Editorial: Our courts rule, but does Zuma care?

19 March 2017 - 02:00 By Sunday Times
subscribe Just R20 for the first month. Support independent journalism by subscribing to our digital news package.
Subscribe now
Berning Ntlemeza. File photo.
Berning Ntlemeza. File photo.
Image: Trevor Samson

It's becoming increasingly difficult to dispute that the judiciary is the only arm of state that functions as it should. Two judgments handed down by our courts on Friday showed why we should be proud of our courts, despite their faults and challenges.

Two days after a full bench of the High Court in Pretoria ruled that Police Minister Nathi Nhleko's decision to appoint Berning Ntlemeza to lead the country's elite policing unit, the Hawks, be set aside, we are still to hear whether the minister intends to respect the ruling.

Unfortunately, it has come to that. This administration has no respect for court decisions.

The court ruled that Nhleko had failed in several of his duties when he appointed Ntlemeza in 2015, just months after a court found Ntlemeza had made false statements under oath, and lacked honour and integrity - key traits for a police boss.

story_article_left1

Then came the Constitutional Court judgment on the social grants crisis, which has had all of us on tenterhooks for the past few months. It found Social Development Minister Bathabile Dlamini solely responsible for the crisis, as she bore the primary responsibility of ensuring that the South Africa Social Security Agency fulfilled its function.

As minister she appointed the CEO, and there was little the CEO could do without her direction. "The office-holder ultimately responsible for the crisis and the events that led to it is the person who holds executive political office. 

"It is the minister who is required in terms of the constitution to account to parliament. That is the minister, and the minister alone," Justice Johan Froneman said, on behalf of other justices.

In many other stable democracies a damning judgment like this would have already claimed its first casualty. Not in ours. Those hoping that President Jacob Zuma will act against Dlamini must lower their expectations.

Little less than a year ago the same court ruled that Zuma had failed to uphold, defend and respect the constitution as the supreme law of the land. This was after he failed to comply with then Public Protector Thuli Madonsela's remedial action, contained in her 2014 Nkandla report, regarding payment for the upgrades to his Nkandla homestead. The court re affirmed the powers of the public protector and emphasised its remedial actions were binding.

That judgment was hailed as a landmark. Former deputy chief justice Dikgang Moseneke described it as a lecture on what kind of president the country hoped for. "It was a wonderful moment to lecture each other about the kind of society that we wanted to create and the kind of commander-in-chief that we hoped for."

Well, Zuma, who was found to have violated his own oath of office, is still our president. As he told the nation in parliament, if you expect him to fire Dlamini, you are expecting too much from him.

subscribe Just R20 for the first month. Support independent journalism by subscribing to our digital news package.
Subscribe now