The Commission of Inquiry and NEC confirmation of Zuma's presidency – what does 2017 have in store for us?
13 December 2016
The deadline for President Zuma to appoint the commission of inquiry as per the Madonsela State Capture Report, came and went quietly at the end of November. Hours before the deadline, the President submitted a court application to review the Madonsela Report and its recommendations. With such an action, the recommendations are temporarily suspended. He and his legal advisors apparently don’t take any chances.
His argument is that her directive is invalid because he, as per the Constitution, did not decide independently to appoint such a Commission and that only he (and not the Chief Justice) can take this action. Mr Zuma further argues that he may not be judge and jury in his own court, as the Commission would have to report to him.
The Constitution does indeed state in section 84(2)(f) that the President is responsible for appointing commissions of inquiry. On the other hand, section 96(2)(b) provides that members of the Cabinet and Deputy Ministers may not “act in any way that is inconsistent with their office, or expose themselves to any situation involving the risk of a conflict between their official responsibilities and their private interests”. Surely that which applies to the Cabinet should also apply to the head of the Cabinet.
The President can cite the letter of the Constitution and refuse to appoint the commission of inquiry, and the court may prove him right. But it is clear to all right-thinking South Africans that in this respect he is at the very least, disregarding the spirit of the Constitution. If the President had nothing to hide, the appointment of such a Commission would not have been a problem. It would - according to his own statement - also have been necessary to stipulate that the Commission should report to Parliament and not to him. His actions in this regard raise a strong suspicion that he considers himself and his alleged actions to be above the law and the Constitution. The fact that the President did not - as per all protocol - excuse himself from the National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting when he was being discussed - is further evidence of a lack of integrity.