The immediate past President of the Republic of South Africa Jacob Zuma’s legal woes at adversarial and inquisitorial judicial processes keep mounting at almost every turn with accompanying huge legal costs awarded against him. And this evidently and largely in my view, due to the legal advice from his legal team. The advice to ignore summons to appear at the Commission of Inquiry into State Capture is the last straw that may have broken the camel’s back. Zuma’s legal woes at the Commission emanate from the report authored by the immediate past Public Protector Prof Thuli Madonsela from which the Commission and its sole Commissioner in the person of the Deputy Chief Justice of South Africa Ray Zondo was set up by and appointed by Zuma himself respectively. He now questions the credibility or legitimacy of Justice Zondo which he did not do when he appointed him to chair the Commission back then. This conversation is primarily anchored on the advice Zuma presumably and predictably received from his lawyers at the inquisitorial judicial process being the Commission. Given the seemingly deep end of the legal process at the Commission Zuma finds himself in, is he properly advised by his legal team?
Before answering this question, let me briefly say the following. Zuma’s legal woes apart from the rape trial to which he was not found guilty, largely emanate from the political side of his tenure as the the President of South Africa. He holds the unattractive title of a South African President who has been in court many times ‘probably more than other perennial offenders.’ He is due in court in May for the corruption, money laundering and racketeering matter. As a politician, it would appear he is banking on political solutions primarily from assistance of whatever nature from his allies in the African National Congress to his legal problems given that at some point, he runs out of options having exhausted all regal remedies available in law. And there are plenty of these allies whose rallying point, together with Zuma, is that their legal woes are politically motivated. People, particularly the politicians like Zuma who are in tight legal corners, more often than not resort to the politically motivated narrative to firstly discredit legal processes and secondly, to seek public sympathy from the like-minded individuals. Zuma’s allies looked closely, are largely those under the intense radar of law enforcement agencies for a wide range of criminal offences. For them, political solution remains the only option out of their legal woes. Back to the proposition that Zuma’s lawyers could be misadvising him.
Kilroy J. Oldster said ‘Any attorney with a conscience always speaks the truth. An attorney can and should practice law in a scrupulous manner, but some dishonest attorneys disregard ethical mandates in order to win. Unethical attorneys shape their clients stories, which is a fancy way of assisting them to tell a fib.’ This is somewhat further corroborated by Robert Bell and Caroline Abela in a paper titled ‘A Lawyers Duty to the Court’ wherein they say ‘A lawyer must not compromise his or her professional standards in order to please their client’. There is a semblance of similarity from the conduct of Zuma’s lawyers from these quotes. The shaping of his close relationship with Justice Zondo which on what they tried to portray during the recusal application was not conclusively stated and was never in my view meritorious for a recusal to be achieved. One could tell from the walkout that all manner of ethical etiquette was thrown out of the window to ‘tell a fib.’
Zuma through his lawyers launched a recusal application against the chairman of the Commission to which he was unsuccessful. Subsequent to this, he decided majestically walk out of the Commission in clear contempt not only to the Commission but its chairman who is the second most senior Judge in South Africa. Zuma wouldn’t have walked out I want to believe, without the express approval of his lawyers. Even if he wanted to do so to spite the chairman given his abundant disdain of him, his lawyers would be duty-bound to advise him otherwise mindful of the serious implications such could pose to the lawyers themselves from regulatory bodies and Zuma himself as it has emerged from the Constitutional Court position that he is in contempt of not attending the Commission proceedings. Following the walkout, SA1st Forum which is a civil society body in South Africa, wrote the Legal Practice Council by saying ‘We wish for your Council to determine whether the legal team of Mr JG Zuma, led by Advocate Muzi Sikhakhane, SC was irresponsible and unprofessional in how they advised and represented their client during the most recent appearance at the Zondo Commission of Inquiry.’ I was unable to find out if the Council had responded to SA1st concern.
It is unfathomable to suggest remotely or otherwise Zuma’s lawyers are not aware of the basic professional standards they owe him as a client and the Commission as a judicial forum established by law. While they will conveniently argue that they have launched a review application with respect to the recusal of Justice Zondo and are awaiting the outcome, one school of thought as argued by some is that they should have been courteous enough to at the very least approach Justice Zondo through an application to request the suspension of the summons while awaiting the decision on the review application. Justice Zondo in my view, is a fair minded Judge who, having treated Zuma with kid’s gloves presumably given his status as a former President, may have been amenable to the request notwithstanding the sheer disrespect in one form or the other Zuma and his lawyers have displayed towards him in particular and the Commission in general.
Former South African President Jacob Zuma is in the middle of a legal storm at the Commission of Inquiry into State Capture precipitated, on the face of it, by political decisions during his tenure. For all intents and purposes, he is better placed to say what he knows, what he has done and what he hasn’t. It may very well be that his name was dropped for certain decisions to have been taken without his knowledge or approval. I take umbrage at the manner his lawyers seem to misadvise him on his duty to appear at the Commission to state his side of the story hence my view that wittingly or unwittingly, they throw him at the deep end from which, seemingly, they may not be able to retrieve him. The consequences and implications are becoming abundantly clear by each passing day. Zuma and his lawyers have tried to run but are unable to hide from the long arm of the law. Only time will tell whether it will end in tears for Zuma when the law is effectively and efficiently made to run its course.
When all is said and done, I believe Zuma would, to a large extent, not be in eye of a legal storm at the Commission if he was properly advised by his lawyers. The aspersions cast on the Commission itself and its chairperson by Zuma let alone the South African judiciary, does not in my view help his course. I am prepared to be persuaded otherwise as always. Judge for Yourself!
Covid-19 virus is still our immediate and serious threat to our livelihoods. Let us strictly comply with all health protocols.
