A fierce battle is underway, with Minerals & Energy Minister Gwede Mantashe leading the charge to overturn a significant setback. The high court's dismissal of his attempt to dismiss parts of former Chief Justice Raymond Zondo's state capture report has sparked a legal battle that refuses to die down.
In October, Judge Fiona Dippenaar ruled against Mantashe's application, which sought to have Zondo's recommendation for an investigation into corruption allegations against him set aside. The case was dismissed on a technicality, but Mantashe is determined to fight on.
The Fight for Justice and Integrity
Mantashe argues that the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) will rule in his favor, citing conflicting judgments on whether consent is required when challenging the outcomes of commissions typically chaired by judges. He believes that the integrity of the report is at stake and that the SCA should have the final say.
The high court's dismissal was based on a procedural issue: Mantashe's legal team failed to obtain consent before initiating legal action against Zondo. According to the Superior Courts Act, litigants must first seek permission from the head of the court before challenging a judge in civil proceedings.
Mantashe, who has waited three years for his case to be heard, is reluctant to start the legal process anew. He argues that a fresh application would be costly and time-consuming, and he wants to avoid these hurdles.
The Legal Battle Unveiled
Mantashe's legal team contends that consent was not necessary because Zondo was acting in his capacity as the chairperson of the commission. They emphasize that the litigation is primarily focused on the findings of the report and not Zondo himself. However, Zondo's legal team, led by advocate Alan Dodson, maintains that Mantashe has not met the requirements to be granted leave to appeal.
The minister relies on a judgment by Pretoria High Court Judge Graham Moshoana in a similar case involving former SAA Technical (SAAT) procurement head Nontsasa Memela. While Memela's challenge to the state capture report was unsuccessful, Moshoana's ruling suggested that judges are not immune from litigation when acting as commission chairs.
Zondo's legal team argues that a court is not bound to follow a judgment that is clearly wrong, highlighting that Dippenaar was correct in her interpretation. Mantashe, on the other hand, believes that Dippenaar's interpretation limits the right of access to court as outlined in section 34 of the Bill of Rights.
The Impact and Controversy
Mantashe's legal papers suggest that there is a reasonable chance the SCA will rule in his favor, interpreting section 47(1) of the Superior Courts Act as not applicable when a litigant seeks to review a decision made by a judge as the head of a commission of inquiry. He argues that judicial review is not directed against the judge who made the decision but rather against the exercise of public power.
While many ANC members have criticized the Zondo commission report, few have taken the matter to court. Besides Mantashe, ANC Deputy Secretary-General Nomvula Mokonyane has also indicated her intention to challenge the report. The report's findings, published in 2022, had a significant impact on the ANC's image, contributing to its loss of majority power in the 2024 general elections.
This legal battle raises important questions about the limits of judicial immunity and the right to access the courts. It remains to be seen whether Mantashe's appeal will succeed, but one thing is certain: this controversy has the potential to shape future disputes and the interpretation of the law.
What are your thoughts on this complex legal issue? Do you think Mantashe's appeal has merit, or is it a futile attempt to avoid accountability? Share your insights in the comments below!
