Zuma insists he has played ball with Zondo probe
Former president Jacob Zuma insists he has always sought to co-operate with the deputy chief justice Raymond Zondo inquiry into state capture and has slammed efforts to compel him to testify as completely unjustified.
As yet though, Zuma has not provided any of the information or evidence requested of him by the inquiry, which has been charged with investigating allegations that both he and his administration were captured by private interests.
The former president has chosen not to respond to the evidence of 33 witnesses who the inquiry ’ s lawyers contend have implicated him in wrongdoing. Neither has he sought to crossexamine one of those witnesses, which include many of his former cabinet ministers.
Zuma has argued that none of the witnesses who have previously testified has given evidence that requires a response from him. He has also stressed that there is no legal requirement on him to respond to the testimony given against him.
I contend that there is no lawful basis or good reason for the commission requiring me to answer feelings and speculative allegations and ‘ advices ’ by individuals who are my political foes or who hold special personal or professional agendas of their own,” Zuma has argued before.
He added that some of the witnesses who had given evidence against him, who include former finance minister Nhanhla Nene and his public enterprises counterpart Pravin Gordhan, were simply unhappy that they were removed from their positions for legitimate reasons or were dismissed from their jobs or redeployed to positions that they did not like”.
Zuma has also not responded to two “regulation 10.6” notifications served on him by the inquiry, in which he has been asked to provide specific information about the evidence given by three witnesses in relation |to the alleged capture of state power utility Eskom, as well as the testimony of one witness in connection with the Passenger Rail Agency of SA (Prasa).
Under that regulation, Zondo is empowered to direct any person to submit an affidavit or to appear before the commission to give evidence which has a bearing on the matter being investigated. It is unclear at this stage what information the inquiry asked Zuma to provide.
Zuma’s response to the evidence given by the Eskom witnesses was due on September 18 2020. As yet, that response has not been filed. Zuma has until Monday to file his response on Prasa.
Should he fail to do so, he can be found guilty of an offence under the inquiry’s regulations and face a fine or imprisonment. But, should Zondo choose to pursue such legal options against the former president, it is certain to only increase Zuma’s already clear animosity and suspicion towards the deputy chief justice.
That animosity saw the JG Zuma Foundation last week accuse Zondo of deliberately treating Zuma harshly to further his own ambitions to become SA’s next chief justice.
The foundation itself was asked to provide the inquiry with information about its fundraising activities, but has yet to respond to that request.
Zuma last appeared before the inquiry in July 2019, when he spent much of his time on the stand detailing how he had been the target of a foreign intelligence and apartheid spy plot to discredit and assassinate him.
It was during that testimony that he claimed journalist Redi Tlhabi was producing a foreignfunded film on his rape trial portraying Zuma as a rapist to fit the narrative”. Zuma was acquitted of the rape charges.
Tlhabi applied to crossexamine Zuma over those claims, which she insists are false and defamatory. While Zuma has indicated that he will oppose that application, he has yet to file any response to it.
Zuma has been repeatedly asked by the inquiry to provide affidavits detailing his responses to testimony given against him and was provided with a document detailing the “areas of interest ” its evidence leaders wanted him to address in a sworn statement. He has as yet chosen not to do so.
Given Zuma’s position as head of state during the period when much of the alleged state capture has been said to have occurred, it is pivotal that the inquiry do whatever it can to solicit some form of response from him.
With months to go until it completes its work, the inquiry is intent on using the legal options available to it to force the former president to answer its questions. But his almost complete silence, up until now, is arguably an answer in itself.