Zuma sycophants slammed

EFF marched to the Constitutional Court to hear the outcome regarding their challenge to President Jacob Zuma to 'Pay back the Money' for over expenditure at his Nkandla homestead. Picture: Antoine de Ras, 09/02/2016

EFF marched to the Constitutional Court to hear the outcome regarding their challenge to President Jacob Zuma to 'Pay back the Money' for over expenditure at his Nkandla homestead. Picture: Antoine de Ras, 09/02/2016

Published Feb 10, 2016

Share

Johannesburg - The Nkandla court debacle has exposed senior ANC leaders and some National Assembly members as sycophants who would turn a blind eye to injustices to protect their jobs.

So said political and constitutional law experts on Wednesday morning following months of denial.

“Yesterday (Tuesday) was humiliating and embarrassing for the president, for his party, for Parliament and the Speaker, for the minister of police. It is very clear that the integrity of our democratic institution is being sacrificed on the alter of sycophancy in defence of interest that has very little to do with enhancing the democratic dispensation,” said political analyst Aubrey Matshiqi.

Read: #Nkandla case: Zuma concedes

His views were echoed by constitutional law expert Professor Pierre de Vos, who said: “Parliament doesn’t have a good understanding of its role to hold the executive accountable.

“Some of it might have to do with their ignorance, some to do with MPs' insecurities because their positions are dependent on the very same president they have to hold accountable. It’s a huge embarrassment for the president, Parliament and legal advisers,” he said.

In a climb down before Constitutional Court judges on Tuesday, Zuma’s lawyer, advocate Jeremy Gauntlett, conceded on his behalf that in the Nkandla case, Public Protector Thuli Madonsela’s remedial action was binding and required the president to comply.

“We accept it’s not just a recommendation. She (Madonsela) wanted things done, It’s action we must take,” Gauntlett said.

In her report “Secure in Comfort”, Madonsela recommended Zuma pay back a reasonable portion of the R246 million spent on upgrades to Nkandla.

Failure to adhere to this report, argued advocate Wim Trengove for the EFF on Tuesday, resulted from his need “to protect his ill-gotten gains and hold on to wealth he improperly obtained”.

In so doing, Zuma had violated the constitution and was in breach of his oath of office.

“What we have is a persistent breach of the constitution for almost two years and no explanation for it,” said Trengove.

But the move to try to settle the matter out of court last week and the concession to having been wrong was seen as a “move away from his earlier arrogance” by Prince Mashele from the Centre for Politics and Research.

Mashele said Gauntlett’s admissions on Tuesday “speak volumes”.

“If the court arrives at the conclusion that the president violated the constitution, Zuma’s political position will become untenable.

“By offering to pay back the money and making these admissions, he was seeking to soften the attitude of the Bench,” he said.

Mcebisi Ndletyana, associate professor of political science at the University of Johannesburg, said Tuesday's showdown was “an admission of abuse of power and the ultimate affirmation of our constitutional state”.

“It is a matter of the president being humbled and being subjected to the courts,” he said.

He said he could not rule out the possibility of impeachment after Gauntlett’s submission that the case was a precursor for an impeachment proceeding by the DA. “There is a precedence with former president Thabo Mbeki.The fact that Zuma’s own lawyer appealed to the courts about the possible impeachment signals that he is worried,” he said.

He said however that even though Zuma had the majority support of the National Executive Committee (NEC), his allies could start worrying about their positions given that he “sold out” allies by his admissions in court on Tuesday.

Matshiqi said: “The time has come for the ANC to consider whether it is not opportune for it to decouple its organisational interest from the president's interest.

“President Zuma is beginning to face isolation but hasn’t reached a point of his being removed being imminent. There’s an increased case of antipathy, but for impeachment, you need a majority and the ANC will not do that,” Matshiqi said.

Judgment has been reserved.

The Star

Related Topics: