Zuma runs out of legal road – and

The president can opt to stymie the state capture probe further, but it may be for his own account

President Jacob Zuma has stalled the establishment of a commission of inquiry on state capture for more than a year, but may have to reach deep into his pockets to engineer any further delays — which would only strengthen the case against him.

On Wednesday the high court in Pretoria found that Zuma’s attempt to overturn through legal review former public protector Thuli Madonsela’s State of Capture report “was a clear nonstarter”.

“Our view is that the president had no justifiable basis to launch the review application in the circumstances” that included a threat to democracy and the opportunity to do something about it. “In doing so, he was reckless and acted [unreasonably],” the court said, in awarding personal costs against Zuma.

That, lawyers for opposition parties involved in the litigation suggested, could make things interesting. Though Zuma has the option to appeal, opponents could demand that he personally puts up security to cover the legal costs of such an appeal.

Opposition parties may even argue that Zuma should be forced to show he could personally pay back not only their costs but also those of his own side, if he uses the state attorney and advocates paid for by the presidency.

“It would be a novel argument, but we could try,” said a lawyer, who had not yet consulted clients after the ruling and so would not speak for attribution.

The courts may be sympathetic to an attempt to deny Zuma public funding to continue a fight he should never have started. Last Friday, in a matter that revolved around former prosecutions head Mxolisi Nxasana, the high court described what it called a broad pattern of Zuma’s conduct in litigation over the years: defending what turns out “to have been the indefensible all along, banking on any advantage that the passage of the time may bring” .

There has never been any investigation into the allegations by former deputy finance minister Mcebisi Jonas that the Gupta family offered to remove the “deputy” from his title, the court said, “notwithstanding a legal obligation to do so”.

In that case, as well as the similar allegations by former MP Vytjie Mentor, failure to act may have infringed anti-corruption laws that demand action when corruption is suspected, the court said.

Such a failure can come with a jail term of up to 10 years.

Separate from that failure to act, Madonsela had already made preliminary or prima facie “findings that point to serious misconduct or impropriety on the part of the president, the Gupta family” and others, the court said this week.

Elsewhere, it noted “compelling” evidence of a relationship between Zuma and the Guptas that amounted to state capture.

“What considerably strengthens the prima facie case of misconduct and impropriety is the failure of the president to address the complaints when requested by the public protector to do so,” the court said.

With his various obligations now made clearer, further appeals and delays are likely to be at Zuma’s own risk.

He does, of course, have another option. “He could set up the commission,” said Madonsela in court after judgment was handed down on Wednesday.

By Thursday the ANC was expressing the hope that Zuma would do just that.

In the absence of an appeal, Zuma has until mid-January to proclaim a commission of inquiry, which will then have a mid-2018 deadline to complete an investigation that will be aided, extraordinarily for such a commission, with powers of search and seizure.

If and when the time comes for such a commission to question Zuma, it may well require extraordinary powers, as well as extraordinary patience, a close reading of Zuma’s conduct on state capture to date suggests.

In the space of one day in October, in a single document, Zuma said that the State of Capture report was not