Zuma breaks silence after ConCourt stands by ruling in contempt case
Former president Jacob Zuma has broken his silence on the Constitutional Court’s decision to dismiss his application to review its order that sent him to prison.
Last week, the majority judgment found that Zuma's application failed to convince that court that its decision to find him guilty of contempt and to sentence him to 15 months in prison was erroneous.
He was also ordered to pay the costs of the secretary of the judicial commission of inquiry into state capture, chairperson Raymond Zondo and two lawyers.
Zuma has since been granted medical parole.
As of last week, he remained in a military hospital amid claims of his compromised health.
The 79-year-old politician penned a four-page letter on Monday but it’s unclear if the letter posted on social media was written from his hospital bed.
Zuma maintains his stance that the events of the past several months have been a result of an “anti-Zuma narrative”.
“As with many of our leaders during the struggle, I believe that history will vindicate me when I say that South Africa today is in the process of changing from a constitutional democracy to a constitutional dictatorship.
After the judgement of the Constitutional Court on 17 September, I am more certain of this than ever before.”
“Many of our people are blind to this reality at this point because they have been successfully hypnotised by the anti-Zuma narrative.”
Zuma has vowed to take the matter up further, with plans to challenge the decision at the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights.
“Once the whole contempt debacle had run its full course with judge Zondo’s subordinates presiding over a matter that had directly called into question his integrity as a judge, the Constitutional Court again made decisions and took actions that have never been taken in our law by asking that I do a mitigation of sentence where there had been no conviction.
“I feel vindicated in that it still remains the contention of the minority judges that everything that has happened since then has been unconstitutional. It has never happened that in a dissenting decision of the Constitutional Court that the dissenting judges go as far as accusing their colleagues of acting unconstitutionally.”
He further slams the apex court for opting not to use international law to come to its decision.
“Most astounding of all though, is how the Constitutional Court has for the first time ever stated that it does not have to consider international law as directed by Section 39(1)(b) of the Constitution. It is a very sad day in our history to observe how those we have entrusted with the Constitution now consider themselves above the Constitution.”
ALSO READ:
