AFRICAN MIRROR REPORTER
A defiant Jacob Zuma, the former president of South Africa, has shown the proverbial middle finger to the country’s Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng and rejected, as a sham and a political gimmick, a directive that he must suggest a suitable punishment in the case he is found guilty of contempt of the Constitutional Court.
Mogoeng issued the directive to Zuma who faces charges of failing to appear before the Zondo judicial commission into state capture and for defying the Constitutional Court.The chief justice directed Zuma to file an affidavit of no longer than 15 pages.
Zuma responded with a 21 page letter, not an affidavit. In the letter, Zuma said Mogoeng’s directive was a violation of his constituional rights to be presumed innocent, to remain silent and not testify.
“I wish to advise you that I will not depose to an affidavit as presently directed. Second, I wish to advise that my stance in this regard is not out of any disrespect for you or the Court, but stems from my conscientious objection to the manner in which I have been treated,” he said.
Zuma said the directive from Mogoeng was evidence that the court has presumed that he was guilty. “Clearly, the Constitutional Court deems it appropriate and lawful to impose a criminal sanction of incarceration of a person without hearing oral evidence from such an accused person. Contrary to popular sentiments, peddled by sponsored legal analysts and editors, I do not seek to undermine the Constitution or create a constitutional crisis. In fact, I have accepted that my stance has consequences and I am of the view that the Constitutional Court already knows what ruling it will make,” he said.
Zuma added: “I did not participate in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court and view the directives as nothing but a stratagem to clothe its decision with some legitimacy. Further, in directing me to depose to an affidavit, the Chairperson of the Commission, as the applicant, and some politically interested groups styled as amicus curie are given the right of rebuttal. That is in my view not a fair procedure in circumstances where my rights under sections 10, 11 and 12 of the Constitution are implicated. I am resigned to being a prisoner of the Constitutional Court because it is clear to me that the Constitutional Court considers the Zondo Commission to be central to our national life and the search for the national truth on the state of governance during my presidency. It has also become clear to me that even though the Constitutional Court has no jurisdiction Deputy Chief Justice Zondo was determined to place the matter before judges who serve as his subordinates in order to obtain the order he wants. This is despite the fact that by doing so, he ignores the review I have launched regarding his refusal to recuse himself. The directions took me by surprise in their breadth and scope. I understand them to be your attempt at giving me a right to hearing only on the question of sanction in the alleged theoretical or hypothetical basis that I am found guilty of contempt of court. That is of significant concern to me firstly because the Court would have known that I had decided not to participate in the proceedings of the Court. I did not ask for this right to hearing and since it is an invention of the Chief Justice I would have expected the Chief Justice to have been concerned about the motive of seeking my participation in mitigating by speculating about a decision concealed from me.”
