When examining the Jacob Zuma matter and the vaccine saga, the balance of forces appears to be against this adherence to constitutional democracy, writes Serjeant at the Bar.
ANC deputy secretary-general Jessie Duarte issued an apology to Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo for her attack on him in her lengthy justification of ANC conduct during the Zuma years.
Significantly, she did not retract any of the ideological clap-trap that she muttered about democratic centralism and the implication that ANC MPs owe a greater fidelity to party bosses than to the constitutional oath they swore when being admitted as MPs .
Shades indeed of the current Republican Party in the US.
As to democratic centralism, we should remind ourselves that article 5 of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) reads: "All state organs in the DPRK are formed and function on the principle of democratic centralism."
Democratic centralism of course originated with Lenin and featured as a central principle of government in all Soviet Constitutions from 1924 to 1977 (the last) and is still contained in article 3 of the current Chinese constitution.
Admittedly, Duarte's grudging part-apology was accompanied by an ANC statement in support of the Zondo commission.
But Mr Zuma then roared back with an unbridled attack on the judiciary.
Among other points, he made was the following claim:
As the record of former US president Donald Trump shows, if you continue to peddle fake news, sooner or later a large cohort of the electorate will come to believe the fake narrative to the manifest detriment of the democratic model.
So one could have hoped, although more in naïve aspiration rather than from experience, that the ANC would move swiftly to rebuke their ex leader. No such luck.
Instead like mini me wading into the vacuum came Mr Zuma's tea drinking partner, EFF leader Julius Malema, who doubled down on Zuma's attack on the judiciary.
Let us clear one point where the critique of both men deserve immediate attention.
In testimony before the Zondo commission it has been said that some judges were on the take.
The rumour mill has been working overtime on this testimony and a few names have been put up as possible candidates.
Tarred and feathered
The sharp point is that this claim needs to be investigated fully. Left with no inquiry, innocent, hard working judges may be unjustly feathered and tarred on the one hand and on the other it allows Messrs Zuma and Malema to cast doubt on the entire judiciary .
The Chief Justice should demand that an appropriate inquiry takes place, initially in camera (to safeguard innocent victims) and then, once the investigation is complete, the public should be properly informed.
Returning to the merits of the Zuma complaint, no reason has been provided as to why he is above the law.
To the charge that he has been signalled out, there is a veritable library of allegations against him in the records of evidence held by the Zondo commission.
He owes the country a plausible explanation of his conduct over the decade when billions of public money was stolen.
That he was President during this sorry period justifies calling him as a witness and can hardly be classified as a witch-hunt. That he is supported by self-confessed fraudster Carl Niehaus (albeit some while back) only serves to show what truly lies behind this campaign. For sure, this is not about a commitment to public probity and accountability.
Sadly the saga goes beyond Mr Niehaus and his not-so-merry band.
Either the ANC is committed to the Constitution or it is not. If it is, then Mr Zuma as a senior ANC cadre should be rebuked for his unbridled attack on an institution that is central to the health of a constitutional democracy.
If the rule of law applies to all who live in this country, then the ANC should tell us that all includes Mr Zuma.
Regrettably, the balance of forces appears to be against this adherence to constitutional democracy. Take the vaccine saga.
It is now clear that notwithstanding its obligations imposed by s27 of the Constitution to ensure access to health for all, the government had done precious little to procure a vaccine supply by the end of 2020. If the matter had been fully debated in Cabinet during 2020, the costing and the means of finance would have been settled by that time, yet we know that uncertainty as to the funding model continued into 2021.
Save for 300 000 doses from Johnson and Johnson - delivery of which will be completed by the end of March - there is no certainty as to when further doses would arrive.
There have been as many narratives on delivery as there have been speeches by the President and the Minister of Health.
Vague statements
Save for vague statements about public/private cooperation and mealy-mouthed responses from the private sector, there is no certainty as to how an unprecedented vaccine rollout will be implemented.
Take the following assumption: if the country can vaccinate 50 000 persons a day for seven days a week, it will take 40 weeks to vaccinate 14 million.
Is it possible that the state which has proved lamentably incapable on all manner of projects from electricity to public transport, would even be able to achieve such a target?
In short, it is clearly unable/incapable of fulfilling its constitutional obligations, save if it jettisons the kind of ideological baggage so fulsomely embraced by its secretary and deputy secretary-general.
That is unlikely to occur, which is why both the judiciary as the custodian of the Constitution and the substance of the latter, are in such trouble.
*Want to respond to the columnist? Send your letter or article to opinions@news24.com with your name and town or province. You are welcome to also send a profile picture. We encourage a diversity of voices and views in our readers' submissions and reserve the right not to publish any and all submissions received.
Disclaimer: News24 encourages freedom of speech and the expression of diverse views. The views of columnists published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24.