EFF WILL CHALLENGE ZUMA THROUGH COURT TO MAKE SURE HE IMPLEMENTS THE STATE OF CAPTURE REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS DEADLINES
25 November, 2016
The EFF rejects Zuma's statement about intending to challenge the Public Protector's State of Capture Report as a delay tactic. In his statement Zuma says "the review application to be served and filed within the time periods prescribed by the law.
The Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 provides that any proceedings for judicial review must be instituted without unreasonable delay and not later than 180 days from the date that the reviewable action was concluded." Knowing Zuma, he intends to only make the application in six months. We take this as a declaration already to undermine the time frames of the Public Protector's State of Capture report.
In terms of the State of Capture report, Zuma must, within 30 days of its publication constitute a commission of inquiry. The report says "the President to appoint, within 30 days, a commission of inquiry headed by a judge solely selected by the Chief Justice who shall provide one name to the President.". This remedial action is due on the 02 December, 2016. If Zuma intends only to file his court review in 180 days, legally, unless the papers have been filed in a court of law, there is no review and thus, the remedial action must be implemented. Intent to review is not itself a review unless filed with a court of law.
The EFF will oppose his court review because we believe that his is a merely baseless delay tactic. Zuma has not even indicated on what basis he is planing to make the application, particularly because the Sate of Capture Report did not make any findings against him or anyone, it only calls for further investigation.
This leaves only one thing to be challenged and that is the remedial action surrounding the commission of inquiry. Zuma indicated already in parliament that no one can instruct him to appoint a commission of inquiry and even stipulate how such a process should be. He argued that the appointment of a commission is his prerogative only.
Yet Zuma is on record in the EFF Vs Speaker of Parliament constitutional case to have said that: “I could not have carried out the evaluation myself lest I be accused of being judge and jury in my own case”. This very logic applies in relation to allegations that the State of Capture Report since a commission of inquiry would have to investigate Zuma. Thus, it is a commission of inquiry headed by a judge solely selected by the Chief Justice who shall provide one name to the President that can do justice to investigating Zuma.
This recommendation is based on the fact that the founders of our constitution did not envisage a situation where a corrupt president would have to appoint a commission of inquiry to investigate himself. Zuma does not want the remedial action of the Public Protector in relation to a commission of inquiry because he wants a usual commission like the Seriti and Marikana commissions that held no politician responsible for wrong doing. These commissions were just white wash commissions that were used to bury issues instead of resolving them.
We reiterate that we will make sure to oppose the review application because justice must be done to eliminate the corruption of Zuma and his business partners, the Gupta family. We will be writing a letter to Zuma, which will be delivered this Monday seeking assurance from him that he will implement the remedial action of the of the Public Protector.
Failure of which, we shall approach the court of law on urgent basis to make sure that Zuma implements the remedial action and does not undermine the office of the Public Protector. He has a duty to respect this office as a chapter nine institution.
Statement issued by the Economic Freedom Fighters, 26 November 2016
