ARTICLE: MEANINGS OF THE ZONDO COMMISSION
2018-08-20
When Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo and his fellow commissioners commence work on 20 August 2018 in Parktown, Johannesburg, all eyes will be trained on them.
When Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo and his fellow commissioners commence work on 20 August 2018 in Parktown, Johannesburg, all eyes will be trained on them.
When Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo and his fellow commissioners commence work on 20 August 2018 in Parktown, Johannesburg, all eyes will be trained on them.
The contagion effect of the Zuma ignominy continues to cut deep across swathes of South Africa’s political and economic society, nevermind the lasting damage to social relations and cohesion in the country.
The FW de Klerk Foundation welcomes today’s majority judgment handed down by the Constitutional Court regarding the position of the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP). It is further testament to the tenacious efforts to ensure the adherence to the Rule of Law by civil society, given that the application before the Court was launched by Corruption Watch, Freedom Under Law (FUL) and CASAC. The judgment, which comes five months after the matter was argued, brings finality to the question of whether Shaun Abrahams is rightfully in the office, given the unlawful departure of his predecessor, Mxolisi Nxasana.
The strongly-worded judgment in which former President Jacob Zuma is said to have abused his power in the unlawful removal of Nxasana perhaps reflects exasperation on the part of the Judiciary. Yet again, the courts are forced to intervene in a matter involving the abuse of power and political interference in State institutions.
President Ramaphosa’s late night statement of 31 July is now well-read and known. It has been criticised, lauded and discussed in detail. The issue of why the statement was delivered at that time, and whether there was a good reason to do it, despite the Parliamentary review process being ongoing, lies in the realm of political commentary. As a Foundation with a mission of protecting and promoting the Constitution, we must take the statement and its intention on face value and point out what its consequences are and could be. In the Foundation’s statement of 1 August we have already commented on the statement’s unacceptable procedure that undermined the parliamentary process and the independence of the SABC.
The FW de Klerk Foundation noted with grave concern the statement on expropriation without compensation (EWC), by ANC president Ramaphosa after the NEC Lekgotla last night. There are two main problems with the statement, procedurally and substantively.
Speaking as leader of a political party, he abused the platform of the national broadcaster to make a party-political announcement, as if it were an announcement as President of the country. This shows the same dangerous conflation of party and State as we have seen during the Zuma years. The statement also pre-empts the outcome and makes a mockery of the parliamentary process that is underway, as if the ANC is the only party in Parliament. The incidental reference to the “parliamentary process” does not hide the apparent disdain the majority party has for the Legislature and its processes. In addition, the announcement short-circuited the public hearings, thus rendering public participation in the legislative process obsolete. This means that any future amendments are open to a legal challenge on grounds of lack of procedural fairness.
The FW de Klerk Foundation welcomes yesterday’s decision involving former Zimbabwean first lady, Dr Grace Mugabe, which was handed down by the Gauteng High Court. It is of concern that the decision makes apparent that the government of South Africa lacked the authority to either confer or grant immunity to Mugabe, in a bid to protect her against the allegations of wrongdoing. In doing so, the South African Government failed to protect its own citizen and further undermined the Constitution in unlawfully granting immunity to Mugabe.
As was the case in the Al Bashir matter, the South African government has shown that it lacks the political will and inclination to abide by the Rule of Law when faced with thorny political questions. This failure by the government to abide by the spirit and letter of its own laws, while cynically circumventing due process, chips away at South Africa’s foundational values. Yet again, the Judiciary finds itself having to adjudicate a matter in which the Executive has failed in its constitutional obligations.
The Constitution of South Africa remains one of the most admirable and progressive documents in the history of the world. It contains broad civil, political and socio-economic rights, it embraces the duties of the State and it strengthens the collective wellbeing of its citizens. Nevertheless, reality looks different and the aspirations made 25 years ago have repeatedly been destroyed by among others, rampant corruption, growing inequality and bad governance.
The health of South African society is a perennial concern for many, whether in relation to race relations and social cohesion, the state of governance and government, or the economy and livelihoods.