The government is yet to answer a raft of questions on the release of former president Jacob Zuma after the DA wrote to President Cyril Ramaphosa about its concern that the real purpose of an across-the-board remission of sentences for minor offenders was actually “solely or predominantly to permit Mr Zuma to be released”.
The DA’s questions, sent on the day Zuma was released, are likely a preliminary step in the party's expected litigation. The DA had asked for a response by Friday, but on Friday the Presidency said it had taken longer than anticipated for the questions to “reach the relevant officials who must ... prepare a response”. The Presidency asked for a further 10 days.
It has been two weeks since Zuma checked in to Estcourt prison for just over an hour on Friday August 11. He was admitted into the system as an inmate but immediately released — as a beneficiary of a remission of sentence proclamation, under which minor offenders would have their sentences reduced by up to 24 months.
After weeks of speculation following a Constitutional Court judgment that meant Zuma was required to return to Estcourt prison, the three steps — admission, remission and release — were announced together at a press conference on the Friday morning. The conference began just after Zuma’s motorcade rolled out of the prison gates. Journalists and commentators were left open-mouthed, unsure whether the government had acted unlawfully or had just pulled off the legal manoeuvre of the decade.
The same day, the DA’s attorneys wrote to Ramaphosa, to justice minister Ronald Lamola and to correctional services commissioner Makgothi Thobakgale, saying they were “concerned” that both decisions — the decision to grant a remission of sentences and the decision to release Zuma — “may be unlawful”.
“The DA requests that reasons be provided for both decisions,” said the letter. It then, over three pages, listed questions to which the DA specifically wants answers. On the remission decision, the DA asked who had made the decision and under what laws. When was it made, asked the DA.
There is a series of questions on whether the remission decision was made in respect of specific offenders or if it was directed at a class of offenders. If it was a class, how was the class identified, asked the DA. Who decided who fell into the class and whether a specific individual would meet the criteria? What would anybody who wanted to benefit have to do to get their sentence remitted? Would they need to apply?
These questions all seem directed at establishing whether the purpose of the decision was really to create a general remission for a group of offenders — to reduce overcrowding in prisons, as claimed by Lamola. Or, if it was not just a way for the government to get out of the political and legal corner posed by the possibility of Zuma’s incarceration. Or, as the DA put it: “The DA is concerned that the remission decision has been taken solely or predominantly to permit Mr Zuma to be released.”
The DA is concerned that the remission decision has been taken solely or predominantly to permit Mr Zuma to be released.
— DA document
There are questions that seem directed at whether Zuma was given special treatment when it came to his being a beneficiary of the remissions decision, as opposed to others: who, if anyone, received prior notice of the intention to make the remission decision, asked the DA. The unspoken question here seems to be whether Zuma did and others did not. When was such notice received, if at all? Who, if anyone, made submissions or representations in respect of the remission decision? If Zuma did, and others did not, then it would point to his being treated differently to others.
Then there are questions relating specifically to the decision to release Zuma. Who made it, asked the DA, and when? What was the legal basis for it? The DA also asked for any documents that Zuma may have submitted related to his release.
Finally, the DA asked questions relating to whether there was overcrowding specifically at the Estcourt prison: what was the occupancy rate of the Estcourt Correctional Centre generally; and what was the occupancy rate of the Estcourt Correctional Centre’s hospital wing? Though the rationale for the remissions decision generally was overcrowding in South Africa’s prisons — a well known problem — these questions may be directed at the rationality of such an urgent release of Zuma, particularly if it appears that he was given priority.
If good, complete, answers come from the government, this could - or should - put an end to litigation before it begins. Or, the answers will shape the DA’s approach to its legal challenge, which party leader John Steenhuisen has already said is coming.
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.