James Grant

There are many ordinary forms of contempt of court. However, as the name indicates, they are limited to courts. These ordinary forms of contempt are common law crimes – crimes that have been developed over time by the decisions of our courts. Examples include offensive behaviour in court, insulting the presiding officer, and, importantly, failing to appear under a summons. While the common law crime is often not treated as a serious offence – it must depend on the circumstances and in particular what the person is accused of doing. However, a court sentencing a person is not limited in its sentencing except by the general principles of sentencing: retribution, deterrence, prevention, and rehabilitation. The Commissions Act of 1947 extended the crime – in a statutory form – to commissions of Inquiry (in section 6(1) of the Commissions Act). The crime is, essentially, the failure, when summonsed to appear as a witness, to present oneself at the commission, to answer questions, and to remain in attendance until excused. The statutory offence is designed for commissions dealing with recalcitrant witnesses. DCJ Zondo is familiar with this offence and has already asked that Mr Zuma be charged under it for his walkout of the commission last year , on 19 November 2020, whereas he had not been excused. It is the natural choice when dealing with a witness who refuses to appear before the commission. It has a penalty limit of 6 months or £50 (which will be converted to rands). One may have expected then that this would be the offence which the DCJ would seek to pursue again against Mr Zuma. But the DCJ seems to have been more strategic. At the same time that he (apparently) committed the statutory offence, he also (apparently) committed the common law offence against the highest court in the country, the constitutional court (CC). It seems that the DCJ has opted to treat the refusal by Mr Zuma in the most serious way possible – to bring it to the attention of the CC that, contrary to its express orders, Mr Zuma failed to (order 4) observe and lawful summons issued by the CC, and its express order (order 5) to appear and give evidence. Why is this significant? Because it opens up a second front against Mr Zuma. It is one thing to be charged with having committed an offence twice – so there will be multiple counts which are usually taken together for punishment. It is far more serious to be charged with different crimes in different courts, especially where one of those is the defiance of the CC. Yesterday, the DCJ opened that new front against Mr Zuma adding another serious criminal allegation against him.