JUDGMENT RESTORES CONFIDENCE IN LEGAL SYSTEM
THIS past week has been tumultuous. On June 29, news outlets across the world reported on the conviction of former president Jacob Zuma for contempt of court and his sentencing to a 15-month jail term.
As Zuma supporters gathered outside his home in Nkandla to fortify the former president, Zuma's legal team prepared and submitted legal documents to have his sentence set aside – a proposal which is under consideration at the Constitutional Court.
Within the racket of journalism, legal and political commentary, there is the general appreciation that justice has been delivered, and that South Africans can rest assured that Zuma has finally received what he deserves. The noise is fascinating and deserves attention because while it is true in the broader sense, it lacks tremendous detail – the kind needed to fully appreciate what this judgment really means for South Africa and its people.
Considering the ongoing slew of co-ordinated attacks and criticism waged against the judiciary, the judgment represents a vote of confidence in the country's legal system.
It is troubling that it has become a norm in South Africa to argue that the judicial system has been captured by political groupings.
On June 8, for example, veteran journalist Marianne Thamm wrote in the Daily Maverick: “Delays on Judge Hlophe's impeachment decision exposed ‘capture' within the Judicial Service Commission (JSC).”.
In another example, embattled Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane's legal counsel submitted legal documents stating that the appointment of retired Justice Bess Nkabinde, to chair a parliamentary panel to advise National Assembly whether Mkhwebane should be removed from office, was in contravention of the doctrine of the separation of powers.
Considering these and the threat posed by Zuma's resolute attack of the Concourt, the judgment safeguards the authority and independence of South Africa's courts and further supports judicial dignity and the supremacy of the rule of law. The question one must ask, however, is who is the real recipient of justice in this case?
Acting chief Justice Sisi Khampepe's lambasting of Zuma's behaviour as “outlandish” and “a calculated and insidious effort to corrode (the) legitimacy and authority of” the apex court squarely places the judgment in the view of a Concourt versus Zuma war.
The Concourt's victory is in favour of the interests of South Africans. However, without Zuma being placed in a position to account for alleged corruption through investigation, the full delivery of justice remains incomplete.
It must never be forgotten that South Africans lost billions of rand in alleged Zuma-related corruption.
Economist Paul Holden has detailed the sheer scale of the Gupta enterprise concluding that it cost taxpayers more than R57 billion.
The real cost of Zuma's alleged corruption is paid by the majority poor black South Africans.
The conviction must also be read viewing his participation in the Zondo Commission. In a press conference after his conviction, Deputy Chief Justice Zondo told the media that even if Zuma did not appear at the commission, there was enough evidence from various witnesses which the commission would use to make “clear findings”.
While I sympathise with Justice Zondo and the commission's predicament, the fact is justice and truth are intrinsically related – in this instance the “gaps of truth” left out by Zuma's non-participation may render Justice Zondo's findings incomplete and challengeable. Even worse, it leaves South Africans in the dark as to the squander of the country's resources. Can justice be seen to be done without these answers? Regrettably, the answer is no.
Until such a time that South Africans see Zuma stand trial for alleged state capture corruption, along with his cronies, justice has yet to be delivered.