worth viewing, again,