KZN should brace for more Zuma-supporter ructions in coming weeks

The KwaZulu-Natal High Court on Friday morning made short shrift of Jacob Zuma’s eleventh-hour bid to try and stay his 15-month prison sentence, dismissing it with costs, but this might simply add fuel to the fires currently blazing in KwaZulu-Natal.

But according to political analyst Sandile Swana, the ruling is unlikely to persuade the former president’s supporters or ease the violence unfolding in KZN at present, widely thought to be linked to the wave of pro Zuma protests underway.

“What goes on in the courts is not viewed through legal eyes, that’s not how they see it,” Swana said yesterday on the back of the ruling. “They see the whole issue – including the behaviour of the Constitutional Court – as mercilessly targeting Zuma”.

KZN was yesterday besieged by a wave of violent unrest, targeting major transport routes. Looting was also reported in KwaMashu, north of Durban.

And Swana said there would be more “ructions and riotous behaviour” in days and weeks to come.

“They’re gearing up for a long-term struggle,” he said.

Last Tuesday, the Constitutional Court found Zuma in contempt for refusing to abide by its order that he appear before the state capture commission of inquiry and sentenced him to 15 months behind bars.

In a shock last-minute effort to try and evade prison, however, Zuma’s lawyers lodged an application to have the Constitutional Court rescind its bruising judgment – despite his having opted not to participate in the proceedings previously – and this has been set to be heard on Monday. In the meantime, Zuma on Tuesday also moved an application to effectively stay his detention in the High Court, leading to the ruling delivered on Friday by Judge Jerome Mnguni.

“What, in my view, this application seeks to achieve is to entangle this court in judicial adventurism (which has been strongly deprecated in constitutional democracies), and to make whimsical orders which have the effect of granting unlawful and unwarranted relief,” he said.

Zuma has also brought an application challenging the Criminal Procedure Act – and the fact that it doesn’t provide for trials in civil contempt proceedings – in the High Court. But Mnguni said there was “a penetrating analysis of case law on this issue, which tends to diminish the force of this contention”.

He cited case law which held the civil contempt procedure was an important mechanism for securing compliance with court orders and fell within the confines of the constitution.

“In my view, this conclusion has the effect of removing all the wind from the sails of the boat upon which Mr Zuma’s contention is journeying,” Mnguni said.

Of the case before him, he said the fundamental issue was whether the High Court had jurisdiction to interfere with a higher court’s order.

“It is common cause that in this country there is no higher authority than the Constitutional Court, and that its decisions cannot be undermined by a lower court.

“Should this court accede to the contentions advanced on behalf of Mr Zuma, then the hierarchy will be disturbed and there will be no finality to legal decisions”.