Former President Jacob Zuma claims he and deputy chief justice Raymond Zondo have a “close personal relationship” that has spanned three decades and says he continues to regard Zondo as a “person of integrity”.
“I can say that I had no reservations about appointing him [Zondo] as the deputy chief justice of the Republic of SA when he was recommended by the Judicial Services Commission,” Zuma stated in a 100-page application for Zondo’s recusal as chair of the state capture commission.
“He can attest to the fact that he and I enjoyed a relatively close relationship, borne out of our respective personal and professional circumstances. He has visited my house on several occasions.”
Zuma further claims that after Zondo was appointed as a judge, the pair “discussed whether our personal relationship would jeopardise his judicial career” and resolved to “relate in a manner that would ensure that his judicial career is not adversely affected”.
Nonetheless, Zuma argues that given their personal relationship, “Zondo ought to have declined to chair the commission, whose terms of reference indicated that I was to be the main implicated person”.
In recent weeks, Zondo has publicly disclosed that he had fathered a child with the sister of Zuma’s estranged wife Thobeka Madiba-Zuma 25 years ago but insisted that this relationship had “no bearing” on his work as the inquiry’s chair.
Zuma has now revealed that he sought legal advice from Zondo in the early 1990s, when he was an attorney. According to Zuma, this professional relationship had then turned into a personal one and, when he learnt of the connection between his sister-in-law and Zondo, it was a “pleasant surprise”.
He however claims he did not question chief justice Mogoeng Mogoeng’s selection of Zondo to chair the inquiry, despite their “close personal relationship”, because he feared being accused of interfering with Mogoeng’s powers.
“This would have sparked public outcry and I was going to be portrayed as trying to influence the process,” Zuma said in his application, filed days before he is due to appear before the inquiry on Monday.
That recusal application centres on Zuma’s arguments that Zondo can reasonably be perceived to be biased against him.
“I am aware that some believe I am guilty and do not deserve to be treated fairly by our courts or legal processes,” Zuma said. “However, the approach of our courts and presiding officers ought to presume me innocent and not deepen existing prejudices against me.”
In an attempt to address questions about why he is only raising his “serious reservations” about Zondo’s suitability right as the commission is just about to wind up its work, Zuma claims he felt he had been prevented from doing so by then public protector Thuli Madonsela’s State of Capture report.
According to Zuma, Madonsela’s order that Mogoeng, rather than himself, choose the inquiry chair meant that he could not involve himself in the selection process at all.
In reasoning that was upheld by the Pretoria High Court, Madonsela explained that her decision was driven by the fact that Zuma, his friends the Gupta family and son Duduzane were all implicated in the evidence she had gathered. As such, Zuma could be reasonably perceived as conflicted in his choice of the inquiry judge.
Zuma clearly does not buy that argument and, in his application, he sought to not only challenge Zondo’s impartiality but to undermine the constitutionality of the inquiry itself. This was based in part, on the fact that he was not involved in choosing the judge who would head it.
The former president has also claimed that Zondo was not Mogoeng’s first choice. According to Zuma, Mogoeng had initially told him that Western Cape high court judge Siraj Desai “would be the appropriate judge to head the inquiry” but changed his mind a day or two later.
Desai has told Business Day that Zuma’s revelations were completely new to him. “This is the first that I’m hearing of it,” he said.
While saying that Mogoeng never explained why he had decided against recommending Desai’s appointment, Zuma contends that he made no comment on the issue “as I was mindful that any comment could be construed as an attempt to undermine the remedial action of the public protector and a court order”.
Zuma further contends that he has multiple reasons to believe that Zondo is biased against him.
According to Zuma, Zondo has made comments which effectively suggest that “I am guilty of the offense of ‘state capture’” and has “singled me out for public announcements” far more than any other witness. He further accused Zondo of twice questioning his statements that he was unable to attend previous inquiry hearings because he was receiving medical treatment overseas.
Zuma also said that the commission “has tended to call only those witnesses, particularly members of my cabinet, that implicate me in some way or are disgruntled that at some point I may have removed them from their cabinet posts”.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.