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
Should sins of the wife be visited on husband?
Skwatsha initially represented herself during the proceedings, but a later application for a Legal Aid Board lawyer was granted. Her attorney would not comment when contacted 
by the Cape Times.
Now, I am not a great fan of Mr. Skwatsha, who is part of the Africanist faction in the Western Cape ANC and who seems to be a rather ungenerous and shifty individual. But should Mr. Skwatsha be judged and condemned for something his wife did?
When the wife of Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Aziz Pahad was twice caught for drunken driving, I felt quite sorry for the guy. He was obviously married to an alcoholic, so I did not feel he should in any way be blamed for what his wife did.
Why do I then think this case is different? Is it because I do not like Mr. Skwatsha, or is it because the crime here was a premeditated act of dishonesty perpetrated by someone who probably got a job at the post office in Parliament because of her husbands connections?
The theft by his wife does and should reflect badly on the Cape secretary of the ANC and on the ANC itself. After all, Mr. Skwatsha chose to marry a woman with a deeply flawed grasp of public morality. At best it reflects badly on his judgment of character. At worst it suggests that he might share the lack of public morals displayed by his wife.
She also worked in the post office at Parliament and perpetrated the theft there. This suggests that she was placed in a position of trust because of her connections with the ANC and Parliament.
If the ANC had a better grasp of what kind of public morality was expected from public officials, Mr. Skwatsha would issue a statement to say that in the spirit of ubuntu he stands by his wife, but that what she did was despicable because it completely abused the public trust placed in her and that the ANC condemns such dishonesty in the strongest possible terms.So far no such statement has been issued. Instead Mrs. Skwatsha first denied that she was married to the ANC secretary and then refused to answer the phone. This suggests that Mr. Skwatsha is not wanting to deal with the matter as he will probably claim it is a private matter that has nothing to do with the voters.
Of course being married to a convicted thief must be embarrassing – especially if one is a public official and a political leader. The only honorouble way to deal with it is to deal with it. By hiding away one may well create the impression that one is complicit with one’s spouse or that one shares the criminal attitude of one’s spouse. Surely that is not the impression Mr. Skwatsha wants to convey?
