Quote of the week
Mr Zuma is no ordinary litigant. He is the former President of the Republic, who remains a public figure and continues to wield significant political influence, while acting as an example to his supporters… He has a great deal of power to incite others to similarly defy court orders because his actions and any consequences, or lack thereof, are being closely observed by the public. If his conduct is met with impunity, he will do significant damage to the rule of law. As this Court noted in Mamabolo, “[n]o one familiar with our history can be unaware of the very special need to preserve the integrity of the rule of law”. Mr Zuma is subject to the laws of the Republic. No person enjoys exclusion or exemption from the sovereignty of our laws… It would be antithetical to the value of accountability if those who once held high office are not bound by the law.
Secretary of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector including Organs of State v Zuma and Others (CCT 52/21) [2021] ZACC 18
Boesak and public morality
On Tuesday Dr Allan Boesak gave a rousing speech at the rally that concluded the COPE congress. Boesak, who was one of the founders of the United Democratic Front and was later convicted and sent to jail for mismanaging donor funds, was pardoned by the President a few years ago.
If I was a COPE leader I would have felt uncomfortable to give Boesak such a prominent spot at the rally. What does this say about the new party’s commitment to honest and corrupt-free governance? There might be those who argue that Boesak had served his time in jail and that because he was pardoned by the President, we should not hold it against him.
I am torn on this question. If Dr Boesak had applied for the job and if he had shown that he had turned over a new leave, I might have given him a second chance and might have employed him. But should politicians not be held to a slightly higher standard?
The mayor of Washington DC was re-elected a mayor after erving a prion entence for possion and ue of crack cocaine and at the time the chattering classes in the USA were up in arms that the voters could have re-elected this man of dubious moral probity. I was less upset about his comeback as the use of drugs is a “victimless” crime and does not involve stealing money from the poor.
Boesak on the other hand ued funds earmarked for community development projects and in a awy took the food out of the mouths of the hungry. He has also never shown any remorse for what he has done.
It just goes to show, when it comes to politics, public morality in South Africa is rather of a dismal standard.
