Legal experts weigh in on Zuma v Concourt

THE Constitutional Court must set a clear precedent in that if an individual is in contempt of court and is unable to provide a reason for not attending a hearing, a sanction must be handed down.

This is according to law expert William Booth, who described former president Jacob Zuma’s pending Constitutional Court judgment as “very serious”.

Judgment is expected to be handed down today after Zuma failed to comply with the State Capture commission’s summons to give evidence.

The commission is probing, inter alia, allegations of state capture during his nine-year presidency. Zuma failed to appear before the commission and stated that he had lost trust in the judiciary. He said he had taken a political position not to take part in the matter because the judiciary was engaged in political battles against him.

The commission’s counsel called for Zuma to receive two years’ imprisonment.

Booth said if the former president was found in contempt of court, the Concourt would have to look at what the sanction for that would be.

“When you are in contempt of a court order it becomes a criminal case. This is a very serious matter involving someone who was in a very senior position. He was someone who should’ve set a very good example to the public,” said Booth.

Another law expert, Paul Hoffman, is of the opinion that the Concourt might resort to imprisonment if Zuma again fails to comply with the commission. “He has compounded his contempt by ignoring directions given to him in relation to what he wants to say in mitigation. The likely outcome is some form of imprisonment. It could either be imprisonment without the option of any alternative form of punishment or he could be imprisoned but avoid the imprisonment if he presents himself to the Zondo Commission.”