Full of contempt: Zuma refuses to face the music, so Zondo wants jail time

After days of speculation and last-ditch attempts to convince him otherwise, former president Jacob Zuma informed the Zondo Commission on Monday, “as a matter of courtesy”, he won’t be appearing.

Zuma, through his lawyers, described the summons to appear before deputy chief justice Raymond Zondo as “irregular”. This led to an announcement by the commission chair that the inquiry would seek an order from the Constitutional Court to have the former president jailed.

“We formally inform the commission, as a matter of courtesy, that our client [Zuma] will not be appearing before the commission on February 15-19 2021,” read the notice. “The summons issued for our client to appear on February 15-19 is irregular and not in line with the fourth order of the Constitutional Court judgment of January 28, 2021.”

The letter, written by Mabuza Attorneys and directed to the commission, suggested Zuma’s decision was based on historical, personal and family relations with Zondo. He wants Zondo to recuse himself.

Zondo hit back saying: “The commission will make an application to the Constitutional Court and seek an order that Mr Zuma is guilty of contempt of court, and if the Constitutional Court reaches that conclusion, then it is in its discretion what to do.

“One of the things would be to impose a term of imprisonment on Mr Zuma and another would be to impose a fine. The commission will ask the Constitutional Court to impose a term of imprisonment if it finds Mr Zuma guilty of contempt court.”

Zuma, later in the day, fired off a 12-page statement in response, saying Zondo “decided to propagate political propaganda against me, seeking, what they have always sought to do, turn all the narratives against me into evidence”. He accused Zondo of “misleading the nation” and of “smuggling new allegations about me, that was obviously intended to ambush me, of prejudicing his children, and of displaying questionable judicial integrity”.

Zuma’s no-show on Monday meant he would not have to answer questions to any of the testimonies from 40 witnesses who have appeared before the state capture inquiry.

“The commission has now been deprived of an opportunity to question the former president in regard of his conduct relevant to the commission’s terms of reference,” said commission legal team boss, adv Paul Pretorius.

“Mr Zuma is referred directly by name in four of the commission’s terms of reference and indirectly in at least two. His evidence is obviously relevant to the commission’s work. Mr Zuma has also been implicated by at least 40 witnesses.”

The evidence against Zuma falls within four categories, namely:

• the appointment and dismissal of ministers and executives of state-owned enterprises;
• interference in running of state-owned companies;
• weakening of law enforcement agencies; and
• the politicisation of intelligence gathering.

Among other questions Zuma was to face was whether his government allocated state resources deliberately for the benefit of a state capture network “within and outside government”.

Pretorius explained: “The question arises, was that project [the allocation of resources] facilitated to deliberately exploit and or weaken state institutions, for example law enforcement agencies or even parliament?”

The commission recently heard from ex-members of parliament that at the centre of the institution’s failure to perform effective oversight during the Zuma years was that parliament was underfunded.

Zuma would also have been asked about his relationship with the Gupta family and whether it benefited unduly from the state, and if he was influenced in his decision-making because of its proximity to him.

“There has been evidence led over three years relating to the knowledge and involvement of the Gupta family in actual or contemplated appointment or dismissal of ministers,” said Pretorius.

The “actual appointments” the Guptas allegedly knew about before they happened, include that of Fikile Mbalula as sports minister, while the commission also heard the family knew Nhlanhla Nene was going to be sacked as finance minister.

In this regard, Zuma would have been questioned on his chopping and changing of executives at SOEs. The questioning was to ascertain if this was done to “redirect state resources into the hands of select individuals, including Gupta entities and family members”.

Zuma would also have been asked whether he personally financially benefited from cash payments from several companies that were doing business with the state.

Related to this would have been for Zuma to also state — under oath — whether the alleged millions of rand siphoned from the State Security Agency (SSA) through Project Commitment meant for his benefit, did in fact reach him.

“We have evidence, and more evidence to come, that cash was used — and cash is untraceable,” said Pretorius.

On intelligence-related matters Zuma would have been asked about his rationale behind the proclamation that amalgamated the intelligence agencies into one — the SSA.

We have evidence, and more evidence to come, that cash was used — and cash is untraceable.

This is after a high-level review panel led by former defence minister Sydney Mufamadi reached a conclusion that this was done to politicise, factionalise and weaponise intelligence gathering against Zuma’s political enemies in government and within the ANC.

Even if the commission finishes its work without Zuma’s testimony, concluded Pretorius, the evidence before it was strong enough for certain conclusions to be made.

“The various appointments and dismissals of ministers, state officials, executive and SOE boards had consequences such as the corrupt appropriation of state resources on a massive scale,” he said.

“Where those consequences coincidental or were they intended? Among the beneficiaries were the people who influenced or sought to influence the course of action from the beginning.

“Vast amounts of state funds then flowed from a network of individuals and entities of whom were associated with the people who sought to influence the project in the first place.”