Former president Jacob Zuma in the Pietermaritzburg High Court.
The Constitutional Court ruled that Zuma was guilty of contempt of court and sentenced him to 15 month in prison.
The apex court described his actions as "calculated and insidious efforts launched by former president Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma, to corrode its legitimacy and authority".
The court was scathing in its rebuke of the former president in what is described as an unprecedented judgment. Here are 10 noteworthy points from the judgment:
Acting Chief Justice Sisi Khampepe, who penned and read out the majority judgment, said Zuma's contempt of court and behaviour was extraordinary.
The matter is self-evidently extraordinary. It is thus in the interests of justice to depart from ordinary procedures. Never before has this court's authority and legitimacy been subjected to the kinds of attacks that Mr Zuma has elected to launch against it and its members. Never before has the judicial process been so threatened.
The court noted that Zuma's behaviour came with the risk that a mockery would be made of the Constitutional Court.
Not only is Mr Zuma's behaviour so outlandish as to warrant a disposal of ordinary procedure, but it is becoming increasingly evident that the damage being caused by his ongoing assaults on the integrity of the judicial process cannot be cured by an order down the line. It must be stopped now. Indeed, if we do not intervene immediately to send a clear message to the public that this conduct stands to be rebuked in the strongest of terms, there is a real and imminent risk that a mockery will be made of this court and the judicial process in the eyes of the public.
The court was concerned that Zuma's actions would incite others to defy the rule of law.
The vigour with which Mr Zuma is peddling his disdain for this court and the judicial process carries the further risk that he will inspire or incite others to similarly defy this court, the judicial process and the rule of law.
Justice Khampepe justified the urgency of the matter, saying it was a threat to the rule of law.
It cannot be gainsaid that the longer that Mr Zuma's recalcitrance is allowed to sit in the light, and heat, of day, so the threat faced by the rule of law and the administration of justice, curdles. The ongoing defiance of this Court’s order, by its very nature, renders this matter urgent. In fact, rarely do matters arrive at the door of this court so deserving of decisive and urgent intervention.
The court ruled that, based on the evidence placed before it, there could be no doubt that Zuma was in contempt of court. Justice Khampepe said she could not merely hand down a coercive order to force Zuma to comply with the court order because it would be ineffectual.
I consider a purely punitive order to be the appropriate sanction because I am alive to the reality that there is simply no hope remaining that Mr Zuma will attend the commission. At this stage, ordering and then expecting Mr Zuma's compliance with this court’s order is akin to flogging a dead horse. To the extent that the second judgment would have us persist in the flogging exercise, I cannot support such an approach, which I fear would render this judgment a brutum fulmen (an ineffectual legal judgment).
Justice Khampepe said Zuma's claim that he was victimised by the court had no sound or logical basis.
It is unbecoming and irresponsible of a person in Mr Zuma’s position to wilfully undermine the law in this way. Mr Zuma had every right and opportunity to defend his rights, but he chose, time and time again, to publicly reject and vilify the judiciary entirely. I have already detailed the lengths to which this court has gone in this matter to safeguard Mr Zuma's rights, despite his insolence towards this court. Consequently, there is no sound or logical basis on which Mr Zuma can claim to have been treated unfairly or victimised by this court.
Justice Khampepe pointed out how Zuma tries to gain public sympathy by playing the victim.
His attempts to evoke public sympathy through such allegations fly in the face of reason. They are an insult to the constitutional dispensation for which so many women and men fought and lost their lives.
The court pointed out that while the judiciary could be criticised, it could not be a victim of scurrilous and unfounded attacks, as in Zuma's case.
This is not to say that the judiciary is a unique branch of state that must be sheltered from the public and all criticism. This court has acknowledged and accepted the benefit of robust and informed public debate about judicial affairs and I am by no means implying that the judiciary is exempt from the accountability it owes to the society that it serves. However, critically, this does not mean that scurrilous, unfounded attacks on the judiciary and its members can be tolerated or met with impunity. It follows that the legal imperative to protect courts from slanderous public statements has little to do with protecting the feelings and reputations of judges, and everything to do with preserving their ability and power to perform their constitutional duties.
Justice Khampepe noted that Zuma was no ordinary litigant and was, in fact, the former president of the republic.
Mr Zuma's conduct that led to and has persisted throughout these proceedings is all the more outrageous when regard is had to the position that he once occupied. Although Mr Zuma is no longer president, his conduct flies in the face of the obligation that he bore as president. It is disturbing that he, who twice swore allegiance to the republic, its laws and the Constitution, has sought to ignore, undermine and, in many ways, destroy the rule of law altogether.
The court said finding an appropriate sentence for Zuma was uncharted waters and it had to consider many things. In the end the court imposed a 15-month imprisonment sentence.
Adopting this approach, I have carefully considered, for example, the fact that Mr Zuma is of an advanced age which is usually accompanied by the onset of frailties. However, I am ultimately unpersuaded that the cumulative effect of these factors does anything to counterbalance the profound and significant impact of the aggravating factors. I must admit that I am in [uncharted] waters. And unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, there is little of precedential value to be found in our jurisprudence. In fact, looking to our jurisprudence for guidance has proven to be a tremendously unhelpful exercise. My difficulty is that the instances of contempt that I have come across come nowhere close to the contempt in this matter. I have already established above that, although the courts in these cases opted for coercive orders, a punitive order is warranted in the present matter. In other words, the focus must be on what kind of sentence will demonstrate that orders made by a court must be obeyed and, to Mr Zuma, that his contempt and contumacy is rebukeable in the strongest sense. With this in mind then, I order an unsuspended sentence of imprisonment of 15 months. I do so in the knowledge that this cannot properly capture the damage that Mr Zuma has done to the dignity and integrity of the judicial system of a democratic and constitutional nation. He owes this sentence in respect of violating not only this court, nor even just the sanctity of the judiciary, but to the nation he once promised to lead and to the Constitution he once vowed to uphold.
