The stand-off between former president Jacob Zuma and the Zondo commission heated up again this week.
Just days before he had been summonsed to appear before the commission, the former president’s lawyers and the commission's secretary traded blows in terse letters.
A letter from the commission's secretary, Itumeleng Mosala, seeking to ascertain whether Zuma will comply with the commission's summons instructing him to appear before deputy chief justice Raymond Zondo, raised the ire of his legal representatives.
In a responding letter, Zuma's attorney Eric Mabuza described the letter as a threat and told the commission that Mosala has “no authority whatsoever to warn President Zuma of anything”.
PODCAST |Zuma vs Zondo: He won't be able to run from the commission forever
Subscribe: iono.fm | Spotify | Apple Podcast | Pocket Casts | Player.fm
The furore came after Zuma's attorney told the commission that his client has not indicated that he plans to defy the summons served on him in October to appear before Zondo. However, there was no commitment to comply with the summons either.
“I now write to ask you to take instructions and tell us whether your client will or will not comply with the summons. I ask that you let me know by 12h00 tomorrow (Thursday). If I do not receive any response from you by 12h00 tomorrow or if I receive a response that does not inform the commission that your client will comply with the summons, I will assume that your client does not intend to comply with the summons,” Mosala warned Zuma's lawyers.
Zondo issued a summons for the former president to appear at the commission after the commission's legal team argued that Zuma must appear and answer to damning allegations made by 34 witnesses.
Zuma's legal team however listed reasons why the former president should not appear, including an accusation that the commission had treated the former president unfairly, and a request for Zondo to recuse himself due to an alleged conflict of interest.
However, it emerged that Zuma's legal team had not applied for Zondo to recuse himself.
“The commission has noted that to date your client has not lodged his application for the chairperson’s recusal which he indicated more than five weeks ago that he would be lodging. Your client should have long lodged his application if he persists in his request for the chairperson to recuse himself,” Mosala said.
“I take this opportunity to warn your client that, even if his legal team plans to move his application for the chairperson’s recusal, that will not be a valid reason for him not to comply with the summons on November 16 2020. He is required to be in compliance with the summons as his legal team moves whatever application they may be instructed to move on his behalf.”
Mosala said the commission considered it important to communicate that even if Zuma's team officially asked Zondo to recuse himself, it would be too late and that Zuma was expected to appear from November 16 to 20.
He also bemoaned Zuma's failure since August, without an explanation, to comply with the commission's three directives to furnish the commission with affidavits in response to certain affidavits deposed to by certain witnesses.
“In each case your client has failed to comply with the chairperson’s Regulation 10(6) directive within the stipulated periods. In terms of the regulations a failure or refusal, without sufficient cause, to comply with the chairperson’s directives issued in terms of Regulation 10(6) is a criminal offence.
“In this regard the commission notes that not only has your client not complied with the chairperson’s directives, but he has also not considered it necessary to provide the commission with any explanation as to why he has not complied,” said Mosala.
He added that the commission is considering its options in regard to Zuma's failure to comply with the directives.
“The commission also notes that, when your client did not comply with his undertaking made at the commission hearing on July 19 2019 to furnish the commission with affidavits as agreed between his legal team and the commission’s legal team in a meeting chaired by the chairperson, your client also did not deem it necessary to furnish the commission with an explanation as to why he had failed to comply with the agreement. To date he has never provided the commission with any explanation.”
In light of Zuma's conduct, Mosala said the commission was no longer bound by that agreement.
In his response, Mabuza described the letter as a condescending attempt to bully Zuma and his legal team.
“Your conduct is completely unnecessary and uncalled for, the deputy chief justice has never treated us with the disrespect you show us. If anything, your conduct will only serve to harden attitudes in this delicate matter.
“We wish to remind you Professor (Mosala) that you have no authority whatsoever to warn President Zuma of anything. As for your threat, we wish to refer you to our letter dated November 5 2020 that 'you are free to take any step you deem appropriate, all our client’s rights are reserved'," Mabuza said.
