Human Rights and the law

Why the ANC stands by its leader

When Jacob Zuma appears in the Pietermaritzburg High Court next week, not only will he be accompanied by a contingent of ANC leaders, but he will have the support of hundreds of thousands of ANC members.

A number of people have publicly expressed disquiet at this. Others have been harsher, condemning the ANC for supporting its president during this time. Still others have resorted to all manner of hyperbole, predicting the demise of the judiciary and the death of democracy.

Such predictions may find themselves on the lunatic fringe of public debate, but they indicate a fundamental fault line in people's understanding of this case, and why the ANC has taken the position that it has.

Those familiar with the ANC would know that it does not act on a whim. The decisions it takes are informed by the values and principles that have underpinned the struggle for democracy and human rights. Everything it does is guided by these principles, including such fundamental notions that no government can claim authority unless it is based on the will of the people, that all shall be equal before the law, and that South Africa belongs to all who live in it. And when it takes positions, it does so after thorough discussion and consultation.

The ANC's position on the case brought against Jacob Zuma is by no means one taken in haste or without proper reflection. It is informed by the very same principles that underpin our democracy, and by the need to build a society in which human rights are respected and no person is subject to the arbitrary exercise of power.

To that end, the ANC has been at the forefront of a decades-long struggle to establish a society founded on a democratic constitution, in which there is an independent, impartial and fair judiciary that safeguards the rights and interests of all people.

This remains an ongoing challenge. While we have put in place the fundamental laws and the necessary constitutional provisions for the existence of such a judicial system, there is much that still needs transformation. Matters of composition, representivity, cultural bias, and language remain concerns. As does the crucial question of improving access to the law for the poor and vulnerable.

It is for these reasons that the ANC will consistently strive to uphold and defend the integrity and credibility of the judiciary and other institutions of state. Even if this means publicly raising concerns about members of such institutions who through their own actions undermine the integrity of the bodies in which they serve.

It is important to remember that these institutions do not belong to the individuals who serve in them. They belong to the people, and those who currently occupy important positions in such institutions cannot take lightly the responsibility that the people have placed on their shoulders.

There is, for example, no contradiction between the need to safeguard the integrity of the Constitutional Court and the right of any individual or organisation to criticise the manner in which the judges of the court conduct themselves.

It is important that while there is vibrant public debate on such matters, we should allow the appropriate processes to run their course without any undue external influence. The ANC maintains, for example, that the complaint laid by the Constitutional Court against Cape Judge President John Hlope should be left to the Judicial Services Commission to deal with.

Concerns about fairness

It is precisely because of its commitment to upholding the Constitution that the ANC feels compelled to raise its concern about matters relating to the charges against Jacob Zuma.

It has consistently, in this and other cases, asserted the constitutional prescription that an accused person must be presumed innocent until found otherwise in a court of law.

Yet those who criticise the ANC for its stance, and those who have waged a bitter campaign of attrition against Zuma, tend to ignore this. The general approach they take is that Jacob Zuma is guilty, and it is up to him to prove his innocence.

Some take the view that though he may not have been found guilty, he is at least tainted by the charges that have been leveled against. After all, where there is smoke there is usually fire.

But if, as a society, we are serious about what we have enshrined in our Bill of Rights, we are bound to accept that the presumption of innocence is not partial or discretionary.

Until such time as a court tells us otherwise, Jacob Zuma is an innocent person. That is why the ANC has supported him until now and will continue to support him.

This is a position of principle. So too is the ANC's assertion of the constitutional provision that: "Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law."

Sadly, that has not been the case in the 8-year-long pursuit of Jacob Zuma. He has not enjoyed the right of fair and equal treatment.

Throughout the investigation and prosecution of this case the ANC President has had his rights repeatedly violated by institutions of state, specifically the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA). This was confirmed by an investigation conducted by the Public Protector, and findings that point to selective prosecution.

The NPA has consistently undermined due legal process, showing itself prone to leaks that seem specifically aimed to impugn the character of the ANC President. The off-the-record briefing to selected editors by the former National Director of Public Prosecutions set the tone for a prosecution conducted in the court of public opinion.

He has been subjected to a vicious and unrelenting trial by media, having been found guilty long before his case has even come to court.

In general terms, but with very few exceptions, the media has abandoned any pretence at impartiality or fairness. The much-vaunted code of journalistic ethics has crumbled in the wake of a headlong rush to shame Zuma into submission.

The inordinate amount of time that this matter has taken to come to court is similarly cause for concern. The Constitution says that an accused has a right to have their trial begin and conclude without unreasonable delay. This issue has taken the better part of a decade to come to this point, where Zuma is to appear in court to face the latest round of charges. It is little wonder that many people are asserting the basic maxim that justice delayed is justice denied.

The fact that the scope of the charges brought against Zuma has been broadened since the previous indictment, to include charges on tax matters for example, gives weight to the view that the ANC President is being persecuted rather than merely prosecuted.

The manner in which this case has been handled by the authorities over the last few years - and the role played by the media - has reinforced the perception that this is a political trial and has fuelled doubts about his chances of receiving a fair hearing.

The ANC has been quite clear that in court proceedings between the democratic state and an individual, it cannot and should not take sides. That is why the ANC has said that the law should be allowed to take its course.

The ANC has similarly not pronounced itself on the merits or demerits of the charges themselves. The ANC does not have the capacity nor the mandate to investigate, consider and pronounce on such matters.

But the ANC does reserve its right to comment on matters that violate the rights of the individual, and which undermine the proper application of justice.

This matter is not simply about Jacob Zuma. It is about the principles and practices upon which we intend to build a new society, one that is democratic, just and equitable.

It is also about the assertion of the right of any group of people to freely choose whom they wish to lead them. The members of the ANC have unequivocally said that they want Jacob Zuma to be their president. They have further said that they will be putting him forward as the ANC's candidate for President of South Africa in the 2009 elections.

The ANC will therefore vigorously resist any attempts to undermine the collective will of its membership or the freely expressed will of the South African people.

As the ANC has repeatedly said, we seek no special treatment for our President. We simply ask that he be treated fairly and justly.

** Kgalema Motlanthe is Deputy President of the ANC.

What the media says

The battle of the headlines

If recent headlines are anything to go by, some of the country's biggest media houses have already begun their election campaigns. Long before any of the opposition parties are out of the starting blocks, these papers are in a fierce competition to stake their claims as the ANC's prime opponent.

On one recent Sunday, the front page of the Sunday Times declared: "Voters ditch ANC". The following week, City Press hit back: "ANC fails the people". In both these instances, and several others in between, the basic tenets of journalism are thrown out the window in unashamed pursuit of a clear political agenda.

Take the first example, the voters who ditched the ANC. The Sunday Times reported, on 20 July, that the ANC fears losing control of at least three provinces in the next general election, "following the results of an internal survey that has revealed a decline in support for the ruling party".

Though the next election is still almost a year away, the Sunday Times feels bold enough to proclaim that voters have ditched the ANC. Months before even the first vote is cast, the newspaper has the confidence to present this view as an unassailable fact, printed in hundreds of thousands of copies and distributed across the country.

But where's the evidence? Opinion surveys are, at the best of times, a rather inexact measure of voter preferences. Much depends on methodology, sample size and other variables. Much depends on the way the results are analysed. That is why the surest survey of voter preferences is always an election.

At the very least, a report on an opinion poll should be accompanied by several qualifications, and its findings treated with caution. But in the case of the Sunday Times, not only was there a distinct absence of any such advisory on the limitations of surveys, but there was also a distinct absence of a survey.

The Sunday Times did not have any survey that suggested that voters had ditched the ANC. There was nothing that they had in their hands that justified their front-page headline. It seems that someone had merely told them there was such a survey. But they nevertheless went ahead to make this bold and unequivocal statement.

The reality is that the ANC is itself not in possession of any survey that indicates that voters have ditched the ANC, or plan to ditch the organisation at the next election.

So, in the absence of a real actual existing survey, where did the Sunday Times pull its headline from? Well, they did consult their own panel of polling experts - a number of people who over several electoral cycles have consistently proven themselves capable of misreading the mood of voters - the Independent Democrats' Patricia de Lille, the Inkatha Freedom Party's Musa Zondi, the United Democratic Movement's Bantu Holomisa and the Democratic Alliance's Ryan Coetzee. Hardly a group of people you would rely on for a disinterested perspective of potential voting patterns.

Then there is the sub-heading: "South Africans fed up with party infighting and leadership vacuum." Again, there's no evidence of this in the article. Unless you consider quotes from De Lille and Coetzee as empirical proof.

The Sunday Times didn't have a survey. They didn't have a story. But they figured they could conjure up enough quotes to justify a headline that was unashamedly intended to portray the ANC in a poor light.

This is not just sloppy journalism (which it is). It is also a sign of a very deliberate political agenda to undermine the ANC. It is a barely concealed attempt to impose upon the readership of the Sunday Times the political preferences and prejudices of those in the paper who carry editorial responsibility.

Not to be outdone, the City Press carried a front-page article the following week with a headline: "ANC fails the people".

The first paragraph reads: "While ANC leaders dither and their open warfare for personal power dominates the media, it is ordinary people who are bearing the brunt of poor service delivery throughout the country." It is important to note that this is a news story from the front page of a large weekly newspaper. It is not an editorial (or at least pretends not to be).

The crux of the article - the news part - is that City Press found that "despite R2 billion being set aside three years ago to finish building houses, more than 60,000 of those on which construction had started had not been completed".

This, the newspaper decided, was sufficient grounds to claim that the ANC had failed the people. For City Press, fourteen years of unprecedented development - in which millions of South Africans have for the first time received access to housing, electricity, water, telecommunications and other basic services - count for nothing when viewed against the findings of their investigation.

It may well be that the 60,000 unfinished houses, if that is the correct figure, is scandalous. This failure has undoubtedly meant that thousands of people have had to live in miserable conditions as a result possibly of the negligence, disinterest, incompetence or corruption of others.

But it's not clear from the City Press investigation how the situation of the unfinished houses, or the shortage of ambulances in some areas, is linked to "open warfare" within the ANC.

In the absence of any causal link, City Press drags in a political analyst, one Lesiba Teffo from the University of Limpopo, who says: "service delivery has long been neglected because of infighting among ANC members". That would appear to be the sum total of the evidence that City Press has to justify its headline and opening paragraph. A phone call to an academic is now front-page news.

Ironically, the City Press article appeared just a week after government's development indicators were published, disproving - with credible empirical evidence - the claim that the ANC has failed the people.

As reported in last week's ANC Today, these indicators show that poverty has been reduced, especially after 2000. In real terms, the income of the poorest has improved. Nine million people have been lifted out of poverty since 1996. More than 12 million people now receive social grants.

In housing, 2.5 million subsidised houses have been completed or are in progress, providing shelter to some 8.8 million people. Nearly 90% of households have access to water compared with 61% in 1994; 73% of households have access to sanitation, compared to 50% in 1994; and 72% of households have access to electricity, compared to 51% in 1994.

These are just some of the figures that demonstrate that the ANC has made significant progress in meeting people's needs. There is certainly a lot more that needs to be done, and there are things that could have been done better. But there is no basis to claim, as City Press does, that the ANC has failed the people.

While it may not be a bad thing for the media to be part of a vigorous debate about the achievements and shortcomings of the ruling party, it is strange that such commentary finds its way on to the front page, and is presented as fact.

As with the Sunday Times, the political inclinations of the editors of City Press are being shamelessly promoted at the expense of the facts.

In doing so, both papers show contempt for their readers and a careless disregard for the most basic practices of ethical journalism.

Return to Index