Concourt legal troubles for Zuma pile up
Ramaphosa urged to set up state capture probe
PRESIDENT Jacob Zuma’s legal troubles continue to pile up in the Constitutional Court and the latest contestation is to urge his deputy Cyril Ramaphosa to set up a judicial commission of inquiry into state capture.
This latest bid was filed this week in the Concourt by the Quaker Peace Centre, FW de Klerk Foundation and Afriforum, which all argue that the constitution of South Africa allows the deputy president to set up a judicial commission of inquiry if the president is implicated in any acts of corruption.
In his founding affidavit, Rommel Roberts, secretary of the Quaker Peace Centre in Cape Town, argued that his court application was necessary to curb the alleged continuation of state capture while Zuma remains president.
“The risk exists of state capture continuing unabated to the detriment of all inhabitants of South Africa, thus ultimately impacting directly or indirectly on the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights because valuable and scarce state resources are misdirected instead of being used to respect, protect, promote and fulfil human rights in the manner contemplated by section 7(2) of the constitution.
“The downgrades to junk status, for so long as they continue, will limit the government’s access to investor capital, both local and foreign; this setback will occur both in the public and private sectors,” Roberts argued.
In his application, Roberts said a proper interpretation of section 90(1) of the constitution was needed.
He said his organisation contends the words “or otherwise unable to fulfil his duties of president” cover “any situation involving the risk of a conflict between… official responsibilities and private interests” of the president.
“In such a situation, which is contemplated expressly by section 96(2)(a) of the constitution, the deputy president is constitutionally obliged by section 90(1)(a) of the constitution to act as president”.
According to these three parties, Zuma is implicated in the state capture in his official responsibilities and his private interests, arguing that he was therefore unable to fulfil his duties as president by appointing a commission of inquiry into state capture as a matter of urgency.
“Given the serious risk of conflicted circumstances of the president, the deputy president assumes the office of acting president and is thus constitutionally authorised and solely responsible for the appointment of a commission of inquiry into state capture.
“The deputy president, by acting as president due to the risk of conflict of interest, assumes no other powers for functions of the president.
“And the government affords the commission of inquiry into state capture appointed by the deputy president all support and resources as the commission may reasonably require without delay and as may reasonably be requested by the chair of the commission of inquiry,” Roberts said.
He said there were various reasons for Zuma not to appoint a commission of inquiry, saying there exists a risk he would expose himself, and members of his family, to civil and criminal liability.
He was adamant that the allegations against Zuma on state capture allow a situation where his deputy can set up such a commission of inquiry.
Roberts said it was in the interest of justice that the Concourt should make a ruling on the matter. He said Ramaphosa, the SACP and opposition parties, as well as civil society, trade unions and faith-based organisations, have all called for a commission of inquiry.
“Indeed, even the national executive committee of the ANC decided at its meeting, which ended on May 28, 2017, that a judicial commission of inquiry into state capture ought to be appointed urgently and that all review proceedings concerning the state of capture report of the OPP (office of the public protector) should be expedited.
“Unfortunately, the secretary-general of the ANC is under the false impression the constitution specifies the president alone is empowered to appoint a commission of inquiry.”
Yesterday, Ramaphosa said he supports the establishment of the commission of inquiry on allegations of state capture. He believes the commission must be established within the framework of the law and constitution.
Ramaphosa’s spokesperson, Ronnie Mamoepa, said the office of the deputy president has had sight of the legal papers before the Concourt.
“The lawyers are studying the papers and the deputy president will respond to the legal papers in court, if he deems it necessary.”
Constitutional law expert Professor Pierre de Vos said the applicants in the Concourt were making a plausible argument but he was not sure whether the Concourt would make a ruling that a judicial commission of inquiry must be made by the deputy president due to the doctrine of separation of powers.
De Vos said: “It is the executive that could make that decision.”
Zuma’s spokesman Dr Bongani Ngqulunga did not respond to an e-mail sent to him.