By Morgan Phaahla
The order of the Constitutional Court on the contempt of court case against former president Jacob Zuma has instigated divisions in society. Yet the issue is not Zuma, but the implications of the judgment to our law: the doctrine of judicial precedent, as it were.
Similarly, the majority judges neglected to weigh up the conflict of different sets of values, and balance them against the requirements of society as a whole.
What would the state capture commission do should others disobey its subpoena in solidarity with Zuma?
Clearly, Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo would flood the apex court with such cases, for the absurd precedent he had set transformed the apex court into a court of first instance.
In fact, it doesn’t make legal sense that the commission approached the high court when it sought an extension to continue with its work, but it runs to the apex court when it’s unable to resolve a dispute before it.
What stopped it from approaching the former, since a criminal complaint was active with the police?
Surely uMhlanganyelwa wasn’t mistaken to believe that Zondo would put friendship before justice.
Because he abandoned the complaint to petition the apex court like a blindfold figure of justice.
As a result of the misjudgement, we’re faced with a political crisis which may escalate into a conflict.
The Star