Presidency 'semantics' shot down by expert

The Presidency’s claim in a statement issued yesterday during the parliamentary debate on the impeachment of President Jacob Zuma that the Constitutional Court did not find that Zuma had broken his oath of office – a similar argument to that presented by Deputy Justice Minister John Jeffery in defence of Zuma during the debate – has been shot down by constitutional law expert Pierre de Vos, notes Legalbrief. Presidency spokesperson Bongani Majola asked that the media ‘report accurately and use precise words’ of the judgment on the matter so that it did not ‘mislead’ the public. In the statement, the Presidency writes: ‘The Presidency wishes to correct media reports wrongly stating that the judgment by the Constitutional Court found that President Jacob Zuma had broken his oath of office. The Constitutional Court did not make such a declaratory order. ‘In fact, whereas the counsel for the EFF, the applicant, specifically asked for the Constitutional Court to declare that the President had acted in violation of his oath of office, the Constitutional Court did not grant a declaratory order in those terms.’ Instead, the Presidency said, the Constitutional Court ruled that Zuma’s failure ‘to comply with the remedial action taken against him, by the Public Protector in her report of 19 March 2014, is inconsistent with section 83(b) of the Constitution read with sections 181(3) and 182(1)(c) of the Constitution and is invalid’.

 

A Mail & Guardian report notes De Vos commented on the statement on Twitter, saying the discrepancy was ‘semantics’. De Vos wrote:

 

(1) Semantics: ConCourt made no ORDER of breaking of oath of office by President, BUT found President did not uphold, protect Constitution.

(2) By not upholding and protecting the Constitution as required by his oath of office, the President found in breach of it.

(3) Just because this was not included in the order does not mean the court did not find this. Not all findings contained in the order made.

(4) To claim the absence of an order means there was no finding that President breached oath of office is again to make untrue statement.

 

The M&G adds that Zuma’s oath of office as President includes swearing to ‘obey, observe, uphold and maintain the Constitution and all other Law of the Republic’.

Full Mail & Guardian report