ZUMA’S VICTIMHOOD VOID
Ex-president Jacob Zuma plans ahead. The reason he went to war with the judiciary and began rubbishing the Constitution, to which he pledged allegiance ahead of his two terms as president, is becoming clearer. But his strategy may just be unravelling. The state was footing the bill for his defence even as he stalked the country denigrating the judiciary, the Constitution and the rule of law at every opportunity.
Now, his legal woes are going to bankrupt him as well as take away his freedom. It is a lonely road he is on. Those defending him, especially those who actually matter, have dwindled to a mere handful.
It must be tough for someone who manipulated the state to such an extent that it paid private lawyers to defend him in a case against him personally, dating back to before he was even president of SA.
Throughout Zuma’s Stalingrad approach towards the corruption charges linked to the arms deal, his decade-long fight, it was taxpayers who footed his legal bills, based on a dodgy deal he apparently struck with the state attorney.
The Supreme Court of Appeal this week ordered Zuma to pay back about R16m paid by the state for his personal legal fees.
The judgment is scathing and rather revealing: nowhere else is the emperor revealed in all his naked glory as in the court judgments against him.
“I daresay, the government and the public can hardly have a legitimate interest in supporting a defence against criminal charges by an incumbent or former public office bearer and especially not in respect of charges of dishonesty and corruption,” the judgment reads. “Allowing officials to resist being held accountable, by drawing on state resources to obstruct or delay a prosecution, subverts the government’s (and the public’s) interest.”
While Zuma has always relied on the argument that all are equal before the law, the judgment lays bare the truth: that he always felt entitled to special treatment. “Mr Zuma argues that the state has an interest in ‘protecting a government official’. But this is not necessarily so,” the judgment reads. “The government and the public have an interest in protecting the rule of law and ensuring accountability and good governance; all of which is achieved by prosecuting offences of corruption and other abuses of public office and by ensuring that criminal trials proceed without delay.”
It also revealed that the state has been continuing to foot the bill for his criminal trial. When he appeared in court in February, it was at the taxpayers’ expense. But it will go no further. The judgment ensures that Zuma is now on his own, unless he succeeds in an appeal to the Constitutional Court.
But this places Zuma in a quandary. He has seemingly withdrawn from legal processes. How does he now approach the Constitutional Court to hear an appeal, when he ignored its ruling compelling him to appear before the state capture inquiry?
His legal troubles right now are insurmountable. What is worse for Zuma is that the Constitutional Court has made its move. As Stephen Grootes put it in the Daily Maverick, the decision by chief justice Mogoeng Mogoeng to ask Zuma to submit suggestions on what kind of sanction he should face for defying the court on appearing at the commission may be a masterstroke, as it shows that the highest court is doing everything in its power to ensure that Zuma is treated fairly. It is also leaving Zuma with very few options. If pulling out of all legal proceedings was his big plan, Mogoeng has just effortlessly drawn him back in.
Zuma cannot ignore the directive which, some argue, goes beyond fairness. The move by Mogoeng is masterful because it takes the wind of victimhood out of Zuma’s sails.
If pulling out of all legal proceedings was his big plan,
Mogoeng has effortlessly drawn him back in