The Democratic Alliance's cloddish communications strategy shouldn't overshadow the immense contribution of the official opposition's litigation strategy to strengthen our democracy over the past 15 years.
Leaving aside the snooty comments of some DA leaders after this week's court victory in Pretoria, the party's efforts to hold the ANC government to account by enforcing rationality through the courts have done all South Africans a considerable favour.
Apart from ensuring that South Africans knew what happened behind the scenes to prevent Russia's President Vladimir Putin from attending the BRICS summit in Johannesburg next month, the DA has established a litigation strategy over the past two decades that managed to block or overturn major irrational appointments and decisions.
I vividly remember the DA's earliest foray into the legal terrain. It was 2009, and the ANC had just installed a corruption-accused Jacob Zuma as president of the republic.
One of Zuma's first priorities was to install a puppet national director of public prosecutions (NDPP) at the NPA, who would never charge him or his acolytes again.
In Menzi Simelane, he found such a character. Simelane was the director-general of justice and proved his moral flexibility before the Ginwala Commission of Inquiry when he lied under oath to falsely implicate then NDPP Vusi Pikoli in wrongdoing.
Shortly after his appointment, the DA, then under party leader Helen Zille, challenged the decision in court. After successive hearings up to the Constitutional Court, the DA was vindicated. Consecutive courts found that Zuma and his justice minister, Jeff Radebe, failed to properly assess Simelane's fitness for office when they appointed him. Simelane had to step down.
Next up was the NPA's irrational decision to drop the arms deal corruption charges against Zuma, based on the so-called spy tapes. Almost immediately after then-acting NDPP Mokotedi Mpshe withdrew the charges, the DA went to court arguing that the content of the spy tapes was never a good enough reason to invalidate the serious charges Zuma faced.
Again, after years of expensive litigation, the DA was vindicated by the highest courts in the land, which ruled the NPA must reinstate the charges against Zuma.
The former president is scheduled to appear in the Pietermaritzburg High Court on 15 August to face these charges. He is expected to make yet another attempt to remove the prosecutor, Billy Downer, from the case.
Some might ask what was the point of this case if Zuma had managed to evade his prosecution from starting for so many years. In a properly functioning democracy, it is critically important for the rule of law to be applied fairly to all citizens, from the pauper to the president. The NPA may not allow politics to influence its decision-making, and this case will (hopefully) prevent it from succumbing to the whims of a governing party in future.
Between the Zuma case and last week's Putin judgment, the DA has gone to court on a long list of other things, including forcing the EFF's so-called "national shutdown" march to be regulated by authorities; challenging electricity rate hikes; taking on Eskom's "state of disaster"; challenging the government's commitment to eradicate pit latrines; opposing suspended Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane's attempts to get her job back; opposing the ANC's cadre deployment policies, and ensuring Zuma returns to prison following the setting-aside of his illegitimate medical parole.
These are just a few examples in a long list of cases the official opposition has taken to court over the past 15 years.
To credit or malign the DA for claiming it stopped Putin from coming to South Africa is missing the point. Accusing DA leader John Steenhuisen and his colleagues of opportunistic behaviour in the wake of the government's success in convincing Putin to stay in Russia is like blaming soccer players for unruly behaviour after their team has scored a goal – it comes with the territory.
The importance of this case was the transparency the DA forced onto Ramaphosa and the government's efforts to negotiate with Russia and the other BRICS partners.
Any true democrat should appreciate the value of absolute transparency in a case like this, and the DA gifted us with insights into what our government did and didn't do to prevent a diplomatic crisis (or nuclear war - if you believed Ramaphosa).
Simply put, the DA forced the government to do the right thing by asking for a warrant of Putin's arrest to be issued, which should be applauded.
Will this successful litigation strategy of the DA ultimately benefit the party politically, particularly in next year's crucial polls? Probably not. The reasons for this are the subject of a separate column - suffice to say, it could benefit the official opposition to ponder why its political and communications strategies are not as successful as they are in court.
No comments:
Post a Comment