Zuma challenges SA court over graft inquiry order

South African President and former President of the ANC Jacob Zuma. (AFP)
Updated 23 December 2017
Follow

Zuma challenges SA court over graft inquiry order

PRETORIA: South Africa’s President Jacob Zuma challenged on Friday a court ruling which ordered him to launch a legal probe into corruption allegations against him, according to legal documents.
The North Gauteng High Court last week ordered Zuma to appoint a judicial inquiry within 30 days to investigate graft allegations that have dogged him and his associates in recent years.
It said the country’s chief justice, not Zuma, should choose a judge to preside over the inquiry to avoid a conflict of interest.
But in court papers seen by local media on Friday, Zuma’s lawyers challenged the order on 20 grounds, arguing that it “offends the separation of powers doctrine” which governs the relationship between the executive and the judiciary.
In its ruling last week, the court also reprimanded the president for being “seriously reckless” by defying the recommendations of the country’s graft watchdog which proposed the judicial inquiry.
Judge Dunstan Mlambo said the watchdog had “uncovered worrying levels of malfeasance and corruption” and yet Zuma was “delaying the resolution” of the allegations.
He also ruled that Zuma should personally pay the litigation costs, including one in which he had sought to halt the publication last year of the graft watchdog’s scathing report linking him to the wealthy Gupta family.
The Indian-origin business family is accused of having undue power over Zuma’s government, including influence over the appointment of some Cabinet ministers.
Zuma had tried to block the publication of the report arguing that he had not been granted enough time to respond to the allegations.
He stepped down this week as president of the ruling African National Congress (ANC) party after a 10 year term marked by numerous damning court judgments against him.
Zuma was succeeded by his deputy Cyril Ramaphosa in a tightly fought contest in which his former wife Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma also ran.
He is due to resign as state president after general elections in 2019.
The main opposition Democratic Alliance party said Zuma is “simply playing for time” so that “evidence can be destroyed” before he appoints the commission of inquiry.


At top UN court, Myanmar denies deadly Rohingya campaign amounts to genocide

Updated 2 sec ago
Follow

At top UN court, Myanmar denies deadly Rohingya campaign amounts to genocide

  • The country defended itself Friday at the United Nations top court against allegations of breaching the genocide convention
  • Myanmar launched the campaign in Rakhine state in 2017 after an attack by a Rohingya insurgent group
THE HAGUE: Myanmar insisted Friday that its deadly military campaign against the Rohingya ethnic minority was a legitimate counter-terrorism operation and did not amount to genocide, as it defended itself at the top United Nations court against an allegation of breaching the genocide convention.
Myanmar launched the campaign in Rakhine state in 2017 after an attack by a Rohingya insurgent group. Security forces were accused of mass rapes, killings and torching thousands of homes as more than 700,000 Rohingya fled into neighboring Bangladesh.
“Myanmar was not obliged to remain idle and allow terrorists to have free reign of northern Rakhine state,” the country’s representative Ko Ko Hlaing told black-robed judges at the International Court of Justice.
Gambia filed genocide case in 2019
African nation Gambia brought a case at the court in 2019 alleging that Myanmar’s military actions amount to a breach of the Genocide Convention that was drawn up in the aftermath of World War II and the Holocaust.
Some 1.2 million members of the Rohingya minority are still languishing in chaotic, overcrowded camps in Bangladesh, where armed groups recruit children and girls as young as 12 are forced into prostitution. The sudden and severe foreign aid cuts imposed last year by US President Donald Trump shuttered thousands of the camps’ schools and have caused children to starve to death.
Buddhist-majority Myanmar has long considered the Rohingya Muslim minority to be “Bengalis” from Bangladesh even though their families have lived in the country for generations. Nearly all have been denied citizenship since 1982.
Myanmar denies Gambia claims of ‘genocidal intent’
As hearings opened Monday, Gambian Justice Minister Dawda Jallow said his nation filed the case after the Rohingya “endured decades of appalling persecution, and years of dehumanizing propaganda. This culminated in the savage, genocidal ‘clearance operations’ of 2016 and 2017, which were followed by continued genocidal policies meant to erase their existence in Myanmar.”
Hlaing disputed the evidence Gambia cited in its case, including the findings of an international fact-finding mission set up by the UN’s Human Rights Council.
“Myanmar’s position is that the Gambia has failed to meet its burden of proof,” he said. “This case will be decided on the basis of proven facts, not unsubstantiated allegations. Emotional anguish and blurry factual pictures are not a substitute for rigorous presentation of facts.”
Aung San Suu Kyi represented Myanmar at court in 2019. Now she’s imprisoned
Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi represented her country at jurisdiction hearings in the case in 2019, denying that Myanmar armed forces committed genocide and instead casting the mass exodus of Rohingya people from the country she led as an unfortunate result of a battle with insurgents.
The pro-democracy icon is now in prison after being convicted of what her supporters call trumped-up charges after a military takeover of power.
Myanmar contested the court’s jurisdiction, saying Gambia was not directly involved in the conflict and therefore could not initiate a case. Both countries are signatories to the genocide convention, and in 2022, judges rejected the argument, allowing the case to move forward.
Gambia rejects Myanmar’s claims that it was combating terrorism, with Jallow telling judges on Monday that “genocidal intent is the only reasonable inference that can be drawn from Myanmar’s pattern of conduct.”
In late 2024, prosecutors at another Hague-based tribunal, the International Criminal Court, requested an arrest warrant for the head of Myanmar’s military regime for crimes committed against the country’s Rohingya Muslim minority. Senior Gen. Min Aung Hlaing, who seized power from Suu Kyi in 2021, is accused of crimes against humanity for the persecution of the Rohingya. The request is still pending.