25 June 2022

JG ZUMA STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE UNLAWFUL AND IRRATIONAL STATE

CAPTURE REPORT

This is the Foundation’s response to the unlawful and highly irrational report of Chief
Justice Zondo who in almost four and half years dismally failed to find evidence beyond
innuendo and conjecture to prove that His Excellency President Zuma had abdicated his
executive authority to the Guptas and was thus “captured” by them. Instead, Justice
Zondo dabbled into areas best suited to be dealt with by either the Directorate for Priority
Crime Investigations, (HAWKS) or the newly established Investigative Directorate within
the National Prosecuting Authority. Given that it’s almost half a decade since this
investigation began, the Foundation deemed it appropriate to quickly remind South
Africans of the pertinent history around this Inquiry and put it into the correct context.

The Constitution of South Africa on section 84 on Powers and functions of

President is unambiguous on s84(2)(f) that “The President is responsible for
appointing commissions of inquiry”. There is nothing in the Constitution of the
Republic of South Africa that gives a Chief Justice a role to select the Chairperson
of the Commission. But the law was broken right in front of our eyes.
His Excellency President Zuma was reduced to a clerical function of appointing
Justice Zondo who was selected by the then Chief Justice. The jury is still out as to
why the initially chosen Chair of the Commission, Justice Desai was mysteriously
changed on the day of appointment. In summary we hold the view that given the
unlawfulness of how this Inquiry was set up, it cannot be that its findings and
recommendations are lawful. The report is therefore a classical case of the fruits
of a poisoned tree.

1. THE CONDUCT OF JUSTICE ZONDO DURING THE INQUIRY

1.1. To say Chief Justice Zondo is unworthy of being called a judge would be a
serious understatement. Chief Justice Zondo fails the most basic of the tests
even for the most junior judge. No self-respecting judge worthy of that title
sits in a case where he/she is directly affected and demonstrably conflicted in
order to settle personal scores.
1.2. Even during his recent media conference when he was handing over the
report to the equally conflicted President who is under investigations by the
Hawks and Public Protector amongst others, he failed to show remorse when
responding to journalists' questions whether when looking back he would do
anything differently.

1.3. The record will show that during the deliberations in the Commission, Justice
Zondo like all other witnesses, deposed to an affidavit where he denied his
subsequently well-established proximity to and relationship with President
Zuma. Justice Zondo’s affidavit was made in response and in rebuttal to the
statement by President Zuma that they were previously friends. Justice
Zondo deliberated on the two affidavits and decided to dismiss the
submission of President Zuma in favour of his own affidavit. If that is not
travesty of Justice by the now most senior Judge in South Africa then we don’t
know the meaning of that term. Without digressing, it is worth mentioning
that before the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) Justice Zondo contradicted
his statement about his proximity to President Zuma.

1.4. In response to a question about his political meddling, he tried to justify his
reason for the visit but instead, what we remember is that he said “I knew
him, it might have been more than 20 years…….” He also miraculously “could
not remember” what they discussed when they met more than once in hotels
in KZN.

1.5. It didn’t end there. H.E President Zuma, a citizen who fought for the
democracy of this country, again asked Justice Zondo to recuse himself, so
that a neutral person could receive his submission. No, was the answer. The
South African media and judiciary instead entrenched the false narrative that
President Zuma, by insisting on an unbiased decision maker, was “refusing”
to go to the Commission. For this he was jailed without a trial at the instigation
of the so-called Zondo Commission. Why would President Zuma a law-abiding
citizen who has been willingly attending courts, including criminal courts, for
almost 20 years suddenly and for no reason “refuse” to attend a toothless
inquiry investigating a phantom thing called “state capture”?

1.6. In a further act of bullying and abuse of power, Justice Zondo who also at the
time was the Deputy Chief Justice, complained to his subordinates at the
Constitutional Court, who also failed to direct him to the rules of his own
commission which would have told him to complain to the police or approach
a lower Court.

1.7. Instead, he approached the Constitutional Court directly and urgently in 2020
under the false pretences that the Commission was left with only two months
to finish its work. Two years thereafter the Commission was still continuing
and even unlawfully issued its final report after the date determined by the
court for its expiry. It was therefore Zondo who acted in contempt of court.
History will show that all this resulted in President Zuma being the first and
only South African citizen who is a victim of a Constitutional Court ordered
incarceration and imprisonment or detention without a trial or even the

2
opportunity to plead “Guilty” or “Not Guilty”. He will also go down as the only
prisoner who never had the opportunity to mitigate and appeal his sentence.
This is what the media and apartheid apologists called the best display of
“equality before the law”!

3
2. WHY ARE WE HERE TODAY?

2.1. Firstly, to engrave in the minds of South Africans that Equality Before the law
is an object yet to be achieved in South Africa. H.E President Zuma was and
continues to be selectively illtreated by the legal system of South Africa. It
would be wrong to upgrade our legal system into a justice system. There is
still no fair justice system in South Africa. We are yet to see and experience
the blind justice system for which people like President Zuma sacrificed
so much, including long term imprisonment in Robben Island and life itself.

2.2. Turning to the unlawful report of the unlawful Commission,it is predictably

full of gossip, innuendo and conjecture. It is very short on concrete
evidence. It’s really not clear what exactly did Justice Zondo and his team
actually do, almost half a decade and R2 Billion later. This Commission has
simply passed the buck to the NPA to do the investigations which it was
mandated to do. The report is characterised by bias in favour of the faction
that is supportive of President Ramaphosa. Chief justice Zondo himself could
not hold back his political and factional support for President Ramaphosa.
He praised him for taking over from President Zuma and by default
impugned the integrity of Dr Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma and all those who
voted for her by adding that “more damage could have been done to the
National Treasury” had she won at NASREC. On what basis, and on which
evidence or submission made at the Commission did Chief Justice

2.3. Zondo conclude basically that DR NDZ would have done the damage he
imagined? What kind of a judge is this? This was a gratuitous insult not only
to a candidate who narrowly “lost” by a mere 179 votes, but to hundreds of
thousands of ANC members who supported her candidacy for President of
the ANC and the country. Unlike Mr Zondo we will never know what a
missed opportunity her Presidency would have been for the majority of
black South Africans.

3. WHERE TO FROM HERE ?

3.1. Following further reckless and irresponsible comments by Chief Justice Zondo,
H.E President Zuma has briefed his legal team, among other things, to report
Chief Justice Zondo to the Judicial Service Commission within the next week
or two.

3.2. Specifically, the JSC will be asked to investigate the grossly unlawful
comments by Chief Justice Zondo who took it upon himself to comment on
matters pending before the Courts. Chief Justice Zondo is on record saying
“Mr Fraser who was National Commissioner for Correctional Services,
granted him (Zuma) medical parole under questionable circumstances…….”
The specific issue of whether the granting of parole was appropriate

4
 or “questionable” is to be heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal on 15 August
2022,to the full knowledge of Justice Zondo. Thereafter and irrespective of
the outcome, the matter is most likely to end up in the Constitutional Court
presided over by Zondo himself.

3.3. As the Foundation we are totally convinced that the Chief Justice was giving a
coded message to the Supreme Court of Appeal to rule in a manner that would
confirm what he has unilaterally declared as “questionable circumstances”.
We however hope that this time the SCA will not allow itself to be bullied into
unlawful and unconstitutional conduct.

3.4. The JSC will also be asked to investigate the unwarranted insults by the Chief
Justice to H.E President Zuma and the people of South Africa. Further to
political meddling, Chief Justice Zondo, decided to extend his scope of work
and propose a system of how South Africans should elect their President. In
his utterances which were not informed by any submissions to the
Commission he discouraged the party system and instead he pronounced in
support of a system where the President is directly elected.

3.5. President Zuma has also instructed his legal team to accelerate the ongoing
review of Justice Zondo's refusal to recuse himself. He has also asked the legal
team to look into reviewing the so-called Zondo Commission Report in so far
as it refers to him. Given all his transgressions and displays of incompetence
the Foundation has also separately instructed its own lawyers to look into the
possibility of challenging the unlawful appointment of Justice Zondo as the
Chief Justice of South Africa in spite of his dismal performance at the JSC
interviews as observed by millions of South Africans on national television. An
announcement in this regard will be made in due course.

3.6. Given his bias towards the current President of the ANC, who is the 1st
President of the ANC to drop electoral support below 50%, it’s not clear
whether he is forecasting a poor election result for the ANC under his messiah
President Ramaphosa in 2024, if he gets re-elected or
is he trying to prepare South Africans not to vote for the ANC given the woes
facing his favourite? Perhaps he fears that a faction hostile to his favourite
might emerge.

3.7. Chief Justice Mogoeng was recently, rightly or wrongly, punished for his
utterances which were deemed to stray beyond the restrictions of his judicial
office into the political arena, the same should happen to Chief Justice Zondo.
H.E President Zuma has therefore briefed his lawyers to ask the JSC to
consider appropriate sanctions for Chief Justice Zondo, not only for his
irresponsible and highly inappropriate political and factional utterances but
also clearly for putting the judiciary into disrepute.

3.8. Beyond that Chief Justice Zondo also ventured to insult President Zuma
directly and even mentioned his name as person basically not worthy of
having been twice voted for by millions of South Africans in successive

5
 democratic elections. Such hatred for another human being by a sitting judge
calls for all round condemnation. His conduct only serves to vindicate the
position adopted by President Zuma that he could never receive justice in the
hands of someone who harbours such deep-seated resentment towards him
and his supporters in the ANC and society at large.

3.9. Finally, it is the view of the Foundation that it was condescending in the
extreme for Chief Justice Zondo to think that simply because he personally
does not highly rate president Zuma, a political view to which he is entitled as
an individual, it must therefore follow that the people of South Africa would
be putting themselves at risk if they elected “someone like President Zuma”,
a freedom fighter who is the last President of the ANC to win electoral support
of more than 60%. Chief Justice Zondo is basically finding fault with 60% of
the electorate that voted for the ANC knowing that H.E Excellency President
Zuma was facing trumped up charges.

3.10. In summary President Zuma will be requiring the courts and the JSC to
separately give a serious look into the following five acts of
illegality, breaches of the constitution and the applicable Judicial code of
Conduct:

3.10.1. The exact nature of the historical relationship between Pres Zuma and
Justice Zondo;
3.10.2. The refusal by Justice Zondo to recuse himself when he was reasonably
requested to do so;
3.10.3. The political and factional remarks made by Justice Zondo about the
outcomes of the ANC National Conference held at NASREC in 2017
3.10.4. The gratuitous insults and political references and politically poisoned
references to President Zuma in respect of the proposed change of
electoral system; and
3.10.5. Most seriously, the flagrant abuse of power by Justice Zondo in his
irrational and insensitive remarks that the parole decision which was
made at the recommendation of medical experts, and in view of Pres
Zuma's ill health was “questionable”. By doing so, Justice Zondo was
once again seeking to influence the outcome of a pending court decision.
Reliance will be placed on the following compulsory provisions of the
Judicial Code of Conduct;

3.11. Article 11 (a) of the Code prescribes that “A judge must, save in the
discharge of judicial office, not comment publicly on the merits of any case
pending before, or determined by, that Judge or any other court”

3.12. Article 12 (b) of the Code prescribes that “ a judge must not, unless it is
necessary for the discharge of judicial office, become involved in any political
controversy or activity”

3.13. Article 12 (d) of the Code prescribes that “use or lend the prestige of
the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others.”

6
7