{"id":2458,"date":"2011-05-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-05-20T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/amabhungane.org\/amabhungane\/stories\/battle-for-zim-report-in-final-round\/"},"modified":"2011-05-20T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-05-20T00:00:00","slug":"battle-for-zim-report-in-final-round","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/further.co.za\/amabwp\/battle-for-zim-report-in-final-round\/","title":{"rendered":"Battle for Zim report in final round"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The <em>Mail &amp; Guardian<\/em>&#8216;s three-year battle to gain access to a report by two senior judges on Zimbabwe&#8217;s 2002 presidential election finally reached the Constitutional Court this week.<\/p>\n<p>The report was commissioned by former president Thabo Mbeki, who sent judges Dikgang Moseneke and Sisi Khampepe to Zimbabwe to investigate &#8220;constitutional and legal challenges&#8221; in the build-up to that country&#8217;s disputed and highly controversial 2002 poll (See accompanying story below).<\/p>\n<p>The <em>M&amp;G<\/em> requested a copy of the report under the Promotion of Access to Information Act in 2008, but was turned down by the presidency.<\/p>\n<p>The newspaper then won a high court victory, subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court of Appeal, ordering President Jacob Zuma to disclose the report.The Constitutional Court hearing on Tuesday represented Zuma&#8217;s final appeal against this order. Judgment was reserved.<\/p>\n<p>Questioning by a panel of nine judges (Deputy Judge President Dikgang Moseneke and Judge Sisi Khampepe recused themselves as they were the authors of the report) threw up the question: Did their two colleagues travel to Zimbabwe as &#8220;special envoys&#8221; on a diplomatic mission, as &#8220;the embodiment of the president&#8221;, as claimed by the presidency?<\/p>\n<p>Marumo Moerane, senior counsel for the presidency, told the court that all the democratic presidents of South Africa had mediated in Zimbabwe&#8217;s turbulent political climate, lending sensitivity to the judges&#8217; report.<\/p>\n<p>The presidency has maintained that the judges&#8217; assessment was a &#8220;Cabinet report&#8221;, which was exempt from disclosure under the Act. The <em>M&amp;G<\/em> disputes this because, among other reasons, the president is far more than the head of Cabinet.<\/p>\n<p>The paper also argues that the judges&#8217; role cannot be regarded as that of special envoys on a diplomatic mission, which would also make their report exempt from disclosure under the Act, because such a mission would conflate the functions of the executive and the judiciary.<\/p>\n<p>Jeremy Gauntlett, senior counsel for the <em>M&amp;G<\/em>, said the case raised &#8220;the worrying issue of the separation of powers&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p>Pretending they were presidential envoys, he said, was a case of trying to &#8220;squeeze into a tiny Cinderella&#8217;s slipper to make them envoys&#8221;, when, in reality, &#8220;they are judges&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p><strong><\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Pariah regimes&#8221;<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>In an affidavit before the court, <em>M&amp;G<\/em> editor Nic Dawes said: &#8220;What is concerning is that the presidency prioritises its relations with the Mugabe regime over its clear constitutional and statutory obligations [to disclose]. It is this attitude which would fracture international relations, not the disclosure of &#8216;innocuous&#8217; (the president assures this court) discussions.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Should the international community come to view the presidency&#8217;s loyalties as lying not with the rule of law but with pariah regimes, the world&#8217;s confidence in South Africa&#8217;s democratic commitment would be destroyed.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>The sequence of events in the case, highlighting government&#8217;s determination not to disclose the contents of the judges&#8217; report, is as follows:<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Judgment reserved in Jacob Zuma&#8217;s last attempt to conceal judges&#8217; assessment of 2002 election<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":24337,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2458","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-stories"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/further.co.za\/amabwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2458","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/further.co.za\/amabwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/further.co.za\/amabwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/further.co.za\/amabwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/further.co.za\/amabwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2458"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/further.co.za\/amabwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2458\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/further.co.za\/amabwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/24337"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/further.co.za\/amabwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2458"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/further.co.za\/amabwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2458"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/further.co.za\/amabwp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2458"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}