In the last few days, our sub-region was gripped by various political events which caught my eye. Some were purely political as in the case of the funeral of the founding father of the Republic of Zambia Dr Kenneth Kaunda; the centenary celebrations of the founding father of the Republic of Botswana Sir Seretse Khama and the political instability in the Kingdom of Eswatini. What caught my complete attention is the ongoing Jacob Zuma spectacle with its political and legal intrigues if not uncertainties. Having fairly followed his political journey since the 2007 African National Congress (ANC) Polokwane elective congress whereat he dethroned Thabo Mbeki, he has been embroiled in so many legal and political problems. His latest battle at the Constitutional Court appears to be his last ditch effort to escape the long arm of the law which arguably, he has dodged for as long as he could. The latest unfolding events suggest Zuma’s fears could very well be tragically confirmed. Only a King Solomon miracle can save him.
On 2 March 2021, I wrote on this platform under the heading ‘Zuma’s lawyers have thrown him at the deep end from which they may not retrieve him.’ I argued as I still do so herein, that Zuma has been badly advised by his lawyers the result of which he finds himself in precarious situations he now finds himself in. While Zuma’s woes are politically and legally intertwined, his lawyers seem to have fallen into the trap of rendering legal advice to serve a political outcome. This is to say, the consequences of ignoring established and expected legal imperatives would very likely back-fire and in the process, fail to achieve the desired political outcome. Legal scholars will argue this is an incurable situation. Zuma is currently and deeply in this space. Had he been properly advised to appear before the Commission on State Capture and answer questions notwithstanding his apprehension of bias against the Commission chairperson which apprehension he has not been able to compellingly ventilate in my view, he will not been facing a possible 15 months jail term. It is difficult to fathom whether the recusal application will deliver a different outcome from the high court where it is yet to be decided. Succeeding to have judicial officers recuse themselves is a very big ask which requires the applicant to demonstrate and present compelling reasons of bias beyond mere unsubstantial grounds. Furthermore, it is the judicial officer complained against who determines the validity or lack thereof of the application of recusal. Yes the recusal application can be appealed against and Zuma may very well have a valid point. But his lawyers would have looked at the prevailing circumstances and proactively apply their minds. That being so, regard would have been had to say: are realistically speaking, any prospects of success at the high court? It doesn’t look like.
The Commission approached the Constitutional Court to obtain an order compelling Zuma to appear before it in order for him to answer questions. Part of the Commission prayer was for the Court to declare that Zuma’s walkout from the Commission was unlawful; that he is required to account for his exercise of public power while he was President; that he cannot leave the Commission without the chairperson’s express and explicit permission and that, Zuma must pay the Commission’s legal fees for bringing the application. Notwithstanding the Commission serving Zuma and the expected result that he files his own papers in response, it is common cause that he never bothered to do so. Consequently, the Constitutional Court ruled in the Commission’s favour with Zuma slapped with a costs order argued to be substantial. Particularly in this regard was the instruction that he must appear before the Commission and answer questions. Proper legal advice from Zuma’s lawyers should have been, in my view, out of the realm of politics and purely legally proactive than reactive. Such legal advice should have been that if he refused to appear before the Commission as directed by the Constitutional Court, it would render him in contempt and that the possibility of a punitive sanction could very well be imposed. I believe any lawyer worth his/her salt should have so advised him.
Faced with the certain reality that the prison door is wide ajar for him to enter and such door firmly shut and bolted once inside, Zuma and his lawyers are now more than ever before, cap in hand and on bended knees approaching the Constitutional Court to rescind its 15 months sentence. From where I stand, this is some fait accompli of some sort as the horse has already bolted. This because some legal analysts argue Zuma is very unlikely to bring anything material to the able which thing could persuade the Constitutional Court to rescind the 15 months sentence. Zuma was given an opportunity by the Constitutional Court to present compelling reasons why for example and for argument’s sake, a custodial sentence should not be imposed on him for being in contempt (refusing to appear at the Commission). Instead of doing so, he is alleged to have written an irrelevant letter to the Chief Justice wherein he maligned and disrespected the judiciary in all possible tone and language crafted in this respect. Notwithstanding this letter, Zuma is on record elsewhere whereat he made defamatory statements against the judiciary. By all accounts, he cannot expect to elicit some sympathy from the judiciary he has consistently and constantly so maligned and disrespected for the longest time. One derives sympathy from the conduct and attitude he/she displays towards someone. He hasn’t in my view demonstrated remotely or otherwise, any of these. It is against any basic logic however one may be deeply offended! Any lawyer worth his/her salt would have foreseen the legal consequences and harm of the belligerent behaviour of Zuma towards the judiciary and try, if you like, to do damage control than exacerbating it. The latter seems in my view, to be the modus operandi of Zuma’s lawyers. He may have temporarily stayed his ultimate destiny with the ruthless long arm of the law. But the script of his sheer undoing is firmly written on his and those of his lawyers’ faces. From where I stand, it is no longer the matter of whether he will be the VVIP guest of prison authorities but when this will take place.
On the political front, Zuma has waged a serious war against his own party the ANC and some of its leaders notably Cyril Ramaphosa. He is angry and bitter that Ramaphosa removed him from Union Buildings before the expiry of his term. He conveniently forgets he did the same to Thabo Mbeki back in 2008 or thereabout. On the day he announced his resignation, he asked the question he still asks today: ‘what have I done.’ I guess he is perfectly placed to answer it without someone’s help. His trump card in all his political battles is that he has fought for the liberation of South Africa. He is absolutely correct. But he seems to be relaying the message which resonates well with those who support him to say: because he has fought for the liberation of South Africa, he must not be subjected to the rule of law or if he does, it must according to his own terms. The message seems to suggest he will appear before any lawful structure only when he endorses those who oversee them. Poor Zuma one could say.
Whatever political agenda he pushes against Ramaphosa and the ANC, Zuma seems to have overshot his political runway and consequently in the late afternoon of his political career. As he shoots the runway, he is prepared not to go down on his own but with those who support him. He does not regret the super spreader event organised at his homestead of Nkandla. His best bet if weekend Nkandla spectacle is anything to go by, is that a political upheaval of some sort erupts wherein a political solution of sorts is the way forward. Like they say, only time will tell. The same fate he suffers on the political front is the same that he suffers on the legal front. All in all, Zuma’s woes particularly the legal ones have in large measure been caused by his own lawyers who in my view, have badly advised him. For now, Zuma should not be facing a 15 month sentence for wilfully ignoring a Constitutional Court of appearing at the Commission of Inquiry on State Capture. There was so much to lose for him for not appearing at the Commission as the unfolding events so confirm. I am prepared to be persuaded otherwise as always. Just for Yourself!
‘No one is safe until everyone is safe’. It is in our hands to ensure this statement stays true to its literal meaning. Let us adhere to all Covid-19 health protocols.
