EDITORIAL | Zuma’s sentence sends a powerful message to SA and political ‘untouchables’

After what felt like a lifetime, the Constitutional Court finally delivered its judgment and sentence against Jacob Zuma for his refusal to return to the state capture commission to account for his role in the industrial scale looting of the state and the institutional destruction that took place on his watch. Zuma, a former head of state, is now destined to go to jail in a matter of days.

And he cannot expect sympathy from anyone, given the generous leeway he was given by the judicial system since walking out on the commission in November. Zuma walked out after his gambit of stalling the commission’s work by demanding deputy chief justice Raymond Zondo’s recusal failed.

Before referring Zuma’s case to the apex court, Zondo had shown much forbearance to the former president and tolerated many of his gimmicks, including a claimed political conspiracy and a personal relationship between him and Zondo, the latter claim comprehensively denied by the deputy chief justice. He gave Zuma a deadline to return to the witness box, which was ignored.

Zondo was so indulgent of Zuma that it raised eyebrows with the justices in the highest court. Yet once the case was before it, with Zondo having asked for a two-year jail term in the event of Zuma being found guilty of contempt, the Constitutional Court was itself particularly measured in dealing with Zuma. It asked him to give reasons why he should not be sent to prison in the event of being found guilty.

The Zuma case should also send a message to those who abuse political office, on the assumption that their influence will insulate them from future punishment for their wrongdoing.

Ironically, all the patience and courtesy shown towards Zuma might very well have emboldened him to stay on his defiant course, which now is about to cost him his freedom.

In a perverse way, Zuma’s actions and their consequences may have provided an important lesson to all citizens. That SA is a constitutional country, with a rule of law that applies to everyone without fear or favour, irrespective of their social, political, or other standing.

The Zuma case should also send a message to those who abuse political office, on the assumption that their influence will insulate them from future punishment for their wrongdoing. As ongoing media revelations have shown, there are still too many in government who are inclined to treat their office as a personal fiefdom to exploit and abuse for personal gain — at the expense of the public.

But the former president’s case is significant in another crucially important context — the relationship between the judicial system and influential political interests. As it became clear that Zondo would not back down, and the possibility of prison began to loom large, Zuma tried to make statements aimed at delegitimising the judiciary and the rule of law itself. His proxies, including the Umkhonto weSizwe Military Veterans Association, hinted darkly at possible civil unrest if he were to be sent to jail.

All in the name of intimidating the highest court and bending its ultimate decision to their nefarious will.

In the end, the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary won out, thanks to the brave justices who, holding their nerve, had to rule on this most historic of cases since the establishment of our republic.

It may seem heartless to send a man of Zuma’s age to prison, when there are any number of sanctions that might ordinarily have been suitable. But, with wilful conduct described by the court as “egregious”, he brought his fate upon himself.

By defying and cocking a snook at the courts, Zuma may have done the country a historic favour, and driven home a crucial message with the impact only someone of his stature and profile could have done.