_edited.png)
On June 29th, the Constitutional Court of South Africa delivered a verdict that followed a series of bitter legal disputes and controversies against South Africa’s controversial populist ex-president, Jacob Zuma. He was charged with “contempt of court”, for his refusal to testify before oath at the Zondo Commission, a judicial investigation into the serious allegations of state capture and rampant corruption during his 9-year tenure.
Sisi Khampepe, acting Chief Justice, explained that Zuma had demonstrated “egregious” and “aggravated” contempt of court and “scurrilous, unfounded attacks” on judges.
His decision to turn himself in to the police to begin the 15 month-sentence is the beginning of a long legal drama that has only escalated, as cases alleging bribery, embezzlement, and rampant corruption continue to unwind. Attempts to convict Zuma in the past two decades have shown that, even without political power, he can use his political presence to delay and appeal trials.
If Zuma is found guilty, these cases would not only be a great indictment of the political incentives that allowed for Zuma to remain in power, but would also highlight the strength of independent democratic institutions in South Africa’s young democracy.
In the first series of charges against Zuma, the government used evidence from the Zondo commission to allege that more than 500 billion rands ($35 billion) were stolen from public finances under Zuma’s 11-year tenure, with dozens of witnesses pinning Zuma at the center of this looting frenzy. Zuma refused to testify under oath for the Zondo Commission, while his rhetoric against the constitutional court has become increasingly conspiratorial, with Zuma repeatedly alleging political conflicts of interest between the current President Cyril Ramaphosa and the deputy chair.
With evidence from the same commission, Zuma is also alleged by the government to be deeply involved in “state capture”: a term used to describe a kleptocracy formed between criminal families, like the Guptas family who have been accused of controlling a shadow government with Zuma and high-ranking government officials.
This is not the end of Zuma’s problems, however. On July 19th, he will appear in court for a now-infamous 30bn rand arms deal which took place when Zuma was deputy president in 1995. It is alleged that Zuma took bribes from Thales, a French weapons manufacturer, in order to have prioritized Thales above other weapons manufacturers, allowing South Africa to sign a lucrative arms deal with the company. Critics further point to the fact that there lacked a credible threat to South African national security, concluding that there was a backroom deal in order to facilitate an otherwise unnecessary and wasteful transaction.
In this case, just two South Africans have been convicted, despite the notorious publicity of the crime and the length of time that prosecutors have had to find evidence. The two convictions, however, both further reference Zuma as a beneficiary of the bribes.
In 2003, the ANC parliamentary whip (a position of influence in the national assembly), Tony Yengeni, was found guilty of fraud through the significantly-discounted purchase of a luxury car from one of the weapons manufacturers who was bidding for the contract. This was an important conviction, because Yengeni had a close personal relationship with Zuma, and most likely would have worked with him professionally to negotiate the Thales arms deal.
A close financial advisor to Zuma, Schabir Shaik, was also jailed for soliciting a bribe from Thint, a subsidiary controlled by Thales. Though the chief prosecutor stated, “Mr. Shaik had had a "mutually beneficial symbiosis" with the deputy president” and that there was prima facie evidence against Mr. Zuma, “there lacked sufficient evidence to convict Zuma.”
The companies involved in the massive contracts have also entered plea agreements in exchange for legal protection and lowering the penalty. For example, BAE Systems, another subsidiary of Thales, settled for a 400 million rand penalty pleading guilty to making misleading statements in order to end an investigation into the questionable payments to win the contracts. Saab, another contractor, also admitted paying 24 million in bribes to secure the military contract.
The attempt to convict Jacob Zuma after revelations found in Schabir Shaik trials perfectly illustrates the immense difficulty the South African judicial system will have in quickly convicting Zuma in a clear and concise fashion.
In June of 2005, Schabir Shaik was found to be acting as a middle man between a French weapons manufacturer, Thomson-CSF, and then-deputy president Jacob Zuma. The former had paid Shaik approximately $150,000 in order for Thomson-CSF and Schabir Shaik’s subsidiaries to get a $69 million contract with the navy. The judge noted, “Mr. Zuma was compliant in an arrangement that allowed him to "maintain a lifestyle beyond what he could afford."
As investigations soon started into Zuma’s criminal culpability, mounting pressure forced his resignation from the African National Congress, and from his role as deputy president. Zuma was brought to stand trial on 28 December 2007, and if convicted, would have been deemed ineligible to serve as president of South Africa after the scheduled 2008 general election. Becoming president would have granted Zuma temporary legal immunities from prosecution.
Despite the overwhelming amount of evidence against him, the case was dismissed in June of 2008. The decision was made on the grounds that political interference had occurred throughout the trial, as the judge suspected that prosecutors had been swayed by members of then-president Thabo Mbeki’s cabinet. The judge added that “the episode seemed to have formed part of "some great political contest or game".
The case was officially dropped on 6 April 2009, when evidence emerged that the prosecution had conspired to “manipulate the timing of the case” to hurt Zuma politically, as his trial was to coincide with that year’s party elections. However, when the decision was again challenged in 2016, the unanimous majority opinion stated that the chief prosecutor didn’t follow legal precedent in allowing the courts to withdraw the charges. Instead, it was done alone and impulsively, thereby giving the current head of the prosecution the power to recharge Zuma. With the constitutional court agreeing to the lower court’s decision, prosecutors have now brought back 783 counts of corruption relating to the Thales arms deal. This is now one of the many legal troubles Zuma is facing in prison.
Another legal trouble Zuma is facing is that he was also indicted for using public money to remodel his home in his home province of Nkandla while he was president of South Africa. After accusations by opposition parties that Zuma used government funds to upgrade his private property, Zuma agreed to participate in two investigations to clear up the accusations. The Public Protector Report made by the Public Protector, the branch of executive government responsible for investigating misconducts, conflicted with other reports by the Special Investigative Unit which claimed that new structures such as the amphitheatre were necessary as a “lifesaving” tool which would be vital in cases of holding stormwater.” The constitutional court, when forced to rule on the matter, indicted Zuma, legally binding him to repay the money he spent on upgrading his home. Some argue that Zuma should be sentenced to even more prison time for embezzlement.
Zuma’s corruption and his rhetoric have not matched with what he promised; he has not ushered changes that the voters expected of the government to fulfill. When he left office in 2019, 57% of ANC voters and 77% of non-ANC voters were found to be dissatisfied with the state of democracy.
His imprisonment has only reinforced the anger towards corrupt politicians among the general public. According to a recent Pew Research poll, 72% of South Africans believe that most politicians are corrupt, while South African politics continue to disappoint in reversing the stains of apartheid. Voters have taken matters into their own hands, participating in protests which have progressively escalated into civil unrest, leading to several deaths, disruptions of vaccination efforts, and millions of dollars worth of damaged property.
The ANC’s recent request for 25,000 extra troops, the largest deployment of troops since the end of apartheid, highlights the extent of the protests and riots. With key economic and national infrastructure repeatedly targeted and looted, it is not only the unemployed and the desperate paying the price of political conflict but all of South Africa. Some outsiders have labelled these uprisings democratic South Africa's "darkest hour”.
Zuma’s populist rhetoric throughout his career enchanted millions of South Africans to his cause, but his aggressive campaign against the economic elites has often hurt those, directly or indirectly, who supported him the most.
Comentários