So the M&G called it wrong last week when we put the headline “No immunity for Grace” on the front page. As it would turn out, by Sunday Zimbabwe’s first lady, Grace Mugabe, had been given some kind of fudged “diplomatic” immunity and went back to the safety of that country, where she is clearly untouchable and can whip as many people with electrical accoutrement as she likes.
It’s almost surprising she was let go by the South African authorities in such an understated way — they didn’t even call out the al-Bashir protection services to ferry her to the airport with a blue-light brigade.
When we wrote “No immunity for Grace”, that seemed to be the legal position taken by the state’s legal advisers. We did not perhaps sufficiently reckon with the ability of the South African state, under an ANC government, to fiddle its way around the law that it is supposed to be upholding on behalf of all the citizens of this country — and those legally resident here.
If we were in the predicting game, as opposed to simply reporting the state of play at one particular moment, we might better have taken the most pessimistic option among the scenarios available — that no, South Africa’s law enforcement authorities would not actually enforce the law. After all, the head of state, and the head of the party leading the present government of South Africa, has essentially been on the run from the law for a decade. He wiggled out of corruption charges — though these may yet be reinstated — after a long court battle.
The president has been fighting legal and rearguard actions since before he won the party’s presidency way back in 2007 and, once president, he shut down, undermined or compromised each of the state agencies that might have been capable of applying the law in his case.
He has not shown any concern for the law at all, or for what is supposed to be the supreme law, the Constitution. Why should the South African state, as commanded by such a figure, be any different?