Convenience justice and South Africa: Are we becoming a banana republic?
On the 31 May 2005 Judge Hillary Squires delivered his judgement on The State versus Schabir Shaik and eleven others. This judgement was a watershed moment in South Africa, for many reasons. There were many people that were jubilant from those who claim to be pro justice to the political enemies of then deputy president of the African National Congress Mr Jacob Zuma. At the NPA offices it goes without saying that there was probably much drinking of champagne and related celebratory drinks. The NPA as it said then now had a “winnable case” (one that they went on to lose) against Jacob Zuma and he would now be indicted as fitting.
Interestingly though legal experts elsewhere had always said Jacob Zuma and his former financial advisor should have been charged together as a corrupt relationship had to exist between two people. The friends of Jacob and other leading public figures though claimed that Zuma was being left to a court of public opinion in order to tarnish his political image in the run up to the Polokwane conference. The Polokwane conference came and went, and in a truly South African manner Jacob Zuma emerged as the president of the ANC.
After the conference Zuma was then charged and the charges against him were eventually struck off the roll after his legal team won an application for the permanent stay of prosecution. The pro Zuma camp then alleged that state institutions and resources were being manipulated to achieve political goals and indeed there were glimpses of evidence in the affirmative.
Fast forward that to 2011 in July and the City press runs an exclusive investigation piece on the business dealings and wealth of the ANC Youth leagues president Mr Julius Malema. According to the paper, there is evidence to suggest that the young leader is corrupt. Whereas one does not necessarily want to defend the young leader suffice to say that in this country you are innocent until proven guilty. The revelations cause one to ponder a few things deeply; firstly the convenience of the revelation only 18 months before the Mangaung conference! We would all remember how 18 months before the Stellenbosch conference there were allegations of a plot to kill then President Thabo Mbeki by people who were contenders for the position of party president at the next conference? While I am running the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist it seems to me that these sudden revelations have a lot less to do with Malema’s corruption or the lack thereof but more to do with ensuring he is not a factor in the run up to Mangaung. This is quite simply because he has had an expensive car for a while, bought a property that was way above his salary range and etc etc. The question then is why now? Secondly maybe it is because President Zuma’s sweetener to the league by making the Honourable Fikile Mbalula a full minister and making Melusi Gigaba minister of public enterprises in the erstwhile cabinet reshuffle did not yield the desired results i.e. did not change the leagues view on him serving a second term. Therefore the Zuma machinery had to devise another strategy to ensure that it comes out on top in Mangaung next year? I must say for his part Zuma is not leaving this too late as he is aware of what the youth leagues influence can do to its opponents at such conferences.
Against such a background it one wonders if the state machinery in particular the criminal justice system is not becoming a political weapon in the hands of those in power. There have been calls in certain quarters for the leagues president to be suspended until his name is cleared. You would also have to love the way in which the opposition parties and other anti Malema players have taken up the opportunity to ‘nail’ him. However in my view a more serious cause for concern should be this apparent selective and convenient justice. Why did the people who are said to have disclosed paying Malema bribes not come out when he bought his first house. Was the media not curious enough two years ago not to probe the source of his wealth? What the civil society and opposition parties in this country should be fighting for is the consistent enforcement of justice across the board and not only when it is convenient for certain individuals. As judge Nicholson indicated in a judgement he delivered in the matter between Jacob Zuma and the National Director of Public Prosecutions we need to “rid our land of this cancer that is devouring the body politic”. However for us to truly rid our land of this cancer, justice must be precisely that just! And I am afraid if it is selective and partial then it falls short of the definition and I wonder what it becomes.
