Dear Comrade Vavi,

Your article in last week’s Mail & Guardian (“The media must own up to its massive blunder”) will be seen as the view of organised labour on all the issues that you discuss. While this may be the case with many of your statements, some do fill one with concern.

The full bench of the Supreme Court of Appeal erred in treating the words “generally corrupt relationship” (used by the prosecution) as a direct quote from the judgement of Judge Hilary Squires in his ruling on the forfeiture of Schabir Shaik’s assets. The error, however, was technical (formal) rather than substantive. Had Squires, for example, found that there was no indication of any improper dealings between Shaik and Jacob Zuma, and the appeal court had understood him to be saying the opposite, your argument would have been completely valid. In fact, Squires upheld the prosecution’s case. Though not describing the relationship between Shaik and Zuma as “generally corrupt”, Squires analysed it in damning terms. The distinction is one of form, not of substance.

Demanding the decapacitation of the country’s judicial system as a result of this choice of words is clearly a non-starter, which many will see as bewildering in the context of a country struggling to assert the rule of law. This, rather than the appeal court’s formal error, is what will stand out when all the song and dance has died down.

Of course, it may be argued (as you suggest) that it isn’t mere song and dance, that it is rather evidence of a deep-seated plot to prevent Zuma from ascending to the presidency. The judiciary, the media, the presidency and all those who find Zuma’s conduct incompatible with that of presi­dent of the republic are, presumably, not exercising their democratic right to make political choices; they are party to a conspiracy.

This raises the question of your uncritical and unconditional support for Zuma. By all accounts, he is an activist of long standing whose credentials, as such, are beyond question. He played a leading role in the struggle against apartheid, sacrificed much in doing so and, subsequently, contributed significantly to stabilising the conflict in KwaZulu-Natal. His election as deputy president of the republic was widely accepted as recognition for what he had done.

But — and here we may differ — another and less straightforward side to the story has since emerged. It is not in dispute that, while holding high government office, Zuma accepted substantial amounts of money from Shaik while the latter was tendering for state contracts.

The explanation that this was unexceptional because, given his involvement in the struggle, Zuma was prevented from acquiring the ability to manage his financial affairs and/or survive on what is (by South African standards) an extremely high income, cannot be taken seriously. Thousands of others involved in the struggle did not require substantial amounts of money from wealthy business people in order to survive on relatively high incomes. Many remain destitute. It is perhaps ironic that many of the destitute are applauding Zuma, and do not question his lifestyle, in the apparent belief that his elevation to the presidency will alleviate their plight in ways that have yet to be explained. But such beliefs cannot alter undisputed facts.

It is, for example, a matter of record that at no stage has Zuma pronounced himself a champion of socialism or even of radical transformative policies different from those of the government he served. Yet some would encourage the idea that he is a champion of such change. Why?

And there is an even more perplexing question. Let me illustrate it by an example. Assume that a tycoon who is tendering for state contracts pays substantial amounts of money to a senior member of government and is found to have acted fraudulently. Can it be Cosatu’s policy to defend such practices? Millions of South Africans have seen Cosatu as a champion of working people and an enemy of elitism, attacking the institutions and practices of power, privilege and patronage wherever they might occur. You yourself are quoted as condemning “fat cats” and criticising government for “focusing on enriching a few while the majority go underfed, underserved and without hope of real progress” (M&G Online August 30 2006).

How do you distinguish Zuma’s lifestyle from that of the people whom you criticise? Is it possible to accept politicians receiving substantial amounts of money from business people engaged in fraudulent activities to finance opulent lifestyles, and yet treat them as role models for working people?

If this is so, on what basis could Cosatu criticise the sleazy financial practices of apartheid functionaries during the previous regime — or, indeed, “subventions” by capitalists to politicians under any circumstances? What is sauce for the goose must surely be sauce for the gander. The logic seems to be that private subventions to those in power are in order unless proven in a court of law to be criminal — though, of course, many in the so-called Zuma camp have argued that no criminal charges may be brought against Zuma. He is not merely presumed to be innocent; his innocence may not be questioned.

Given that our constitutional democracy is governed by the rule of law, must all politicians, or business executives, suspected of accepting bribes be granted the same immunity? Are the likes of Wouter Basson or the late PW Botha similarly beyond reproach because they have not been found guilty of any offence?

But then, of course, certain court judgements are rejected as being inspired by improper motives (for example, conspiracies) while others are accepted as establishing the truth. In other words, it is not so much a question of whether a person is found guilty or innocent by a court of law. It is whether that person is judged positively or negatively from a particular political standpoint — which, in turn, determines the judgement that the court (regardless of the facts before it) is expected to arrive at, or be condemned by this higher court of political opinion.

No one has ever claimed that the law (judge-made or statutory) is beyond criticism. It is accepted that some laws are bad and some are very bad, but even bad laws need to applied until they are changed by the legislature or there will be lawlessness (very bad laws can immediately be struck down as being unconstitutional). This, however, is a far cry from the view that your article conveys of the proper working of the legal system.

Or, as far as Zuma is concerned, is it simply a case of one man being placed above the law? That would be less destructive than a wholesale disruption of an overstretched justice system. But it would be even harder to reconcile with the democratic principles on which Cosatu was built.

There are other flaws in your argument. You state that the technical inaccuracy in the judgment of the appeal court “would have any judge anywhere in the democratic world fired”. This is simply not true (more to the point is the fact that in most democratic countries politicians who have engaged in the kind of questionable practices that Zuma is known to have engaged in would resign without being “fired”). Your interpretation of the meaning of “corruption” in the wake of the recent judgements, also, is simply incorrect.

The sting, however, is in the tail of your article. Failure by the media to pretend that a formal error amounts to a substantive miscarriage of justice, you suggest, “could pave the way for a future dictator to ‘make the media behave responsibly’.” By “future dictator” one presumes you don’t mean President Thabo Mbeki. The presumed victim of the media’s conduct is Zuma. Is the implication that Zuma, today enjoying your uncritical support despite his track record, is this “future dictator” with potential scores to settle?

Cosatu has condemned dictatorial government policies elsewhere in Africa and the world. It is impossible to believe that the vast majority of Cosatu’s affiliated unions’ members, who struggled so courageously and so effectively against dictatorship in South Africa, would tolerate its resurrection in any shape or form. It is, indeed, impossible to believe that you could be suggesting such a prospect.

But, if not, what exactly are you suggesting?

And, running through all of the above, there remains the central question: what exactly is the basis of your uncritical support (rather than sympathy) for Zuma through all these painful trials?

Yours fraternally

Darcy du Toit

With acknowledgements to Darcy du Toit and Mail & Guardian.