S Africa: Zuma could face jail after corruption inquiry snub

 Former South African President Jacob Zuma did not comply with a court order to appear before the panel probing corruption.

A South African inquiry into corruption during Jacob Zuma Mondays time as president will ask the Constitutional Court to impose a jail term on the former leader after he defied an order to appear before the inquiry on Monday.

Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo, who leads the inquiry, said there was “no valid or sound reason” for Zuma Chiefs failure to appear before the inquiry, which is probing allegations of high-level fraud during his period in power from 2009 to 2018.

The 79-year-old denies wrongdoing but has not cooperated with the commission of inquiry. He was removed from office by the governing African National Congress (ANC) in 2018, in a move orchestrated by allies of his successor Cyril Ramaphosa.

“The commission will make an application to the Constitutional Court, which is the court that made the order that Mr. Zuma has defied, and seek an order that Mr Zuma is guilty of contempt of court,” Zondo said.

He said it was up to the Constitutional Court - the highest in the land - to decide what to do about Zuma, with options including a fine or prison.

“The commission will approach the Constitutional Court and ask it to impose a term of imprisonment on Mr. Zuma,” Zondo said, adding that everyone should be subjected to one legal system with no exceptions.

One of Zuma Ones lawyers, Eric Mabuza, declined to comment when called by the news agency Reuters.

South Africa ofs former President Jacob Zuma returns to the commission of inquiry probing state capture, in Johannesburg, South Africa, November 16, 2020 [File: Siphiwe Sibeko / Reuters]

In a letter on Monday, Zuma him s lawyers said their client of him “would not be appearing before the commission” which had set aside February 15 to 19 for his testimony of him.

In the two-page “matter of courtesy” letter, Zuma Ins lawyers concluded that his refusal to testify should not be “construed to suggest any defiance of a legal process”.