Phantasmic amalgamation series#

On 15 February 2021, Mr Zuma did not attend the Commission as required by the summons, and by extension, this Court’s order. Mr Zuma responded by releasing a public statement in which he alleged that the Commission and this Court were victimising him through exceptional and harsh treatment, and that both institutions were politicising the law to his detriment. The judgment and order were served on him by the Sheriff at both of his residences. It is unnecessary to repeat the particulars of that matter here, save to state that it culminated in this Court granting an order in favour of the applicant on 28 January 2021, in terms of which Mr Zuma was ordered to attend the Commission and give evidence before it. In December 2020, in the matter of CCT 295/20, the applicant approached this Court on an urgent basis for an order that would, in essence, compel Mr Zuma’s co-operation with the Commission’s investigations and objectives. As expounded later, the Helen Suzman Foundation (HSF) is admitted as amicus curiae (friend of the court). They are cited in their official capacities because the implementation of the order sought by the applicant may require their services.

The Minister of Police and the National Commissioner for the South African Police Service (SAPS) are cited as the second and third respondents respectively. Consequently, the Secretary of the Commission, the applicant, now seeks an order from this Court declaring that Mr Zuma, cited as the first respondent, is guilty of contempt of court, and sentencing him to imprisonment for a period of two years. Notwithstanding that order, Mr Zuma did not appear before the Commission on the dates determined by the Commission nor did he file any affidavits in accordance with the Commission’s directives. The order also directed Mr Zuma to comply with directives lawfully issued by the Commission. In that order, this Court directed Mr Zuma to comply with summonses issued by the Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector including Organs of State (Commission) and to appear and give evidence on dates determined by the Commission. This matter concerns the question whether Mr Zuma is guilty of contempt of court for failure to comply with the order that this Court made in Secretary of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector including Organs of State v Zuma (CCT 295/20). However, we owe our allegiance to the Constitution alone, and accordingly have no choice but to respond as firmly as circumstances warrant when we find our ability to uphold it besieged. It is disappointing, to say the least, that this Court must expend limited time and resources on defending itself against iniquitous attacks.

Phantasmic amalgamation series#

I pen this judgment in response to the precarious position in which this Court finds itself on account of a series of direct assaults, as well as calculated and insidious efforts launched by former President Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma, to corrode its legitimacy and authority. The matter before us has arisen because these important duties have been called into question, and the strength of the Judiciary is being tested. The corollary duty borne by all members of South African society – lawyers, laypeople and politicians alike – is to respect and abide by the law, and court orders issued in terms of it, because unlike other arms of State, courts rely solely on the trust and confidence of the people to carry out their constitutionally-mandated function.

It is indeed the lofty and lonely work of the Judiciary, impervious to public commentary and political rhetoric, to uphold, protect and apply the Constitution and the law at any and all costs.