The president does not get to choose whether to follow the rule of law, he takes an oath to do so

In an otherwise insightful piece, Jonny Steinberg poses the wrong question when he asks, “Does he [President Cyril Ramaphosa] really want an efficient justice system if it will prosecute his allies?” (“Zuma gave bureaucratic incompetence a political voice”, February 28)

It is not a question of what the president wants. The correct question is: “What is the president obliged to do to have an efficient justice system?” Obviously, he doesn’t want to see his crooked and corrupt allies held to account for their wrongdoing and made to repay the loot of their malfeasances.

The president takes an oath of office to uphold the constitution and the rule of law. The constitution requires that in the public administration (which includes the justice system), “efficient, economic and effective use of resources must be promoted”. It also stipulates that “an order or decision issued by a court binds all persons to whom and organs of state to which it applies”.

The rule of law also enshrines the doctrine of binding judicial precedent. Steinberg has overlooked the Glenister litigation, in which parliament was ordered to set up a body outside executive control to deal with corruption. The court stipulated the criteria by which such a body should be known, now called the “stirs” criteria, for specialised, trained, independent, resourced and secure.

As the constitution and rule of law are regarded as supreme, the obligation of the president is to comply with the Glenister decisions and, via them, with the international obligations of SA to establish and maintain an independent anti-corruption body. No such body exists, despite the Glenister decisions and notwithstanding that SA’s international treaty obligations are all still in place. From his contribution to “foreign policy” it appears that Ramaphosa understands the binding nature of international obligations.

The official lawlessness sketched above will soon be addressed in parliament when the bills for a new chapter 9 anti-corruption commission are debated. If the obligations honoured in the breach thus far are not addressed, it will become necessary to mount public interest litigation to ensure they are.

Paul Hoffman
Director, Accountability Now