Why courts are bulwark to anarchy

In an ideal world in which the government always acts in the national interest rather than serve personal or political party ends, there should and would be minimal need for the courts to be called upon to adjudicate on the decisions of the national executive.

But South Africa under President Jacob Zuma is anything but normal. Civil society and political parties have felt compelled to approach the courts to block Zuma’s executive actions, and won. The courts have often set aside the president’s decisions, citing that he had acted irrationally.

It’s been an embarrassing oneway traffic, such that it would not be uncharitable to say the defeats speak volumes about the quality, or lack of it, of the advice Zuma is getting from his aides.

There is clearly something amiss in how Zuma governs, which has enabled his political foes to profit from his mistakes. One only has to compare his tenure with that of presidents Nelson Mandela and Thabo Mbeki to appreciate the gravity of the situation.

Just last week a Gauteng high court judge ruled Zuma had to provide reasons for his decision to sack an incorruptible and competent finance minister, Pravin Gordhan.

Zuma’s apologists and defenders have argued that it is his presidential prerogative to hire and fire ministers as he deems fit. But as we all now know, the sacking of Gordhan has had disastrous ramifications for the economy, leading to two ratings agencies downgrading SA’s credit rating to junk status.

It’s therefore a legitimate question for the courts to adjudicate whether it’s permissible in law for the president to willy nilly dismiss members of the national executive without just cause and harm the national interest.

It’s that it’s not an ideal situation to have the courts continually adjudicating on matters of governance as that could give rise to perceptions they are meddling in politics. Were such a perception to gain credibility, it could potentially undermine the legitimacy of our judiciary in the public mind.

But given the state we are in, one understands why the courts have had to be called upon to regularly be final arbiters. We are lucky to have them. Long may their independence endure.