Will Zuma ever fully own up on his role in Nkandla?

With the ANC succession race and state capture dominating national politics now, President Jacob Zuma’s violation of the constitution and his role in the Nkandla saga has receded in the public mind.

The EFF’s application to the Constitutional Court for a declaratory order directing parliament to probe Zuma’s conduct through an impeachment process brought to the fore that there is unfinished business on Nkandla.

Zuma’s ability to survive multiple scandals and leadership failures is because the ANC has, up to now, closed ranks to keep pressure off him and tried to mop up his mess, to its own detriment.

It is also about the fact that there is simply too much for the public to keep up with concerning Zuma.

The president rides the ebb and flow of public outrage knowing that over time people will move on.

This has happened when his friends, the Guptas, landed their jet at Waterkloof Air Force Base, when he fired Nhlanhla Nene as finance minister, when the Constitutional Court found he had violated the constitution, when he executed a midnight cabinet reshuffle, axing Pravin Gordhan and Mcebisi Jonas from the finance ministry, among others.

The March reshuffle provoked unprecedented public anger, as was evident in the mass marches around the country, and caused turbulence within the ANC, causing MPs to break ranks.

It emerged during the Constitutional Court hearing on Tuesday that Zuma has coasted through 27 question-and-answer sessions on Nkandla in parliament without giving straight answers about his role.

The EFF, UDM, Cope and DA are seeking the court’s intervention because Zuma has successfully subjugated accountability mechanisms thus far.

For most of Tuesday, the judges, led by Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng, interrogated the advocates representing the opposition parties about why the court needed to be involved and why other accountability mechanisms were deficient.

The answer the advocates did not give is that Zuma is the Harry Houdini of South African politics and is wilfully assisted by the ANC.

The court will have to decide whether there is a basis for it to get involved to force parliament to hold Zuma accountable for his conduct on the Nkandla matter.

Advocate Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, representing the EFF, argued that Speaker Baleka Mbete had deflected her responsibility.

“It is a duty uniquely imposed on the Speaker in the rules homegrown in parliament. She had a duty and she frustrated the discharge of this very function‚” Ngcukaitobi said.

Advocate Ngoako Maenetje, representing Mbete, conceded that Zuma had committed a “serious violation of the constitution”.

He argued, however, that it was rather the National Assembly and not the Speaker that should initiate an ad hoc committee to probe the president’s conduct. This suggests that irrespective of the court ruling, Mbete could be amenable to the ad hoc committee being set up.

Advocate Dali Mpofu, representing the UDM and Cope, said Zuma should be brought before a “fact-finding inquiry” to determine if his violation of the constitution was an honest mistake or deliberate.

The question is, if such a process were to be set up, would Zuma appear before the committee or would the ANC continue to shield him from scrutiny? And if he does, would he provide the answers he has dodged for years?

“So much of what we don’t know is in the president’s head,” Ngcukaitobi told the court.

This is not only true about Nkandla but all the scandals that define Zuma’s shadowy presidency.