It is an indisputable fact that African National Congress (ANC) deputy president Jacob Zuma (uNxamalala) enjoys the popular support of the great majority of ordinary South Africans.

If it were in their power, he would still be the deputy president of SA and would not be facing criminal charges.

This much is evident from the outpouring of anger at his dismissal and calls for the withdrawal of the charges and his reinstatement. Were it someone other than Nxamalala, it is doubtful that such intensity of feeling would be so strongly expressed.

Leaders of prominent progressive formations, who should know otherwise, have gone to the extent of articulating positions appropriate in states with no constitutional constraints. These leaders know that it is the prerogative of the president to appoint and dismiss members of the cabinet. They also know that because of the principle of separation of powers, once a case is placed before the courts, the executive has no right to intervene. In spite of such knowledge they continue to make the calls.

I have lost count of the number of times I’ve been asked why Nxamalala was dismissed when he has not been convicted of any crime. The difficulties attendant on a proper investigation and prosecution of a person virtually in charge of the state lead to a plethora of other questions.

When told of the charges laid against Nxamalala, my acquaintances wanted to know the identities of the complainants. They wanted to know if anybody’s money had been stolen. Those who know the rudimentary elements of fraud are keen to know who the victim is.

Another question arises from the fact that television and other cameras were at the scene when the Scorpions came to raid the homes and offices of Nxamalala and his lawyers and benefactors. If the aim was to shame the suspect through negative publicity, that clearly negates the presumption of innocence until guilt is proved. At the end of a trial and in the event of a not-guilty verdict, those cameras are never wielded and flashed as enthusiastically.

I do not know how wide-spread this is, but I do know that now that the social status of traditional leaders is starting to be restored, a number of people, including government officials, are increasingly asking for sponsorship in the form of sheep or oxen from their royal highnesses to support official functions.

The reasoning is that, culturally, villagers see it as their right to pay tribute to their traditional leaders in times of plenty. It is because of these gifts that such requests are made.

Of course, villagers who have fallen on hard times see it as their right to appeal to their traditional leaders for help. It is in recognition of these responsibilities that those fortunate villagers find it necessary to boost the coffers of the great place.

Thus, despite his conviction, the question continues to be asked of what was really wrong with Schabir Shaik, as well as any other benefactors, in giving support to the former deputy president so as to make it possible for him to continue to help those who look up to him for help.

All of these questions are not asked because of a desire to turn a blind eye to the breaking of the law by persons in positions of power. The desire is to understand the nature of the crimes themselves and the reasoning underlying them. None of these questions should be construed as intended to convey the idea that, culturally, corruption, bribery or fraud is condoned. The concern is that the laws criminalising certain kinds of conduct should be informed also by the people’s understanding of what is acceptable or of what is wrong.

Many reasons have been offered for the need for a transformed judiciary. The obvious one is that in the past the judges were all white males. Thus we need to have courts that will promote the principles of nonracialism and gender equality.

The truth, however, is that the values underlying African jurisprudence have never been inculcated in the minds of the current crop of judges, magistrates and lawyers. The same applies to the law-making environment, where the houses of traditional leaders are not integral components of SA’s legislatures. Their exclusion is a factor contributing to the nonrecognition in the constitution of African courts of traditional leaders.

It is my suspicion that, even though the opposition to Nxamalala’s dismissal and prosecution is driven by political considerations, subconsciously his supporters find the charges without basis before a truly African court. They are looking for the victims of the crimes of which he is accused.

They see none. They ask if tax-payers’ money has been stolen. If that is the case they are yet to be told. I suspect also that, given a chance, they might even be willing to compensate the victim for such loss.

All of these misgivings notwithstanding, SA is a constitutional state. We are all obliged to abide by the precepts of the constitution and those laws emanating from it.

Holomisa is an ANC MP and president of the Congress of Traditional Leaders of SA. He writes in his personal capacity.

With acknowledgements to Patekile Holomisa and the Business Day.