Why has Zuma, a convicted criminal, been given the green light to be a lawmaker?

Aconstant complaint by some of Jacob Zuma’s supporters is that the media — and everybody else under the sun — is obsessed with him. They should thank their lucky stars that their man is always hogging the headlines. The worst thing that could happen to any politician is to not feature in any public conversation and be totally ignored by the press. Publicity, good or bad, is a politician’s staple diet. Some of those now complaining would not have known about Zuma were it not for the media.

So just chill, and be grateful.

It is because of its association with Zuma that the MK Party has suddenly risen like a Phoenix.

But of course the obsession with Zuma has a great deal to do with the fact that the country is where it is — on its knees — as a result of Zuma, abetted by his party. His many court appearances and his predilection for litigation have also kept him in the news.

But it is his latest attempt at a political comeback as frontman for the MK Party that leaves many people in despair. That a man who has done so much damage to the country could be given another opportunity for a second helping simply defies logic.

The best argument against democracy, Winston Churchill once said, was a five-minute conversation with an average voter. He could have had a South African voter in mind.

It’s hard to understand how anyone, let alone the poor, could hang their future on the ageing shoulders of the man who has contributed so substantially to their desperation.

He seems hewn from the same rock as Donald Trump — former presidents who are not only corrupt but seem shamelessly dedicated to upending the law that they once swore to uphold.

Legally, Zuma is still in jeopardy and could have been in jail had it not been for our corrupt politics and the inept criminal justice system.

While the courts — and judges — have for some time been his bugbear, he must have a growing fondness for the system lately; he’s been scoring some remarkable victories. A month ago the electoral court threw out an ANC bid to have the MK party deregistered. The court basically said the ANC had been asleep at the wheel. For instance, not lodging an objection with the IEC before the MK Party was registered. No surprise there: inefficiency is the hallmark of the ANC.

But the lack of public sympathy for the ANC in this matter has been quite revealing. It reflects a fervent desire to get it out of power by all means necessary. Also, somebody at the IEC should have known the history of MK. Or are they supposed to be blind to such things? But knowledge of current events cannot be taken for granted.

One of the so-called experts who often pop up on our TV screens claimed the other day that MK was not the property of the ANC, but was formed by the likes of the UDF, among others.

uMkhonto we Sizwe was the ANC’s military wing, formed on December 16 1961, with Nelson Mandela as its first commander. December 16 of course had a particular historical significance. It marked the Day of the Vow, which commemorated the Voortrekkers’ victory over the Zulus at the Battle of Blood River. It’s since become Reconciliation Day.

MK’s first target was an electricity substation. But given its legendary incompetence, the substation probably survived unscathed. Many young people later left the country for military training in MK camps in places like Zambia, Tanzania and Angola, many never to return.

It must therefore stick in the craw for the ANC to see one of its fiercest foes profiting from one of its treasured symbols. It has only itself to blame.

But it is the ruling by the electoral court that Zuma is free to stand for election that is quite mystifying. Zuma, a convicted criminal, has been given a green light by our courts to be a lawmaker. He joins the likes of Gayton Mackenzie and Kenny Kunene, jail birds who are now society’s self-proclaimed moral arbiters. Quite a swamp.

Legal experts often warn those with little understanding of the law against making ill-informed utterances about court decisions. But there’s nothing complicated about this matter. Zuma was found guilty by the Constitutional Court and sentenced to 15 months in prison for refusing to testify before the Zondo commission. He didn’t fail to attend. He defiantly walked out.

One of his sycophants, then prisons chief Arthur Fraser, with the obvious acquiescence of senior people in government, later released him on the grounds that he was terminally ill. The courts reversed that decision, but President Cyril Ramaphosa, in an act of abject deceitfulness, released him in a general amnesty concocted primarily to benefit his predecessor.

It is this remission, by a man he now detests, that Zuma successfully used in court against the IEC’s decision not to allow him to stand for election. The electoral court bought that argument hook, line and sinker. Let’s see what the Constitutional Court, which imposed the sentence, has to say about it. The need for clarity on this matter cannot be overstated.

Zuma and his crew seem emboldened by these victories. They’re now demanding the resignation of Janet Love from the IEC, accusing her of bias. They want chief justice Raymond Zondo to recuse himself from the Constitutional Court appeal hearing, a demand that Zondo seems willing to entertain.

Are Zuma’s Stalingrad tactics finally paying off? Or is the judiciary, mindful of allegations of bias against him, giving him too much leeway? I hope not. Zuma is up to no good, to use a well-worn phrase.

The last thing the country needs is a judiciary that’s prepared to bend over backwards to accommodate his chicanery.