Former president Jacob Zuma has until tomorrow to file an affidavit to the Constitutional Court in which he is directed to indicate what penalty the court should impose if he were to be found guilty of contempt.
The court is dealing with an application from the state capture commission which wants Zuma imprisoned for two years for contempt following his refusal to appear before the commission even after he had been ordered to do so by the court.
The latest directive from the court has sparked heated debate with many questioning why it would ask a man who is effectively an accused person to state what sentence he believes would be appropriate, in the event that he is found guilty. Many have charged that the directive smacks of preferential treatment of Zuma by the court.
While we agree that the directive may give a perception of preferential treatment, it would be disingenuous to suggest the court has in any way acted improperly or in a questionable manner. It is standard practice for courts to ask those before them to make submissions after a matter has been argued and before a judgment is given.
The ConCourt has made this directive on previous occasions which, unlike in Zuma’s case, may not have attracted the kind of public attention his case has.
Second, because Zuma has chosen not to participate in the proceedings, thus showing the proverbial middle finger to the court, it is perhaps natural that the public expectation would be that the court should deem it a futile exercise to grant him such indulgence.
Be that as it may, the court has to exercise and be seen to exercise due diligence in its administration of the law, regardless of the behaviour of the person before it.
The magnitude of this case is unprecedented. This is the first time the court has been asked to jail someone, in the event that he is found guilty. It is also the first time the person in question has not participated in the proceedings, albeit by choice.
Therefore the court’s inclination to tick all its boxes can be understood. The question is whether Zuma will file his affidavit by tomorrow.
It is highly unlikely, considering that his publicly stated reason for refusing to participate in this case is that he does not recognise the authority and legitimacy of the court based on unproven claims that judges were biased against him.
Whatever his next move, the ConCourt remains the final arbiter in our constitutional democracy and Zuma, like any other citizen, is bound by its rulings.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.