An anniversary that should fuel resolve to get rid of Zuma
In 1996 SA celebrated the signing of its democratic constitution, but just 20 years later Zuma flouts it at will, writes Sipho Mila Pityana
THIS weekend marks 20 years since the signing of our constitution. It is a tragic reminder of the fact that our president, our head of state, is a serial offender when it comes to disrespecting the very constitution he is supposed to uphold.
Just to remind ourselves: in March this year President Jacob Zuma was found by the Constitutional Court to have acted in violation of his constitutional responsibilities in dealing with the public protector’s report on upgrades to his Nkandla private residence — and thereby to have flouted his oath of office.
As if that was not enough, the State of Capture report released last month clearly exposed the extent of corrupt collusion between some highly placed people and private interests; and provided support for the allegation that the president has condoned and even facilitated state capture — a clear violation of his constitutional responsibilities.
But the president’s disregard for the constitution goes back even further. In July 2011, the Constitutional Court found he had breached the constitution by extending the term of outgoing chief justice Sandile Ngcobo.
Zuma based his decision on section 8(a) of an apartheid law: the Judges’ Remuneration and Conditions of Employment Act. The court found that this section of the law allows the president to “usurp” the power of parliament.
This was one of the early and potentially lethal attacks by the president on the independence of the judiciary. Had he succeeded we possibly would not be seeing the determination shown by an independent judiciary that is the pride of our nation today.
Ngcobo was eventually replaced by Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng who, less than five years later, was himself to rule that Zuma had “failed to uphold‚ defend and respect the constitution as the supreme law of the land” in relation to the Nkandla debacle.
Time may have numbed some of us to the gravity of that ruling, as have the growing number of scandals surrounding Zuma. But we must never forget Mogoeng’s finding that the president had “substantial disregard for the remedial action taken against him by the public protector in terms of her constitutional powers”.
In addition, Zuma “failed to assist and protect the public protector so as to ensure her independence‚ impartiality‚ dignity and effectiveness by complying with her remedial action” — even though, as the chief justice put it, the president was “duty bound to do so”.
This commentary by the chief justice, although pertaining to only the public protector, could easily apply to the president’s attitude to other Chapter 9 institutions. He sees them as a nuisance and not worth taking note of.
In that same judgment, the chief justice pointed out that “public office bearers ignore their constitutional obligations at their peril. This is because constitutionalism‚ accountability and the rule of law constitute the sharp and mighty sword that stands ready to chop the ugly head of impunity off its stiffened neck”.
Zuma would do well to remember those words.
Mogoeng also said: “Certain values in the constitution have been designated as foundational to our democracy. This in turn means that as pillar stones of this democracy‚ they must be observed scrupulously. If these values are not observed and their precepts not carried out conscientiously‚ we have a recipe for a constitutional crisis of great magnitude. In a state predicated on a desire to maintain the rule of law‚ it is imperative that one and all should be driven by a moral obligation to ensure the continued survival of our democracy.”
So much, we have to say, for the president’s “moral obligation”; in response to the findings, he offered a weak apology, borrowed money from a captured bank, and carried on with his disregard for the constitution and the people of South Africa.
But the Constitutional Court is not the only subject of the president’s disrespect. In between the various Constitutional Court judgments, we have seen Zuma subvert and undermine the entire legal process — whether it is the handling of the killing of Andries Tatane in a service delivery protest in 2011, the massacre of mineworkers at Marikana the following year, the spy tapes, the trumped-up charges against Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan, the shenanigans at stateowned companies such as SAA, Eskom and Denel, or his alleged complicity in the “state capture” project.
This is despite the fact that the constitution charges him with an important responsibility to protect our sovereignty and the resources of the nation.
Alongside this, Zuma consistently sneers at those who use the courts to keep him in check, while his legal advisers bungle and fumble through their own attempts at abusing the legal system.
As Mogoeng pointed out in the Nkandla judgment, the president is required to “promise solemnly and sincerely to always connect with the true dictates of his conscience in the execution of his duties. This he is required to do with all his strength‚ all his talents and to the best of his knowledge and abilities”.
Given the president’s record, we can only assume that he either does not have the strength, talent or knowledge to respect our constitution — or he doesn’t have a conscience. Or all of the above.
There are two things we can and must do, given the current situation:
In commemoration of 20 years of our constitution, we must put all our energy, as citizens and residents of South Africa, into getting Zuma out of office. We can no longer allow a person who disrespects the constitution — and in the process, disrespects all of us — to continue as head of state. We encourage you to participate in this process by signing Save South Africa’s “people’s motion of no confidence”, and to get involved in civil society activity against Zuma.
As we focus on a post-Zuma society, we must recommit ourselves to realising the vision of our constitution: “To heal the divisions of the past and establish a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights.”
On a “big picture” level, this means we have to campaign for the election of a new president who respects the constitution and upholds its values; for an end to the abuse of executive power; for a national dialogue on the restoration of democratic values and beliefs; and for a renewed climate of civic engagement.
In doing this, we all have an obligation to ensure the next generation of leaders are totally and unequivocally committed to protecting and advancing all rights and duties in the constitution, ensuring public and personal accountability, speaking out against and reporting corruption, advancing equality for all, and acting against the conditions of terrible poverty and degradation to which so many millions are condemned.
We have, in summary, to Save South Africa — for the sake of ourselves, and for future generations. We cannot allow South Africa to be sold to private interests because of vested interests.
We, the people, are the ultimate custodians of our constitutional democracy. And that is why, on the 20th anniversary of our constitution, we must do more than ever before to protect and promote it — and demand that all our leaders are honest, accountable, open and responsive to the needs of our people and our country.
And if they are not prepared to do this, they must go.
Sipho Pityana is convener of the Save South Africa campaign
We have, in summary, to Save South Africa — for the sake of ourselves, and for future generations