THE ZUMA CONTEMPT CASE

March 2025

In his media statement of 15 February 2021, former President Jacob Zuma had hard words for 'a few lawless judges', particularly 'Judge President Mlambo', who 'can flip flop on the same principle [as regards the powers of the Public Protector, as indeed he did in 2017 and 2020] simply to punish me.' '[W]hat kind of judges do we have?', he asked, with Mlambo JP clearly in mind. '[T]he antipathy of some of the courts ... towards me has made it futile for me to exercise my constitutionally guaranteed access to courts.' '[I]t has become clear to me that I will never get justice before some of the current crop of judges in their quest to raise their hands to seek political acceptance at my expense.' Again unambiguously alluding to Mlambo JP, who as head of court assigns new cases to the judges in his Division, Zuma said judges 'of integrity ... will never be allocated matters wherein predetermined outcomes are demanded', meaning against him. Mentioned below, Zuma repeated exactly this complaint about Mlambo JP at his meeting with Brink a week later.

Zuma's media statement a fortnight earlier on 1 February criticised the Constitutional Court for ordering him to appear before the State Capture Commission, notwithstanding his application in December 2020 for an order reviewing and setting aside chairperson Raymond Zondo DCJ's refusal to recuse himself. See Zuma's notice of motion and founding affidavit in that case, and his recent supplementary affidavit in September 2021. (All three of these documents posted here are final drafts before signature.)

In convicting and jailing him for contempt in June, the Constitutional Court majority treated Zuma's criticism of the judiciary as an aggravating circumstance. (Note the dissenting minority judgment.)

In paragraph 94 of its judgment, the Constitutional Court majority blithely disregarded Zuma's review application in December 2020 to set aside chairperson Zondo's refusal to recuse himself.

A couple of weeks after the Constitutional Court sent him down, Zuma applied for rescission of its judgment against him; see his notice of motion and founding affidavit.

Dismissing his application in September (again, note well the two dissenting judgments), the Constitutional Court majority objected again that he'd impugned the integrity of the judiciary.

The Constitutional Court majority evidently proceeded from the premise that Zuma's criticism of Mlambo JP and other members of the judiciary was unfounded, that their integrity is above question, and that they're a band of angels.

Had the Judicial Service Commission's Judicial Conduct Committee ('JCC') determined Brink's impeachable misconduct charges against Mlambo JP and another head of court, Waglay JP properly and with due expedition, and had the Constitutional Court accordingly been aware of these top judges'criminal and other capital misconduct, the majority wouldn't have been so peeved by Zuma's repeated specific criticism of Mlambo JP and of other unamed judges in that justifiably bitter mid-February media statement of his. The Constitutional Court majority would have appreciated that there's indeed some very serious rot in the upper ranks of the South African judiciary, just as Zuma rightly protested.

In July 2021, Zondi JA pulled a Seriti move in covering for Mlambo JP by sweeping Brink's eight impeachable complaints against him in mid-2017 under the carpet. The JCC Appeal Committee upheld his appeal as regards his most serious criminal and other capital charges, and recommended Mlambo JP be tried by on them by a Judicial Conduct Tribunal. Which the JSC laughed off. The matter is headed for judicial review. See all papers in the matter here.

Goliath DJP pulled the same move regarding Brink's documented judicial complaint against Waglay JP. The matter is under appeal. See all papers in the case.

As they've trained their guns on Hlophe JP, the JSC and its JCC have turned a blind eye to Mlambo JP and Waglay JP's impeachable misconduct, closely particularized and substantiated in Brink's stonewall, documented complaints against them, and have given them a free pass for transgressions incomparably graver than that with which the Constitutional Court charged Hlophe JP, and of which a JCC tribunal convicted him in April 2021, supported by a majority of JSC members in August.

Which says a whole lot about the impartiality of the judiciciary that Mlambo JP himself likes to trumpet, and about the resolution of the JSC to go after rogue judges, as Chief Justice Mogoeng has repeatedly assured us.

Mlambo JP features very negatively on several scores in Hlophe JP's founding affidavit supporting his interdict and review application launched in mid-September 2021, in which he states that it's 'widely reported' that Mlambo JP wrote the majority decision condemning him. If this is true -- or the decision was ghost-written for him, or even just that he voted with the majority -- the implications are gargantuan.

During his meeting requested with Brink at his house at Nkandla on 22 February 2021 for a briefing on his then still long-unresolved complaints against Mlambo JP, Zuma raised Mlambo JP's bias against him in past litigation (as witness his crassly unprincipled vacillation on the powers of the Public Protector -- ruling against Zuma in 2017, and then for Ramaphosa in 2020, on exactly the same issue); and he related a report he'd received of corridor talk by Mlambo JP to the effect that any future litigation by him in his court would likewise go straight into the can.

Whether it's true or not, the report is certainly consistent with Mlambo JP's repeatedly demonstrated lack of scruple, principle, morals, integrity, and regard for the law and Constitution.

Fact is, the head of the biggest and busiest High Court Division in South Africa, and likely aspirant for appointment as next Chief Justice, should be in jail. Examine the evidence and judge for yourself.

***