THE South Africa political squabbles are once again putting the country on the verge of a political crisis. Former President Jacob Zuma was expected to hand himself over for imprisonment after the South Africa Constitutional Court ruled on June 28 that he must be sentenced to 15 months for contempt of court.
Tapiwa Gomo
By the afternoon of July 3, news started filtering through that Zuma would not be going to jail on July 4 as the Constitutional Court agreed to hear his urgent application for a rescission of its contempt ruling against him on July 12. This new development might have brought respite to an otherwise tense, divisive and potentially defining moment in South Africa.
Are we going to witness another of Zuma’s honey badger moment when he will rise against all odds and survive imprisonment? His larger than life character and never-say-die attitude on legal and political cases has rightfully placed this man from KwaZulu Natal at an almost mythical status. There will be no losers, anyway, if all stakeholders go for a political settlement. South Africa needs that right now to balance between political stability and protecting the Judiciary.
At the centre of the current crisis is the Zondo Commission officially known as the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture established by the government in January 2018, to “investigate allegations of State capture, corruption, fraud, and other allegations in the public sector including organs of State in South Africa.”
In short, the commission is investigating allegations of State capture by the Gupta brothers — a wealthy Indian-born family which used to have business interests in South Africa. Zuma is accused of having facilitated the capture. This commission is seen by others as a witch hunt to bring down Zuma, while others see it as retaliation by the “white monopoly” for Zuma’s perceived attempt to shift control of the economy through the Guptas. Zuma himself is on record alleging the existence of forces that are after his head.
Whether that is true or imagined, it cannot be disputed that since he left office, criminal cases for which he was acquitted or those that had been dropped have been revived. Chief among them is the 1999 arms deal — a strategic defence procurement programme involving $4,8 billion purchase of weaponry by the ANC government during Nelson Mandela’s time. While Zuma only became President of South Africa and commander-in-chief of the South African National Defence Force in 2009, the buck stopped with him on the arms deal.
The same arms deal charges against him that had been dropped in 2009 on technicalities have now been revived. This means that in addition to being the main subject at the Zondo Commission, Zuma is supposed to appear in court in Pietermaritzburg to answer arms deal charges, while the Constitutional Court was also hearing his contempt of court case after his refusal to attend the Zondo Commission for the second time.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
Zuma had argued conflict of interest, calling on Zondo to recuse himself. The two men dated sisters from the same family. Zondo confirmed to have a child with the sister of Zuma’s wife but dismissed claims of conflict of interest. And Zuma refused to return to the commission prompting the former to file a contempt of court cases against the former.
While the battle seems narrowed to the two men, what is clear now is that this is no longer a minor issue of “fixing” Zuma considering the potential wider and profound political ramifications. Nkandla, Zuma’s village in KwaZulu Natal province, was a hive of activity last week since the Constitutional Court ruling, which some legal experts opined should have been a suspended sentence. His supporters in KwaZulu Natal and elsewhere across the country do not want to see their man go to prison. Everything has turned political blurring the issues and the merits of criminal cases at hand.
If it was only political, it would be easy to conclude this as an ANC internal matter; an indication that the ruling revolutionary party has failed to hold itself together and maybe has run its course. Whatever, the outcome of Zuma’s court cases, some of South Africa’s institutions of democracy will not come out of this untainted.
First, the Constitutional Court judgement to imprison Zuma on contempt of court raised curious questions, including adherence to the Constitution. In addition, the media have also demonstrated their political polarisation and the lines are clear. There is “the white monopoly media” calling for Zuma’s head and the pan-African side which argues that Zuma is being persecuted for no reasons but political. Media shapes public opinion and in this case can potentially divide the nation.
Just as these events were unfolding, there were some interesting announcements from the South African Judiciary and the office of the Chief Justice. With the Chief Justice of South Africa, Mogoeng Thomas Reetsang Mogoeng still on leave, Zondo has assumed the role of acting Chief Justice with effect from 1 July, while madam Justice Sisi Virginia Khampepe, one of those who delivered Zuma’s contempt of court judgment on June 28, as his acting Deputy Chief Justice from July 2. This now means the complainant in the contempt of court case, Zondo, is now the judge or the supervisor of those hearing Zuma’s urgent application to stay out of jail, raising another potential case of conflict of interest on Zondo.
