Courts face conundrum over former president

IN a province, and more colloquially a town which still bears the evident scars of last year’s looting, many I have spoken to have voiced concern as to the wisdom of the Supreme Court of Appeal’s decision in ordering that the former president return to prison to complete his sentence.

People have expressed an opinion that Zuma will not be required to report to prison, or alternatively, voiced the view that no one will seek to arrest him.

The fear of civil unrest is, once again, foremost in everyone’s minds as is the sense that, yet again, we will have to fend for ourselves.

Strangely, the Supreme Court of Appeals is being criticised for doing the right thing as opposed to capitulating to the threat of further disorder.

It’s rather strange that, while one always aspires to doing the right thing, how easily and readily we would like the conundrum facing the courts, and now once again the Department of Correctional Services, to disappear.

The bigger evil would have been the court allowing the threat of further disorder to sway its decision and to have bowed to unspoken, however implicit, threats to civil disobedience, a repeat of last year’s winter of looting.

We need to understand that the courts seek not to cause conflict, but to serve society’s best interests, in short by not rewarding the threat of more bad behaviour.