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
Kebble got value for donation says ANC
In his affidavit, Msimang said “donors receive value for the funds donated” through the “indirect benefit” that their companies operated in a political climate “which was borne through the gallant effort and contribution of the ANC”.
Msimang said that by donating to the ANC, Kebble was “maintaining an institution of democracy which (enabled) him to acquire his wealth, which in (turn), enabled him to operate his business in a democratic state free of racism, economic sanctions and free of all the negativity brought by (apartheid)”.
This argument is so preposterous, it could have been made up by The Onion. It is as if the ANC people are mocking themselves. It also seems to reflect – more darkly – the view that only the ANC can run South Africa and keep the peace and thus, by implication, that onmly the ANC has a right to rule the country.
I cannot imagine that the court would agree with this argument and then the ANC will have to pay back the money in any case. Why make such a fool of yourself if you know the chances of winning is very slim? The most obvious answer is that one makes such answers if one is exctremely arrogant and does not really care what people think. Or maybe more correctly, one does not care what the chattering classes think who actually read newspapers.
