Grace, JZ’s shuff le of shame

It is entirely understandable that the SA government would want to spare Zimbabwe’s Grace Mugabe a possible criminal conviction for an alleged assault on a young woman. Diplomatic immunity seems an attractive, quick solution to an ugly, messy problem. After all, Grace is the wife of an important African leader, a man whom many admire because of his anticolonial rhetoric and the risks he took in support of SA’s liberation struggle.

There are also sound pragmatic arguments to be made. Grace is not only already the de facto power behind Robert Mugabe’s throne, but she is also very likely his successor. The countries share an extensive, porous, border.

Unfortunately for the Zuma administration, the downsides stack up badly. However seductive the option, to grant Grace diplomatic immunity has reputational costs abroad and constitutional implications at home.

Our international reputation, in fact, will not be greatly affected. A minor physical assault by the Harare harridan is neither unheard of, nor unexpected, given her volatile combination of overweening arrogance and low self-control.

The days when SA had a commanding moral stature are gone. This incident will merely confirm the prevailing perception that SA’s political decisions are entirely mercenary, driven by short-term horizons and accompanied by a scary indifference to the law.

This is why SA spinelessly, at China’s behest, pettily denied the Dalai Lama a visa. This is why we ignored a warrant issued by the International Criminal Court – of which SA was a founding member – for the arrest of Omar alBashir, Sudan’s genocidal despot.

But although our fading reputation is no barrier to immunity, the constitution is. Although it is now claimed she was part of the Zimbabwean delegation attending the SA Development Community summit, Grace entered the country more than a week earlier, reportedly for medical treatment and to visit her playboy sons.

In terms of the Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges Act, not even a head of state can escape the jurisdiction of SA’s courts when criminal injury is involved.

The legality of Grace’s diplomatic immunity will eventually be ruled upon by the courts. AfriForum’s attack beast, Advocate Gerrie “Bulldog” Nel, intends to challenge the decision.

However difficult the situation, it is easy to imagine how SA could have handled it better.

Most elegantly, it could have allowed court proceedings to go ahead and if Grace were found guilty, Zuma could then have granted her a presidential pardon against criminal sanctions, but not against civil damages. Justice would, at least symbolically, have been served.

But, none of the government’s actions has anything to do with the evenhanded processes of the law. They have been about sparing Grace embarrassment and potential humiliation.

There is a telling illustration of this brazen, shameless approach on the part of our president. One would have thought that until matters were resolved, Zuma would at least keep a dignified distance from the controversial Mrs Mugabe.

Instead, on Tuesday night, he and Grace were videoed, without a care in the world, happily jiving together at a SADC party.

Zuma is a disgrace to his country, as is Grace Mugabe to hers. And unfortunately for their nations, both are oblivious as to why that is so.

Zuma is a disgrace to his country, as is Grace Mugabe to hers. And unfortunately for their nations, both are oblivious as to why that is so.