Deputy chief justice Raymond Zondo's face was grave as he announced at the state capture commission that former president Jacob Zuma had absconded - leaving the commission without Zondo's permission - in breach of the summons that had been issued to secure his attendance.
"This is a serious matter," said Zondo.
Zuma had been summonsed to appear to answer the evidence of more than 30 witnesses who implicated or may have implicated him in state capture. Instead, the week began with an application by the former president for Zondo's recusal on the grounds that there existed a personal relationship between the two men.
Zondo's rejection of Zuma's application on Thursday was characteristically composed but emphatic. Dealing with each of the former president's grounds, he explained why each had no merit. He said that, on the "common cause facts" there was not the kind of relationship between them that would "disqualify me from chairing this commission, nor is it a proper ground for me to recuse myself".
Zuma had cited comments Zondo made at the commission. Said Zondo: "I have read all the comments quoted in the founding affidavit . I am satisfied that the applicant's contention has no merit."
After his ruling, the commission took a tea break. During that time Zuma simply walked out of the building where the commission is sitting, in Johannesburg. His legal team apparently left with him.
Earlier, his counsel, Muzi Sikhakhane SC, had said Zuma was excusing himself and that he had a duty to tell the chair why "so that it's not called a walkout or defiance".
But evidence leader Paul Pretorius SC said it was not up to Zuma to tell the commission he was excusing himself. That was for Zondo to decide.
"If, as the applicant puts it, they are 'excusing themselves' ... the applicant would be acting in defiance of the summons, and unlawfully," said Pretorius.
If Zuma's breach was "without sufficient cause", he would be guilty of a criminal offence under the Commissions Act.
The commission's regulations also make it an offence to wilfully breach a regulation that allows the chair to direct a person to submit an affidavit to him - and Zondo said in his ruling that he has given two such directives against Zuma.
But these three potential criminal offences would still need to be prosecuted and proved in a magistrate's court - which could take months. A breach of the summons does not authorise the arrest of Zuma in order to ensure his attendance at the commission.
What could also take many months is the review application that Sikhakhane has already said will follow. Zuma, he said, will apply to court to review and set aside the recusal ruling.
With a court-determined end date for the commission fast approaching - it must present its report to the president by March 31 next year - many months are precisely what the commission does not have.
The big question is whether Zuma's evidence may proceed while the review application is ongoing, with all the likely appeals.
Zuma may seek to interdict the commission from summonsing him pending the outcome of the review.
An interdict application would require the court to weigh up a number of factors, including how strong Zuma's case for recusal is, whether he would suffer irreparable harm if he were made to answer questions by a chair who it may yet be found should have recused himself, whether there was another way - other than an interdict - that Zuma could have protected himself, and the damage done to Zuma's rights vs the damage done to the commission if the interdict were to be granted.
If an interdict is sought, and the former president loses, the commission may re-summons Zuma - and risk being snubbed again. Or Zondo may seek a court order compelling Zuma's attendance. Contempt of a court order is far more egregious than contempt of a summons under the Commissions Act and would be harder for Zuma to ignore. Indeed, if Zondo were to go to court before an interdict application is brought, he could short-circuit the interdict.
But again, these processes take time. If the deputy chief justice obtains a high court order, it could be appealed. If he goes directly to the Constitutional Court, he will have to show it falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of that court or that direct access to that court is warranted. Direct access to the highest court is not something easily granted.
If Zuma's intention this week was to obtain Zondo's recusal, the application was a failure. But if his intention was to avoid giving evidence at all costs, the week's proceedings were a victory for the former president, at least for now. As the clock continues to tick, it remains to be seen whether it will be a permanent one.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.