Zuma ignored state capture allegations
Power struggle plays out in court
President Jacob Zuma’s executive powers were not unlimited, the public protector and opposition parties argued in the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria yesterday.
The argument stood in contrast with Zuma’s assertion that the public protector does not have the power to dictate to him to appoint a judicial commission of inquiry on her terms. Zuma has also argued that the power to establish commissions of inquiry and to decide on their terms is vested in the president alone.
In her State of Capture report, handed down just before her term expired, former public protector Thuli Madonsela recommended that Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng appoint the judge to head the judicial commission.
Asking Mogoeng to appoint the judge arose out of fears of a conflict of interest, as Zuma’s son Duduzane and his friends the Guptas are at the heart of state capture allegations.
Advocate Ishmael Semenya SC, for Zuma, argued that the recommendation infringed on the separation of powers doctrine, as the president could not be dictated to on how to use the executive powers solely vested in him.
Semenya also said the report, which only had observations and remedial actions, was not complete and the public protector could therefore not give remedial actions as there was no conclusive finding that had to be remedied.
Advocate Vincent Maleka made it clear that Zuma did not have free rein with the powers bestowed on him by the constitution. He also took a jab at the president, saying “any responsible president would have dealt with the allegations of state capture quickly”.
Maleka made the comment after Gauteng Judge President Dunstan Mlambo himself raised questions about the time that has elapsed and what has been done by Zuma since he was first informed of state capture in April last year.
Advocate Tembeka Ngcukaitobi for the opposition parties backed the notion that Zuma’s powers were not unlimited.