Legal experts have welcomed the Constitutional Court's dismissal of former president Jacob Zuma's application for it to rescind its own judgment sentencing him to 15 months in jail.
The court imposed the sentence on Zuma in June for failing to comply with an order it had made in January that he should honour a summons to attend the Zondo commission in February.
Zuma did not participate in the Constitutional Court proceedings that resulted in the two rulings in January and June. Instead, he issued statements denigrating the judiciary.
Three judgments were prepared by the court and delivered on Friday.
Justice Sisi Khampepe, with six justices concurring, wrote the majority judgment, but justice Chris Jafta, with justice Leona Theron concurring, delivered a dissenting judgment.
And Theron wrote her own dissenting judgement in support of Jafta.
Zuma had sought to rescind his sentencing because he claimed the court had breached his constitutional rights, including the right of access to court and his right to a fair trial. He objected to the fact that the ruling was made in his absence.
The majority of justices rejected his arguments, saying he had failed to meet the requirements for rescission and had failed to demonstrate that the decision to send him to jail was erroneous.
The majority judgment said Zuma's rescission application was really an attempt to present his "defence" with regard to the contempt order, but the horse had effectively bolted and his application was "wholly misdirected".
"Mr Zuma intentionally declined to participate in the contempt proceedings, and disdainfully dismissed a further opportunity when invited to do so," Khampepe said.
"Mr Zuma only now attempts to justify his absence from this court."
Reitumetse Phiri, MD of the law firm IusPrudentia Specialist Counsel, said the court's judgment clarified that a rescission is only granted in exceptional circumstances.
He said a fundamental tenet of the law is that court orders are final unless there is an avenue of appeal, but this was not the case when a matter is before the Constitutional Court because it is the apex court.
Phiri said the judgment also addressed the question of international law in detail.
"The dissenting judgment elevates the role of international law when in fact it has no role," he said.
In his judgment, Jafta said there could be no doubt that Zuma's failure to obey the court's January order deserved to be dealt with firmly and that it called for an appropriate punishment, possibly including a prison term.
However, Jafta said the egregiousness of Zuma's conduct could not justify a departure from "ordinary procedures" or a procedure that was inconsistent with the right not to be detained without trial.
I do not think the judgment is taking the Zuma matter any further. It is an academic debate. It will not make a difference in the fate of the former president
— Legal expert, Llewelyn Curlewis
Phiri disagreed with this characterisation of the issue.
He said Zuma had been given a chance to participate in the case before the January order, and had also been invited in the contempt proceedings to make representations on mitigation should he be found guilty.
Another legal expert, Llewelyn Curlewis, said the judgment restated that there must be finality in proceedings.
"If we open up this scenario, in future all applicants will bring similar applications if they are not satisfied with a judgment," Curlewis said.
However, he said the court had acknowledged it did have the authority to rescind its own judgments.
The majority judgment said rescission remained open as an avenue of legal recourse, but only to those who advanced "meritorious and genuine applications", and not to those who sought to abuse judicial process.
Curlewis said the majority judgment made clear that Zuma was the author of his own predicament.
"He was invited to place his version before the court and he decided not to. The moment the shoe pinched, that is when he wanted to go to court," Curlewis said.
He said the majority judgment was correct in dismissing the application with costs.
"That being said, I must also state that I do not think the judgment is taking the Zuma matter any further. It is an academic debate. It will not make a difference in the fate of the former president," Curlewis said.
He agreed with the majority judgment that Zuma's behaviour had resulted in a monumental waste of judicial resources.
Zuma was taken to Estcourt prison to begin his sentence on July 8, but was soon moved to a private hospital for "observation". He has since been granted medical parole.
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.