ANC attacks a test for judicial independence

A report in the Sunday Times points out it has been a tumultuous month for the judges of the Constitutional Court, noting: * A Judicial Service Commission (JSC) meeting into their complaints against Cape Judge President John Hlophe failed to rule on whether their case had any basis. * ANC secretary-general Gwede Mantashe accused the judges of being part of the 'counter-revolutionary forces' trying to destroy ANC president Jacob Zuma and the party. * A top ANC official suggested the government consider 'regulating the judiciary'. * Another ANC member suggested the Constitutional Court recuse itself on any matter concerning Zuma as he would not get a fair trial. At the weekend, Umkhonto weSizwe (MK) Veterans' secretary-general Ayanda Dlodlo said the Constitutional Court judges, who are deciding on four Zuma matters, should recuse themselves on any matter relating to Zuma, because he would not get a fair hearing. 'The ANC is the ruling party, therefore (it) would not attack the Constitutional Court, but the judges as citizens are not above reproach,' she said. Dlodlo said she agreed with Mantashe that the Hlophe saga was not about him, but in preparation for an outcome that will 'disfavour Zuma'. Mantashe has attacked the Constitutional Court judges several times in recent weeks. He first rounded on them at the ANC's KwaZulu-Natal provincial conference two weeks ago, and repeated his accusations at the ANC Youth League conference a week ago. He reiterated his charges in an interview with the Mail & Guardian , saying: 'Every time we talk about the judges we are accused of attacking the judiciary. But what do you do when the judiciary goes public on something that they should be dealing with in their own internal processes ... and actually creating a hullabaloo around that issue?' Full Sunday Times report

Mantashe's latest attack on the judges was described as extraordinary by the Mail & Guardian. He suggested the judges' complaint against Hlophe was an orchestrated conspiracy to undermine Zuma. The report says Mantashe accused the Constitutional Court judges of being an element of the 'counter-revolutionary forces' seeking the destruction of Zuma and the ANC. 'This is psychological preparation of society so that when the Constitutional Court judges pounce on our president we should be ready,' Mantashe said. 'They must not use Hlophe as a scapegoat to hit at Zuma,' said Mantashe. 'He is the president of the ANC. You hit the head, you kill the snake. When there is that attack on him it is a concerted attack on the head of the ANC.' Mantashe said the ANC might be critical of the behaviour of individual Constitutional Court judges, but that this should not be seen as an attack on the judiciary. 'I don't think anybody should attack the judiciary. The judiciary is opening itself up. So why do you attack an institution that opens itself up?' Full Mail & Guardian report

Mantashe's statement has come under fire. ACDP Justice spokesperson Steve Swart called the attack 'unwarranted' and 'threatening the independence of the judiciary', says a report in Business Day. He went on: 'It is unacceptable that such a high-ranking official of the ruling party should attack the Constitutional Court judges in this unwarranted and unjustified manner. It is very clear that certain members of the ANC will stop at nothing to ensure that Mr Jacob Zuma is SA's next President,' Swart said. The Centre for Constitutional Rights of the FW de Klerk Foundation said Mantashe's statement was 'a most serious challenge, not only to the Constitutional Court, but to our entire constitutional system. His charge that the court is politically biased and that it has some or other political agenda is without any foundation.' Full Business Day report

A settlement of the Zuma matter is urged by businessman and former Foreign Affairs director-general Sipho Pityana in the So Many Questions feature in the Sunday Times. Asked whether it was important Zuma be allowed to clear his name in court, Pityana responded: 'Yes, but only to the extent that it is not disruptive to social and political stability.' He argues it would not be in the public interest for the trial to go ahead, noting that 'the conversation around these issues is located within the framework of securing peace and stability', and makes the comparison with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. 'We bought peace and stability by allowing these guys to get away with murder. So I'm saying, in the same context, if we proceed with this case there's a great chance that there would be socio-political instability. Is it a worthwhile price to pay? If we think it isn't then we must find a way to arrive at a settlement.' Full interview in the Sunday Times