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
Paris is sleeping…..
According to the Mail & Guardian:
An allegation that Zikalala showed a Special Assignment programme to the Presidency prior to broadcast is especially grave, as it opens the SABC up to editorial influence in violation of the Act and its own code of editorial practice.
The FXI further argues in its complaint that the denial of the existence of a blacklist in June last year had misled the public — a violation of the Act, the SABC code of practice and Icasa’s code of conduct for broadcasters.
The complaint also points to possible violations of the freedom-of-expression clause found in the Constitution. These include an attempt to force the Mail & Guardian Online to remove a copy of the blacklisting report, and the alleged screening of the Special Assignment show to the Presidency.
Having not seen the complaint and not being an expert on Icasa (after reading the various acts governing Icasa’s work I felt like a first year law student at a Master’s seminar on Tax Law), I have no idea whether the complaint has any legal merit.
However, if even a fraction of the media reports about the shenanigans at Icasa are true, I would not hold my breath for a speedy resolution of the dispute. After all, according to his ex secretary, Paris Mashile the chair of Icasa, hardly ever did Icasa work and liked taking off his shoes and having a nap in his office.
Maybe Mr Mashile is a very hard worker and his ex-secretary was lying through her teeth about his work habits. But given the fact that Icasa is the institution that is supposed to regulate Telkom and thus is supposed to help bring down telecommunication prices, I can only say again: don’t hold your breath FXI.
