The judiciary must must stay intact and keep fighting

There must be some sort of world record in the number of times that former president Jacob Zuma has had a case directly related to him or about him adjudicated in a court of law.

It is a rather sad record for him because in most of these cases, judgments have been overwhelmingly against him.

His legal team is even going outside this country’s borders to petition the African Court on Human and People’s Rights for being tried in absentia by the Constitutional Court.

This after the former president’s latest loss in the courts as the country’s apex court ruled against his attempt to have his 15-month jail sentence set aside.

Why is it necessary for the country’s legal system to keep fighting every step of the way even when it’s clear that the former president will not serve any more jail time?

Because it is the country’s heart of the judicial system that the former president is having a go at, the only arm of government that has successfully fought off attempts to have it captured over the past “wasted” decade.

A lot of people must be asking themselves what good it is doing the country’s highest court to uphold a decision that will not result in time behind bars for Zuma.

This answer is that giving up fighting against his multiple attacks on the court’s integrity would signal the beginning of a painful, steady descent towards a completely failed judiciary.

An argument can be made on just giving up on the ex-president, throwing in the towel on every legal case against him and letting him go.

It is a sound and humane argument because what good does it really do to throw a 79-year-old man behind bars? What purpose does it serve?

It cannot be rehabilitation so he can return and do good in society, he is too old for that.

And in light of the recent looting spree that followed his incarceration in July, the argument is also made that stopping the pursuit of Zuma would be a “safe” option for the country’s economy.

But there is a major flaw in this plea for the former president to be pardoned, because that’s what it would be, a pardon.

The flaw is that it overlooks the damage that Zuma’s relentless attacks have done to the judiciary and the Constitutional Court, in particular.

Had Zuma succeeded in getting the court to admit that it cannot adjudicate over its own judgment, a constitutional crisis would have resulted.

The constitution is the glue that holds this flawed country together and without its laws and rules, chaos would ensue.

It must be remembered that the former president walked out of the Commission of Inquiry into State Capture.

That has since been equated to walking out of court. He was then granted an opportunity to say why the Constitutional Court must not jail him on contempt of court charges but he, instead, chose to attack the court itself instead of engaging in the legal process afforded to him.

Sure, the country cannot be vengeful and seek to imprison an old – and possibly sick – man, but the judiciary must stay intact.

To do so it needs to teach all of us that one cannot simply walk out of court without consequences.