SA Today - The Weekly Newsletter by Helen Zille, Leader of the DA
As a party that upholds the rule of law and the Constitution, the DA respects the Pietermartizburg High Court’s verdict, based on a legal technicality, to set aside the decision to prosecute Jacob Zuma on fraud and corruption charges. The Court ruled on the basis that the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) did not allow Zuma to make representations before it decided to reinstate the charges against him – as it was required to do by the Constitution.
An unintended consequence of the judgment is that some of Jacob Zuma’s supporters may conclude that their intimidatory and violent behaviour influenced the judge’s decision. They must understand that their behaviour had no influence at all on the judgment. They must also understand that the verdict does not absolve Zuma of guilt.
It is significant that Judge Nicholson stressed that this verdict was not a judgment on Zuma’s guilt or innocence. This means that we are still no closer to knowing whether Zuma is innocent or guilty of the corruption charges brought against him. The DA will not rest until this is resolved.
This is why the DA reiterates its call for a full judicial commission of inquiry into the arms deal, headed by a retired judge nominated by the Chief Justice. The truth must out and justice must be served. No person implicated in arms deal corruption deserves to escape the due process of law.
We have also called for Parliament to be dissolved and for a fresh election to be held – in light of Judge Nicholson’s statement that he was “not convinced that the applicant [Zuma] was incorrect in averring political meddling in his prosecution”. There are further statements in the judgment that can only lead to the inference that, under President Thabo Mbeki’s tenure, instruments of state were abused for political purposes in the ANC’s factional struggles for control.
This means that Mbeki, and power brokers aligned to him, have undermined the Constitution. It is untenable that he remain President under such circumstances.
But the dissolution of Parliament could result in an equally untenable situation, because it would merely clear the way for Zuma to become the President with a heavy cloud still hanging over his head. Voters cannot exercise an informed choice under these circumstances.
The factional battles in the ANC, and the ruling party’s abuse of the Constitution, have put South Africa between a rock and a hard place.
That is why two things must happen in the interests of the country: Mbeki must step down as President, and Zuma must withdraw as a candidate for the Presidency until he has had his day in court, and his guilt or innocence has been established. Until these men put the country before their own interests, South Africa will continue to be dragged down by the unresolved consequences of the arms deal scandal.
The upside of the judgment is that it nullifies the demand by Zuma’s supporters for a political rather than a legal solution. A political deal would have had profound consequences for the future of our constitutional democracy because it would have placed an accused above the law, on the basis of his political status. The question of a political solution cannot be revived, even if the NPA decides to appeal the High Court judgment.
The judgment also provides proof to Zuma’s supporters, if any were necessary, that the judiciary is impartial and will rule according to the law. It is now incumbent upon them to demonstrate their respect for the judiciary when judgments go against their political preferences. If Zuma has his day in court, as we believe he must in the interests of the country, his supporters will have no reason to believe that he won’t have a fair trial.
Our judiciary has shown that it will not be complicit in power abuse. The Constitutional Court’s action against Judge Hlophe shows this, as does the ruling two weeks ago that the Erasmus Commission of Inquiry was unlawful and unconstitutional.
I have already unpacked the importance of that judgment for constitutional democracy, and will not repeat myself here, suffice it to say that the verdict filled me with renewed hope for the future of our country. It showed that the Constitution can successfully be defended against the ANC’s abuse of power, and that the courts have the muscle to check such abuses.
That sets an important precedent for the future, and it also shows that, institutionally, the judiciary will not be swayed by powerful politicians. Institutions are the bedrock of constitutional democracy; without them, the entire edifice crumbles. As we move forward, all South Africans – Zuma’s supporters included – should take heart that we have a robust and impartial judiciary. This gives us hope for the future.
An unintended consequence of the judgment is that some of Jacob Zuma’s supporters may conclude that their intimidatory and violent behaviour influenced the judge’s decision. They must understand that their behaviour had no influence at all on the judgment. They must also understand that the verdict does not absolve Zuma of guilt.
It is significant that Judge Nicholson stressed that this verdict was not a judgment on Zuma’s guilt or innocence. This means that we are still no closer to knowing whether Zuma is innocent or guilty of the corruption charges brought against him. The DA will not rest until this is resolved.
This is why the DA reiterates its call for a full judicial commission of inquiry into the arms deal, headed by a retired judge nominated by the Chief Justice. The truth must out and justice must be served. No person implicated in arms deal corruption deserves to escape the due process of law.
We have also called for Parliament to be dissolved and for a fresh election to be held – in light of Judge Nicholson’s statement that he was “not convinced that the applicant [Zuma] was incorrect in averring political meddling in his prosecution”. There are further statements in the judgment that can only lead to the inference that, under President Thabo Mbeki’s tenure, instruments of state were abused for political purposes in the ANC’s factional struggles for control.
This means that Mbeki, and power brokers aligned to him, have undermined the Constitution. It is untenable that he remain President under such circumstances.
But the dissolution of Parliament could result in an equally untenable situation, because it would merely clear the way for Zuma to become the President with a heavy cloud still hanging over his head. Voters cannot exercise an informed choice under these circumstances.
The factional battles in the ANC, and the ruling party’s abuse of the Constitution, have put South Africa between a rock and a hard place.
That is why two things must happen in the interests of the country: Mbeki must step down as President, and Zuma must withdraw as a candidate for the Presidency until he has had his day in court, and his guilt or innocence has been established. Until these men put the country before their own interests, South Africa will continue to be dragged down by the unresolved consequences of the arms deal scandal.
The upside of the judgment is that it nullifies the demand by Zuma’s supporters for a political rather than a legal solution. A political deal would have had profound consequences for the future of our constitutional democracy because it would have placed an accused above the law, on the basis of his political status. The question of a political solution cannot be revived, even if the NPA decides to appeal the High Court judgment.
The judgment also provides proof to Zuma’s supporters, if any were necessary, that the judiciary is impartial and will rule according to the law. It is now incumbent upon them to demonstrate their respect for the judiciary when judgments go against their political preferences. If Zuma has his day in court, as we believe he must in the interests of the country, his supporters will have no reason to believe that he won’t have a fair trial.
Our judiciary has shown that it will not be complicit in power abuse. The Constitutional Court’s action against Judge Hlophe shows this, as does the ruling two weeks ago that the Erasmus Commission of Inquiry was unlawful and unconstitutional.
I have already unpacked the importance of that judgment for constitutional democracy, and will not repeat myself here, suffice it to say that the verdict filled me with renewed hope for the future of our country. It showed that the Constitution can successfully be defended against the ANC’s abuse of power, and that the courts have the muscle to check such abuses.
That sets an important precedent for the future, and it also shows that, institutionally, the judiciary will not be swayed by powerful politicians. Institutions are the bedrock of constitutional democracy; without them, the entire edifice crumbles. As we move forward, all South Africans – Zuma’s supporters included – should take heart that we have a robust and impartial judiciary. This gives us hope for the future.
You can subscribe to this e-newsletter free of charge at http://www.da.org.za/
No comments:
Post a Comment