Zuma in a tight corner over apology
Former president Jacob Zuma has come under fire for being manifestly insincere in his apology for referring to former tourism minister Derek Hanekom as a known enemy agent. But it may also end up being expensive for Zuma.
Former president Jacob Zuma has come under fire for being manifestly insincere in his apology for referring to former tourism minister Derek Hanekom as a known enemy agent. But it may also end up being expensive for Zuma.
Hanekom won the first part of the case: to have the tweet declared false and defamatory and to interdict Zuma from referring to him as a known enemy agent or apartheid spy in future.
The second part of Hanekom’s legal action against Zuma over the tweet involves the former minister claiming R500,000 in damages from the former president. That case is yet to be decided.
But Zuma’s attitude to the apology he was ordered to publish on Twitter by the high court in Durban — in a ruling that was upheld by the Constitutional Court last week — will almost certainly be the subject of argument in that case, in which both he and Hanekom are expected to testify.
Hanekom’s lawyers have expressed their displeasure over Zuma’s failure to adhere to judge Dhaya Pillay’s ruling that he delete the tweet within 24 hours. When Zuma failed to do so, after the Constitutional Court’s decision to refuse him leave to appeal against Pillay’s decision, Hanekom’s attorney, Dario Milo, gave him until 5pm on Monday to delete and apologise for the offending tweet — or face being sued for contempt of court.
“Your client has wilfully disregarded the high court order to date, almost two days after the Constitutional Court order was received,” Milo wrote to Zuma’s attorney, Eric Mabuza, on Sunday.
“Your client is thus in contempt of the high court order. Your client’s deliberate delay in complying with the terms of the high court order, which both you and your client are undoubtedly aware of, can only be actuated by bad faith and continues to prejudice our client’s rights and the administration of justice.”
Within hours of that letter being sent, Zuma’s Twitter account had deleted his Hanekom tweet.
EFF MEETING
In an argument rejected by Pillay, Zuma maintained he referred to Hanekom as a “known enemy agent” after EFF leader Julius Malema’s claims that he had tried to collude with the party to oust him as president — and not because he was accusing him of being an apartheid spy.
Hanekom admitted to meeting with the EFF, but denied that Zuma’s downfall was being plotted.
Given that Zuma clearly does not believe he did anything wrong in posting the tweet, the way in which he framed his apology — around the wording he had been given by Hanekom’s lawyers — was expected.
In isiZulu, he wrote: “Mr Hanekom wrote the following message asking the courts to compel me to say it as he wrote it. The Constitutional Court agreed and ordered me to say it. I say it as it is: ‘On 25 July 2019, I published a tweet which alleges that Derek Hanekom is a known enemy agent. I unconditionally withdraw this allegation and apologise for making it as it is false.’”
Zuma ended his apology tweet with the words: “I hope I say it according to his wishes and court orders.”
In other words, Zuma was telling his Twitter followers he was apologising to Hanekom only because he had been ordered by the court to do so and not because he was genuinely sorry for what he had posted.
Hanekom responded that he accepted the apology. “As far as I am concerned the matter is now closed, apart from the determination of costs and damages, and we can move on.”
Arguably, Zuma is now in a tight corner. If he refuses to admit wrongdoing in referring to Hanekom as a “known enemy agent” during the defamation damages hearing, he runs the risk of being accused of lacking remorse. But if he admits he was wrong, he faces the humiliation of conceding defeat to a political adversary he despises.
Either way, this is not a battle the former president can win.