Yet another indictment
Ruling on Zuma charges tests him and the ANC
IT SEEMS a month cannot go by without President Jacob Zuma being on the losing side of a legal battle. The latest is perhaps the most directly threatening, but offers the most complicated scenario.
The case has its origins in the battle for leadership of the African National Congress (ANC) between Mr Zuma and his predecessor Thabo Mbeki.
It is murky for two reasons — one political and the other legal. On the legal front, it appears more or less resolved that Mr Zuma has a case to answer in connection with the corruption charges that arose out of the Shaik case. The tricky question all along was whether there was political interference in bringing the case, and if so, whether that constituted an illegal form of political manipulation of the legal system.
The main support for this idea was the judgment of Judge Chris Nicholson, who invalidated the prosecution on fraud and corruption charges of Mr Zuma on the basis that Mr Mbeki had interfered politically in the work of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA).
In the wake of this ruling, Mr Mbeki was forced to resign, clearing the way for Mr Zuma to be elected president of the party, and later the country.
But behind this legal question, the politics is also convoluted, since the people responsible for bringing or dropping the charges initially answered to Mr Mbeki and now they ultimately answer to Mr Zuma.
Last Friday’s high court ruling finally offers some clarity on this lengthy series of events, and for that alone, it should be welcomed. The court said the prosecution had not been tainted by the allegations of political interference and ruled that the decision by the NPA’s acting head Mokotedi Mpshe to drop the charges against Mr Zuma was irrational.
“Mr Zuma should face the charges as outlined in the indictment,” said a unanimous full bench of the high court.
However, it does not get clearer than that. A court should have made the call on Mr Mpshe’s concerns about the abuse of process in the NPA, said the judges.
What is not clear is the path forward. The NPA is likely to appeal, and it is its right to do so. But for Mr Zuma and the ANC, this is not just another court ruling to be fobbed off, as they have repeatedly attempted to do in the past.
A head of state with unresolved fraud and corruption charges would spark a crisis in pretty much any government of a relatively sophisticated economy.
The most appalling thing about this tumultuous sequence of events has been its effect on the administration of justice.
The case brought about the scrapping of the Scorpions unit.
There has also been organisational turmoil in the NPA and the new Hawks unit.
Naively perhaps, Mr Zuma’s backers believed that the charges would never be reinstated, but the Democratic Alliance has been dogged in pursuing the case, and is likely to remain so.
Last week’s ruling creates yet another political headache for Mr Zuma and the ANC,
A head of state with unresolved fraud and corruption charges would spark a crisis in pretty much any government
particularly since it comes so soon after the Constitutional Court ruled that he did not uphold the principles of the Constitution in the way he handled Public Protector Thuli Madonsela’s directives on the wanton spending on his Nkandla residence.
Mr Zuma has shown he is quite adept at sidestepping such setbacks.
But the ANC is the bigger loser. The party’s continued defence of a president of questionable judgment erodes its own disciplinary procedures and constitution.
Having at its helm a man who has no respect for the rule of law and associated values will have deeper consequences for the country, as it continues to dominate political life in SA.
When the survival of one man takes precedence, this encourages a toxic culture, as the country’s laws are easily disregarded. That will further erode the credibility of public institutions — and that’s a threat a young democracy can ill afford.