By KEDIBONE MOLAETSI
The embattled former president, Jacob Zuma came out gun blazing and showed the State Capture Commission of Inquiry a ‘middle’ finger. This comes after the Constitutional Court ruled in favour of the commission to forced Zuma to appear before it and cooperate.
Zuma walked out of the commission a few months ago and later requested the chairperson of the commission, Deputy Judge Justice Raymond Zondo to recuse himself citing a conflict of interest because he is a friend with Zondo.
However, dismissed Zuma’s allegations and said his relationship with Zuma was only ‘professional’. Now, Zuma has released a statement saying that he will never cooperate with the commission despite the Concourt ruling.
“It is patently clear to me that I am being singled out for different and special treatment by the judiciary and the legal system as a whole. I, therefore, states in advance that the Commission into Allegations of State Capture can expect no further co-operation from me in any of their processes going forward.
“If this stance is considered to be a violation of their law, then let their law take its course. I do not fear being arrested, I do not fear being convicted nor do I fear being incarcerated,”
Zuma said the recent extraordinary and unprecedented decision of the ConCourt stripped him of his basic constitutional rights as an individual citizen. He said when the former Public Protector, Advocate Thuli Madonsela stipulated the terms upon which the President would establish a commission of inquiry to look into allegations of state capture, she had recommended that the chairperson of the inquiry be appointed by the Chief Justice and not the president as is the normal and correct legal procedure.
“As the President at the time, I legally challenged this approach by the Public Protector stating that she was overstepping the powers of her office by imposing the decision to appoint a commission of inquiry on the president and by imposing how the head of that commission of the inquiry should be appointed.
“The Public Protector stated that she made the recommendation of the appointment of a commission of inquiry because her term of office was ending and she would not have had sufficient time to complete her investigation into the complaints that had been lodged,” said Zuma.
He added that this in itself was also legally problematic in that, the investigation was carried out by her office and not her as an incumbent in that office. Zuma said Madonsela’s successor would have carried on with the work she had started as the work is that of the office of Public Protector and not the individual serving as the Public Protector at the time.
“Madonsela did not leave that office having completed every single investigation that was before her when her term ended but deemed it necessary that this particular investigation be referred to a commission of inquiry and not the other investigations that she had not completed at the time.
It was clear then as is clear now that given that this matter contained specific allegations against Zuma, it needed a different and special approach that would deviate from the law and the constitution to ensure that Zuma was dealt with differently,” he said.
He outlined that the High Court in Pretoria decided in favour of the Public Protector in that legal challenge stating, amongst other things, that the commission of inquiry as recommended by the Public Protector would be different in that it would only have such powers as are directly equal to the powers of the office of the Public Protector.
“What has subsequently transpired with the establishment and functioning of the Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture is completely at odds with what the court stated as the envisaged purpose of this commission.
“The Commission into Allegations of State Capture led by Zondo, has followed in the steps of the former Public Protector in how it also has continued with creating a special and different approach to specifically, deal with Zuma,” he said.
Zuma alleged that Zondo has unprovoked called special press conferences to make specific announcements about him. He further said this has never happened to any other witness.
“Recently, the commission ran to the ConCourt on an urgent basis to get it to compel me to attend at the commission and give answers. Effectively, this has undermined a litany of my constitutional rights including the right to the presumption of innocence.
“I have never said that I do not want to appear before the commission, but have said that I cannot appear before Deputy Chief Justice Zondo because of a well-founded apprehension of bias and a history of personal relations between the Deputy Chief Justice and myself,” said Zuma.
He added that he had taken the decision by the Deputy Chief Justice not to recuse himself on review as he believes his presiding over the proceedings do not provide him the certainty of a fair and just hearing. Zuma also took a jab at the ConCourt and accused it of also mimics the posture of the commission.
“This has now also created a special and different set of circumstances specifically designed to deal with Zuma by suspending my constitutional rights rendering me completely defenceless against the commission.
“The Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture should have been rightly named the Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture against Jacob Zuma as it has been obviously established to investigate me specifically,” said Zuma.
The Guardian 