Former president Jacob Zuma has made it abundantly clear that, despite a ruling from the highest court on the land, he will not be returning to face questioning at the State Capture Inquiry.
Jacob Zuma defies ConCourt ruling: He will not appear before State Capture
Last week, the Constitutional Court ruled that Zuma was compelled by his status as a former executive of our democracy, and public interest, to give evidence at Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo’s commission.
The court rubbished Zuma’s defence that he was targeted by a smear campaign. In fact, it was determined that the former president is the only witness who’s received preferential treatment from the commission, an erroneous approach that has caused unnecessary delays in his appearance.
The commission, in a statement, acknowledged the ruling and vowed to take appropriate action in slotting Zuma’s return in the inquiry’s schedule.
“The commission will take steps to get the judgment and order of the Constitutional Court served on Mr Jacob Zuma,” the statement read.
‘I do not fear being convicted’
His back against the wall with his hands bound by a judgment that can’t be contested, Zuma resorted to defiance. The former president, in a statement released on Monday, confirmed that he will not be attending Zondo’s commission.
“I, therefore, state in advance that the Commission Into Allegations of State Capture can expect no further co-operation from me in any of their processes going forward,” he said.
Zuma accused the ConCourt of playing into the politicising of the judiciary, led by Zondo.
“Recently at the State Capture Commission, allegations made against the judiciary have been overlooked and suppressed by the chairperson himself,” he said.
The former president dared the commission to take any action it deems necessary to address his defiance, even jailing him if it comes to that.
“If this stance is considered to be a violation of their law, then let their law take its course,” he wrote.
The commission has not issued a response to the president’s statement yet. At the time this article was published, the inquiry was hearing testimony from Parliament’s oversight committee.