Zuma case a reminder the judicial system is under pressure

A massive boost for press freedom. And in a nation burdened with woes, a cheering reminder that the judiciary remains solid.

That’s the tenor of the response to Jacob Zuma’s humiliation this week in the KwaZulu-Natal High Court in Pietermaritzburg, where the National Prosecuting Authority’s Billy Downer and News24’s Karyn Maughan succeeded in their application to set aside his private prosecution of them.

Well, ja-nee. It’s more complicated than that. While the court dealt the former president a well-deserved bloody nose and reiterated some fundamental constitutional precepts, it was a reminder that the judicial system is under sustained pressure.

ALSO READ: ‘He came to court with unclean hands,’ says expert as Zuma plans to appeal judgment

Scrupulous politicians, using the flimsiest of pretexts, have increasingly over the past decade abused the court process to delay or avoid justice.

On the upside, Judges Gregory Kruger, Jacqui Henriques and Mokgere Masipa tipped their collective hat to the importance of media freedom and restricted the ability of the rich to litigate to avoid journalistic scrutiny or to prevent government officials from carrying out their duties.

They also reiterated the right of civil society organisations to be admitted as amici curiae, friends of the court, as long as they have useful legal insights to contribute.

Importantly, the ruling signals that the judiciary is, at last, wearying of the former president’s Stalingrad defence – convoluted but basically frivolous court applications designed solely to delay his appearance in court on criminal charges arising from the 1999 arms deal.

ALSO READ: Zuma’s bid to prosecute Downer and Maughan dismissed

Through these stratagems, indulged by judges that presumably are either inexplicably tolerant or understandably fearful, Zuma has managed to delay the “day in court” that he so fervently claims to desire, for 19 years.

Also, pleasingly for those who like to see unbridled political arrogance punished, it’s a hefty boot into Zuma’s financial gonads.

The judges indicated their displeasure with Zuma’s “unclean hands” – a legal term describing a litigant’s bad faith; nothing to do with this grubby tubby’s inability to keep his dirty paws out of state coffers – with a punitive costs order.

This means that Zuma will not only have to cough up for his own legal team’s lacklustre performance, led by advocate Dali Mpofu, he will also have to shell out for the more stellar teams appearing for the intended victims of his judicial mugging.

ALSO READ: Lawyers poke holes into Zuma private prosecution case

That equates to about a million dubiously acquired Zuma rands down the financial plughole. Even more, if he carries out his ill-advised threat to appeal.

A failing of the court, as with every single judicial body that has had to tangle with Mpofu’s legal and ethical failings, is that it shirks from the implications of what it observes.

The judgment bemoans several times the inadequacies in Mpofu’s filings, noting, for example, “blanket bald denials of material allegations without laying any factual basis therefore any explanation to justify his denials”.

Yet the court never articulates the obvious conclusions: Mpofu is disrespectful of the Court and careless of the interests of his client.

No mistake, it’s a welcome ruling but not enough to conclude that the judiciary is in a sound condition.

Just a week ago, the amaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism was placed under a gag order over its coverage of corruption in Zimbabwe involving the Moti Group and businessman Zunaid Moti based on information leaked by a whistle-blower.

Judge John Holland-Muter granted the interim order at a secret hearing that amaBhungane’s lawyers were only informed about after it was granted.

ALSO READ: Zuma calls for Shamila Batohi and deputy to be investigated for misconduct

While, aspects of the ruling have since temporarily been overturned, it’s a reminder that the courts are not unambiguous in their understanding of fundamental constitutional freedoms.