AFRICAN MIRROR REPORTER
SOUTH Africa Constitutional Court Judge Sisi Khampepe has signed a warrant of committal for former president Jacob Zuma.
In terms of the letter, Zuma will be imprisoned at the Westville Correctional Centre in Durban, KwaZulu-Natal. Judge Khampepe wrote: “Jacob Gedleyihlekiza Zuma, an adult male citizen of the Republic of South Africa, was found guilty before me of the crime of contempt of court on Tuesday 29 June 2021. This is to command you to receive him into custody and deal with him in accordance with the laws relating to prisons. Sentence: Mr Jacob Gedleyihlekiza Zuma has been sentenced to undergo 15 months’ imprisonment.”
The JG Zuma Foundation has dismissed the Constitutional Court decision to send its patron – the former president Jacob Zuma – to jail for 15 months as “judicially emotional, angry and not in consistent with our constitution”.
In a statement, the Foundation poked holes in the majority judgment written by Acting Judge President Sisi Khampepe and supported by seven judges. It aligned itself with the dissenting judgment written by the two judges of the Constitutional Court who found that sending Zuma to prison would be unconstitutional.
The Foundation gave no indication whether Zuma, who has three days to hand himself over to the police to begin his sentence, would indeed do so.
The Foundation said Zuma has never believed that he was above the law or the constitution.
It said the judgment violated the principle of equality before the law and claimed that the Commission into State Capture, chaired by Deputy President Raymond Zondo, was given an advantage in a matter that was adjudicated by his colleagues, who he supervises.
“In addition, the majority judgment makes a spurious claim that our patron ‘attacked’ the Constitutional Court, which is utterly false. If it is true, it is unconstitutional and a serious conflict for the same ‘vilified’ panel of judges, which is supposedly embroiled in a running, bitter controversy with the alleged contemnor to preside as judges in their own case. No one so cruelly slandered is likely to maintain that calm detachment necessary for fair adjudication. The characterisation of our patron by the majority panel paints a picture of a very angry panel of judges. We concur with the view of the other justices who said the Constitutional Court majority acted contrary to the rule of law.
“The primacy of the constitution was not vindicated in this matter at all. Actual or perceived judicial bias is unacceptable in our constitutional order. Judicial authority is an integral and indispensable cog of our constitutional architecture. Our supreme law vests judicial authority in the courts. (Section 165(1) of the Constitution). It commands that courts must function without fear, favour or prejudice, and subject only to the constitution and the law. It follows that, at all times, the judicial function must be exercised in accordance with the Constitution. Judges are not above the law,” the Foundation said.
As Zuma prepares for jail, his watershed sentencing has been met with an outpouring of his supporters, some of whom marched in Durban and outside his Nkandla, KwaZulu-Natal in a show of support.
Some of his supporters have called for those who support Zuma, who was sentenced to a non-appealable 15 months in prison for contempt to occupy the Constitutional Court on Friday. Another group has called for a total shutdown of SA which would start with mass action at the Workshop Shopping Centre in Durban.
Advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane, SA’s Public Protector, in her reaction, said she aligned herself with the minority judgment of two Constitutional Court judges- Leona Theron and Chris Japhta, who agreed with the contempt conviction but were against sending Zuma to jail. Mkhwebane, however, said she was still studying the judgment. “I have seen the minority judgment which I think I follow because everyone has the right to be heard and everyone has the right to be protected in terms of the Constitution and I think I’m more aligned to the minority judgment in this particular matter,” she said.
The Umkhonto we Sizwe Veterans Association described the judgment as unjustifiable, claiming that Zuma was being targeted and the Constitutional Court was being abused for factional political reasons.
His daughter, Dudu, has said her father was fearless and in high spirits. She said the family was ready to escort him to prison. Her brother Edward and her uncle, Khanya, sang a different tune. He said his father would go to jail “over my dead body”. The Jacob Zuma Foundation expressed its unhappiness in its initial reaction and said it is studying the lengthy judgment.
The ANC said the day of Zuma’s conviction and sentence was a difficult one. The organisation has promised to react fully once the judgment has been read.
Anti-corruption bodies have however welcomed the conviction and sentence as justified and an important step in entrenching the rule of law in SA. Defend Our Democracy welcomed the conviction but said it was saddened at seeing Zuma go to jail.
The Commission into State Capture which approached the Constitutional Court and asked for Zuma to be jailed for two years, also welcomed the developments. “The commission views the judgement as one of great importance for the rule of law, the principle of equality before the law, the primacy of our constitution and the protection of our constitutional democracy,” the commission said.
There has been no reaction from Zuma but the foundation indicated that he might “address the nation”.
These events followed watershed conviction and judgment in which Sisi Khampepe, the acting Chief Justice of SA, in a majority decision, sentenced Zuma to 15 months.
Zuma (79) cannot appeal the conviction and sentence.
He has been ordered to submit himself to the South African Police in Nkandla, in KwaZulu-Natal or Johannesburg five days from the day of the decision to start his sentence. If he doesn’t hand himself in, the police will have three days to arrest and deliver him to a prison.
The nine judges of the Constitutional Court were unanimous that Zuma is guilty of contempt of the Constitutional Court but differed on the sanction on the former head of state.
Zuma was also ordered to pay the costs of the action, which started when the judicial commission into state capture, chaired by Deputy Judge President Raymond Zondo, made the application after Zuma failed to comply with orders from the commission and defied an order of the Constitutional Court itself.
Khampepe said the judges felt that the court had to send a resounding message that this kind of recalcitrant display by Zuma was unacceptable.
“An unsuspended order of committal is the only option,” Khampempe said.
Khampepe said Zuma’s attacks on the judiciary cannot be answered with impunity. She also said the judges took into account Zuma’s “outlandish statements” when he attacked the judiciary.
The judges said Zuma, as a former president, was no ordinary litigant. “He is a former president. He wields a lot of political power. He can influence others to disregard the courts. If his conduct is met with impunity, he will inflict significant damage to the rule of law.
The judges said Zuma cannot claim that he was unfairly treated. They said Zuma had squandered his opportunity to provide evidence in mitigation of his sanction when he was offered an opportunity to do so by Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng. He instead wrote a “scandalous” letter to Mogoeng in which he continued with his attacks on the Constitutional Court. “Zuma, unfortunately, but not unexpectedly, squandered an opportunity to respect the rule of law in this country,” Khampepe said.
They said Zuma’s attempts to evoke public sympathy through unfounded allegations flew in the face of reason and were an insult to the constitutional dispensation for which so many South African men and women fought for and lost their lives. “No sound or legal basis where he can claim to have been treated unfairly or victimised and his unfounded allegations fly in the face of reason and is an insult to the constitutional dispensation which so many people have for our and died for,” Khampempe said.
The minority judgement was written by Justices Chris Japhta and Leona Theron.
The judgement was written by Khampepe with the concurrence of Justices Mbuyiseli Madlanga, Tlaletsi AJ, Steven Majiedt, Pillay AJ, Nonkosi Mhlanga and Zukisa Tshiqi.
