Still ducking and diving after all these years

When former president Jacob Zuma announced the establishment of a commission of inquiry into state capture and declared that he had confidence in all of the country’s judges, many would have doubted his sincerity. After all, he had spent many months resisting calls to establish such a commission, as recommended by then public protector Thuli Madonsela, until he found himself cornered. He had also gained a reputation over the years of applying intricate delaying tactics to avoid being held accountable on matters where his decisions and behaviour were in conflict with ethical leadership or, in some cases, the law and constitution.

But even with this chequered history there was still hope that once the commission was established the former president would find it in his interest to co-operate with it. For years he had painted himself as a victim of a conspiracy by his political foes — some local and others allegedly from abroad — apparently working with a “hostile” media.

The commission was presumably the perfect place for him to set the record straight and show once and for all that “state capture” was a figment of his enemies’ imagination and that his relationship with the Gupta family was nothing out of the ordinary.

His behaviour over the past year, however, has not been that of an innocent man. He has frustrated every attempt by the commission to have him return to the stand as a witness and answer some pointed questions about his role in state capture.

The commission’s chair, deputy chief justice Raymond Zondo, has had to take the extraordinary step of issuing a subpoena to compel Zuma to appear before him. Even that does not promise to yield the desired results as Zuma’s lawyers have indicated that they intend to apply for the judge to recuse himself from the commission. That application would most likely put the subpoena in abeyance.

While we recognise Zuma’s right to use any legal avenues available to him if he believes that he is being treated unfairly, we find it disgraceful that a former president — who swore his allegiance to the constitution — would go to such lengths to avoid answering questions that have arisen from the testimonies of about 30 witnesses.