Part of the ANC is still devoted to Zuma — as events outside the court have shown

The instance when Jacob Zuma, the man who took an oath to defend the constitution, stood up at the Pietermaritzburg high court this week to plead not guilty to charges of corruption, fraud, money laundering and racketeering, marked a seminal moment in the country’s history. SA now joins an infamous list of nations whose leaders have betrayed their people. The man who for a decade was the embodiment of our constitutional order now stands accused of defiling it.

The long arm of the law has finally caught up with Zuma. After almost two decades of Zuma trying to avoid accountability, Billy Downer, the indefatigable prosecutor, may have cornered his quarry. Now Zuma wants Downer removed on the grounds that he is biased. Where, one wonders, do prosecutors bat for the accused? It’s the last throw of the dice.

Zuma was alone in the dock and if found guilty, he’s likely to make the journey to jail on his own. But his party, the ANC, is just as guilty. It stands accused of handing over the baton that has passed from Albert Luthuli, to Oliver Tambo, to Nelson Mandela — icons of the movement — to a deficient and reckless man. Zuma has soiled the seat on which these gallant men have sat.

The party stands accused of entrusting Zuma with the leadership despite him being under an enormous cloud, facing charges relating to dishonesty and untrustworthiness. An unpleasant rape trial did not deter the party either. Although Zuma was found not guilty of raping the woman who was later cruelly hounded into exile — an experience that may have led to her illness and subsequent death — such indiscretions and utter lack of judgment should be disqualifying factors when it comes to leadership. Instead, it seems the party saw these as validation of his fitness for office. That sense of grievance propelled Zuma to the highest office in the land. One could argue that the ANC is more culpable. Zuma did not impose himself, the party elected him despite his obvious shortcomings.

Such a brush with the law would have given a reasonable person cause to be careful once in office. Not Zuma. He became even more daring, breaking the law with abandon. And again the party stood by him for nine long years as he pillaged and plundered, and almost drove the country over the edge. He was eventually evicted from office, not because the party had seen the errors of its ways but because he was no longer party leader. There was a new sheriff in town.

When Zuma made his first court appearance after he was removed from power three years ago, the party agonised over how to handle it. The NEC, in an attempt to distance the party from him, urged supporters who wanted to attend the trial to do so in their individual capacity and not to wear ANC regalia. It was ignored.

Now the ANC seems to have done a complete about-face. It has embraced Zuma.

The party was represented by none other than the provincial chair and premier of KwaZulu-Natal, Sihle Zikalala. Having been booed by the crowd at Zuma’s last court appearance, Zikalala and company were not about to make a similar mistake this time. They just about prostrated themselves before Zuma.

There is talk that they want to deploy Zuma to campaign for the party in the coming local elections. That is astounding. It’s about votes, not principles. One would not be surprised, for instance, to discover that money to erect that enormous stage outside court had come from government coffers.

It beggars belief that Zikalala, a representative of the governing party, can turn up and publicly claim to support Zuma. For what? For the looting? For having brought the country to its knees?

The ANC, especially the government, cannot claim to be fighting corruption on the one hand while supporting crooked individuals in its ranks. Zikalala’s adoration for Zuma was expressed two days after revelations at the

Zondo commission that the Guptas — Zuma’s handlers — had swindled the country out of at least R50bn. It is treasonous for an elected official to be championing actions or individuals who harm the country’s interests.

And Cyril Ramaphosa is making several appearances before the Zondo commission, trying to convince us that the leopard has changed its spots. We should not believe a word of what he says as long as the likes of Zikalala sing the praises of crime suspects, a stone’s throw from a court of law.

We seem to accept the practice, but it is objectionable in a democracy to be using the courts as a prop or backdrop to serenade a dubious character such as Zuma. A court is not just a building, but a symbol and guardian of the values on which a democratic society especially is anchored. It should be holy ground, or be treated with some reverence. It should not be a place to hold political rallies.

Apart from the embarrassment of sitting in the dock, Zuma should look forward to his court appearances because that’s when he can speak to his devotees. There was also a sort of passing the baton to his son. Duduzane Zuma, who seems to think that stealing is a route to leadership, apparently wants to challenge his father’s nemesis, Ramaphosa, at the party’s elective conference. But he seems to have made an inelegant entry into the hurly-burly of politics. His little speech fell flat with a crowd eager to embrace him.

The ANC has a choice to make: it has to unambiguously distance itself from Zuma if its claim to be fighting corruption is not to ring hollow. It can’t run with the hare and hunt with the hounds.