Zondo must take control of witnesses and cross-examiners

The act of cross-examining a witness in a legal forum has often been described as an art. A skilled examiner may assist a presiding officer to establish the truthfulness of a witness s account of their direct knowledge ’ of facts. That is exactly the expectation we have in the state capture commission, albeit deputy chief justice Raymond Zondo has the authority to deviate as might be necessary from the ordinary rules of evidence that apply in a court of law. This week s appearance by advocate Dali Mpofu, to ’ cross-examine former finance minister and now public enterprises minister Pravin Gordhan on behalf of dismissed SA Revenue Services commissioner Tom Moyane, was far from an opportunity to test the veracity of evidence.

Instead, the country witnessed two egocentric individuals eschewing decorum and professionalism to trade unseemly insults.

It was, understandably, a hostile encounter from the start, and it quickly degenerated to a level of artlessness on both sides of the virtual barrier Gordhan

— testified via an audio-visual link from his home as is seldom seen in court

— and never countenanced by a presiding officer.

Gordhan has previously testified to the effect that Moyane s appointment

’ as head of SARS was part of a state capture project.

This week, he added very little substantive evidence to back his original claims, instead resorting to repeating populist slogans like join

“the dots ”, as if he were rallying a crowd of supporters at a politicallycharged meeting.

There is a vast chasm between spouting rhetoric and providing incontrovertible and objective evidence to convince Zondo that Moyane was engaged in state capture. Gordhan s rambling responses, absence of information to

’ cogently show Moyane s implication in state capture and

’ his unnecessary rises to Mpofu s jibes reflect poor

’ preparation with his legal team.

Mpofu, on the other hand, struggled to develop a smooth, methodical and astute cross-examination. He often asked questions which were inordinately convoluted and then criticised the witness for taking the trouble to deal with each proposition contained in the question. And he indulged and disrupted himself with

— — outbursts which displayed at once a childish petulance and full-blown, racialised contempt for Gordhan.

Zondo must take responsibility for his failure to censure both men and to mediate the exchanges firmly and appropriately. He allowed Gordhan too much leeway for inconsequential evidence and little substance. And he failed dismally to rein in Mpofu s appalling lack of control

’ in representing his client.

Zondo must take responsibility for his failure to censure both men and to mediate the exchanges firmly and appropriately