Publication: The Star
Issued:
Date: 2005-12-08
Reporter: Editorial
Reporter:
Reporter:
The clarification offered by the ANC on Jacob Zuma's self-suspension
makes for interesting reading. On Tuesday, following
his appearance in court on rape charges, Zuma announced that he was removing
himself from all leading positions within the ruling party.
He added,
however, that his proactive move would not affect his position as ANC deputy
president. This was largely interpreted to mean that Zuma would continue to act,
in a diminished capacity, in that position. That Zuma was going to be suspended
from all leading structures of the ANC but continue to act as deputy president
introduced an element of contradiction.
However, the ANC made it quite clear
yesterday that Zuma would not be able to “act or pronounce in the capacity of
the deputy president of the ANC for the duration of this trial”. That he retains
the ANC deputy presidency until the courts pronounce a decision on the charges
he faces is academic.
The ANC should be commended for clarifying this
issue but the party should have gone one step further and suspended him from
all activities. A suspension is not a dismissal and
means only that the incumbent's status will be reviewed once the outcome of the
court case is known.
Suspending Zuma from all activities of the ANC
would have gone a long way to reinforcing the ANC's stated position on violence
against women and children.
It is important for the ANC itself and for
our democracy that, in dealing with the crisis, the ruling party shows maturity,
firmness, decisiveness and extreme impartiality.
For the first time in
the history of this 93-year-old organisation, a deputy president is facing
separate charges of fraud and corruption as well as rape. It remains crucial
that it sticks to the letter and spirit of its constitution and disciplinary
code, which see rape as a serious offence.
It is poignant that the ANC has expressed support for the woman
who laid the rape complaint. If Zuma is found guilty, the ANC should throw the
book at him. If he is acquitted *1, the same support
must be extended to him as well.
With acknowledgements to The Star.
*1 Acquittal in a court of law does
not mean some wrongfulness was not perpetrated.
It may well mean that the
prosecutors are unable to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt.
One
thing is already accepted fact: a 63-year old married man with 10 dependants had
unprotected sex with an HIV-positive unmarried woman who is 32 years younger
than him and is the daughter of a dead martyr who was a very close colleague, if
not close friend.
Unless there is subscription to the ultimate
relativism, there seems to be some wrongfulness here, somewhere.