ANC and Zuma on trial

THE Supreme Court of Appeal will soon be presiding over yet another appeal by President Jacob Zuma in a bid to erase the 783 charges of corruption against him. However, this appeal may be the last kick of a dying horse and the president may be ordered to stand trial on these charges.

He may still approach the Constitutional Court if the Supreme Court rules against him, but that may be his last shot. If that fails we can expect him to delay the beginning of a trial for as long as he can.

The idea of the president being dragged into court on criminal charges reminds us of the old Mdantsane saying lento ilivili iyajikajika. Expressed in song, as some of our poetry often is, it captured the twists and turns in our lives where uncertainty was often the only thing that was certain.

Thus it was, in one of those twists, in the middle of 2005 that then president Thabo Mbeki made a principled decision to remove Zuma as deputy president of the country. At issue were the implications on governance and the presidency of the very same 783 charges of corruption currently under appeal.

In his address to parliament, motivating his reasons for dismissing Zuma, the then president gave us a tour of his view of the responsibility of the state president. He emphasised that one of his primary duties was to uphold the constitution as the law of the land at all times and respect the independence of the judiciary. While he supported the key principles of innocent until proven guilty and equality before the law, he reminded us that these were matters for the judiciary, not the executive branch.

He also gave us another principle – one which we ignored. Largely implied in his decision read in parliament, the principle was that those charged with breaking the law should be separated from government to allow them to resolve their legal problems with the courts. He expressed a concern that their legal problems could be major detractions in the discharge of their duties to the public and colour their attitude towards an independent judiciary which was hearing their cases.

Had we adopted this principle in dealing with corrupt civil servants who are members of the executive branch, there would have been no Nkandla, no Guptagate, no Nenegate and we would not have been staring at a president who may still have to answer to 783 criminal charges.

Above all, the ANC would have preserved its trust with the public unencumbered by those who have hijacked it for personal gain and corrupt practices.

The big question is how will the ANC react if the Supreme Court orders the president to stand trial on the 783 criminal charges? Defend him until he limps out of office or discharge him from his duties to allow him to concentrate on his legal battles, away from the people’s government?

The public has an interest in what the ANC does. The last time we had a constitutional crisis involving the presidency, not even parliament seemed to know its role. Clarifying ANC policy and the constitutional roadmap would lessen public anxiety about change as well as pacify the markets.

Moreover, the cost of defending the president falls heavily on the public fiscus and may even rival Nkandla in legal fees with no end in sight.

Thuli Madonsela gave us the idea of separating personal interest and public interest on Nkandla. Perhaps the incoming public protector should find out which legal fees are a benefit to the president but have nothing to do with his official duties, and therefore should be paid out of his own pocket. — Wongaletu Vanda, via e-mail

THE letter “No vuma in Zuma” (DD October 15) has reference. In the history I have read, presidents of countries that faced trouble either returned from wherever they had travelled to or stayed put at home to try and contain the crisis.

But not the president of this country. In the middle of adversity he prefers to be wined and dined in other countries as if nothing is happening at home. He prefers to appoint task teams of ministers to attend to national problems. Ours is a leaderless country that is slowly going to the dogs.

The courts of the land will increasingly be drawn in to break down this arrogance or administrative inefficiency. The citizens of this country will have no choice really. — Mxolisi Toyitoyi Dimbaza, King William’s Town