Citizens occupied Church Square
This week the Passenger Rail Agency, a state organ, went to court to try to force another state organ, the Hawks, to investigate alleged corruption in its tenders – just the kind of action civil society organisations have been eyeing in other alleged cases of corruption.
And President Jacob Zuma went to court to argue that a demand that he start a state capture inquiry be held back until he can argue, separately, that he cannot be told how to constitute a state capture inquiry.
Zuma backed up his application by citing as a precedent last year’s Constitutional Court judgment on Nkandla, the one that went so spectacularly against him. This was the second time in two weeks Zuma has cited the Nkandla case; in an unrelated matter last week he used it to bolster an argument about why he should not face corruption charges again.
But that is just the tip of a fast-growing iceberg. Zuma’s administration has spawned a number of legal challenges that question his integrity, the rationality of some of his decisions and his choice in people to lead key institutions, including state-owned enterprises.
These are the 13 most important cases the government is dealing with.
ZUMA IMPEACHMENT
UDM: Zuma should face a secret no-confidence ballot
Opposition parties have a no-confidence vote on Zuma pending, but House speaker Baleka Mbete would not consider it being a secret vote. The rules simply do not allow for it, she said. The United Democratic Movement (UDM), later joined by other opposition parties, said the Constitution did not just permit a secret vote, it required it.
Fallout: A small number of ANC MPs have spoken out openly against Zuma. A larger number is said to be opposed to his continued leadership. If Parliament is directed to hold a secret vote, and a vote of no confidence is successful, it would mean the end of Zuma’s presidency. If the tally shows ANC MPs must have voted to oust him, that will trigger internal party turmoil.
Timing: The Constitutional Court heard the case on May 15. Judgment is pending and expected soon.
EFF: Parliament must investigate impeachment against Zuma
Even though he repaid the state R7.8-million for improvements to his home, Nkandla continues to haunt Zuma. The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) want the Constitutional Court to force the speaker of Parliament to launch an investigation that could lead to impeachment proceedings against Zuma, for what it calls his “lies” to Parliament during the saga.
Fallout: Zuma will be pressed to explain apparently contradictory statements made to Parliament and then public protector Thuli Madonsela on how much he knew about the Nkandla upgrades and when he knew about them. If the case is successful, it could trigger the beginning of an impeachment process.
Timing: The case is to be heard on September 5, with written arguments due by July 14.
CORRUPTION AND STATE CAPTURE
DA/Zuma: You must/I shan’t do as Madonsela directed on state capture
In her 2016 report, State of Capture, Public Protector Thuli Madonsela said a commission – appointed by the president and headed by a judge chosen by the chief justice – must investigate the allegations centred on the Gupta family. Zuma wants a court to review this forcing of his hand and the Democratic Alliance wants Zuma to do as he was told.
Fallout: A judicial commission would pronounce definitively on the allegations made in the State of Capture report, but it would also delay resolution. Opposing such a commission legally, while saying he does not oppose it in principle, is not going down well, especially with the release of the leaked Gupta emails.
Timing: The application to force Zuma to set up the commission is due to be heard on September 12 and 13. Zuma’s challenge is scheduled for October 25 and 26. But there are several actions under way to speed things up.
Zuma: The NPA was right to drop corruption charges against me
It has been 17 years since Zuma committed the acts that famously saw him fail to answer a supposed prima facie case of corruption. The DA has fought a marathon battle to set aside as irrational former National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) head Mokotedi Mpshe’s 2009 decision to drop the charges.
Fallout: For Zuma, this is the big one. If he fails to convince either the Supreme Court of Appeal or, perhaps later, the Constitutional Court to change the way things stand, then he remains a criminal accused until either prosecutors decide not to pursue him – a decision that must be taken rationally – or he gets dragged into a courtroom.
Timing: The appeal court is due to hear the combined appeal by Zuma and the NPA on September 15.
Various groups, including AfriForum: Make Ramaphosa set up a state capture inquiry
The Quaker Peace Centre, the FW de Klerk Foundation, Accountability Now and AfriForum sought access to the Constitutional Court last week to argue that, because Zuma is conflicted on the matter, his deputy must set up a state capture investigation.
Fallout: This is an awkward position for Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa, who is simultaneously deputising for Zuma and unofficially campaigning to replace him.
Timing: Unclear because the Constitutional Court has numerous options on how to deal with the application.
Corruption Watch:The Seriti arms commission was a whitewash
The broad investigation into the legendary arms deal that Zuma launched voluntarily (shortly before the courts looked likely to force him to do so) was fraught and controversial. Corruption Watch and Right2Know still want to overturn its findings.
Fallout: The nongovernmental organisations are not looking for a rerun of the commission and the arms deal allegations against Zuma were not part of the commission’s terms of reference. But a finding by a court that the commission was a waste of time would boost the allegations against the president, which are rooted in the arms deal.
Timing: The matter is quickly devolving into a fight about delivery of the record of the commission, not unlike the fight in the Cabinet reshuffle case. By the best available guess it may see a hearing in early 2018.
Denel: Let us join up with a Gupta-associated letterbox company
The state arms manufacturer wants to enter into a joint venture with Gupta associate Salim Essa, who would own 49% of its envisaged Denel Asia subsidiary. And Denel Asia, the Gupta emails suggest, wanted to do business with the extended Gupta family in India. But Denel has yet to get the treasury to sign off on Denel Asia, hence its legal action.
Fallout: The case pitted the treasury, under former finance minister Pravin Gordhan, against one of the state-owned entities alleged to be captured. How it proceeds may be a signifier of the attitude of the new incumbent.
Timing: The matter is in abeyance, it seems. Denel, the treasury and their lawyers are singularly determined not to talk about it.
(Former) finance minister: Say we can’t interfere in Oakbay’s closed bank accounts
Gordhan wanted a court to declare that he could not interfere if banks decided to close the bank accounts of Gupta family companies. The Guptas said Gordhan was trying to further his “war” against them.
Fallout: In court, all the parties agreed that the minister was, by law, not allowed to interfere. But a loss for the minister would mean whoever is in the chair at the time will not have a court order to back him if, say, there is pressure on him or her.
Timing: The case was heard at the end of March. Judgment is pending.
DODGY APPOINTMENTS AND MISDEEDS IN OFFICE
Freedom Under Law: NPA bosses Jiba and Mrwebi must be prosecuted
When prosecutions head Shaun Abrahams announced that fraud and perjury charges against NPA senior managers Nomgcobo Jiba and Lawrence Mrwebi would be dropped, nongovernmental organisation Freedom Under Law challenged the decision in court.
Fallout: Factional infighting and accusations that it is protecting Zuma have divided the NPA. Jiba and Mwrebi are viewed as key figures in the pro-Zuma faction.
Timing: The state and Jiba and Mrwebi have until August 15 to file new heads of argument. The pair also have an appeal pending to try to reverse the high court’s decision to strike them from the roll of advocates.
Ntlemeza: I should be reinstated as Hawks boss
As things stand, the courts agree with the Helen Suzman Foundation and Freedom Under Law that Berning Ntlemeza was not fit and proper for the job. But the former head of the Hawks wants his job back, even if Police Minister Fikile Mbalula has withdrawn the state from the fight.
Fallout: The Ntlemeza matter was always less about him than it was about the Hawks. As the appeal court said again last week: “The proper functioning of the foremost corruption-busting and crime-fighting unit in our country dictates that it should be free of taint.” The Hawks is one of the institutions widely said to be politically compromised.
Timing: Not yet known. Ntlemeza is still preparing his application to the appeal court for leave to appeal and only then will further dates be set.
Corruption Watch: Take back former NPA head Nxasana’s R17.3-million
Corruption Watch, Freedom Under Law and the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution have challenged the “voluntary” departure in 2015 of then NPA head Mxolisi Nxasana, which came at a cost of R17.3-million.
Fallout: If the court undoes the golden handshake, it would mean the appointment of Abrahams, the incumbent prosecutions boss, could also be undone. Nxasana said in April that Zuma had lied under oath in his papers in the case. The organisations are keen to explore an allegation of perjury by the president on a matter of public interest.
Timing: The case is expected to be heard in November. If Zuma wants to challenge perjury allegations, he must do so by June 20.
DA: Firing Gordhan and Jonas at the same time was irrational
Zuma rearranged a large chunk of his Cabinet at the end of March. But he went too far by firing Gordhan and his deputy, Mcebisi Jonas, says the DA. Zuma’s irrational actions spooked the markets.
Fallout: The first skirmish revolves around the records Zuma must release, including the elusive “intelligence report” he supposedly relied on in his decision. Which looks to be an embarrassingly dubious (and possibly illegal) document.
Timing: The DA won its application in the high court to get access to the record of decision, which Zuma is seeking to appeal. This week, the DA will ask for an urgent appeal court date.
Molefe: Put me back in charge of Eskom
Brian Molefe wants the Labour Court to place him back at Eskom’s helm.
Fallout: Molefe all but stood accused of being an important player in state capture when he left Eskom. He almost immediately became an ANC MP, neatly linking the party to the state capture allegations. If he returns to Eskom after the subsequent drama, or lands a hefty golden handshake, it will look all the worse.
Timing: The hearing is likely to be in court at the end of June.