What is respect for the rule of law? And to whom does this respect for the rule of law apply? Since what the media has dubbed the “Jacob Zuma affair” began, we have been dared to “respect the rule of law”. This has been because we have challenged the demeanour of certain fragments of the justice system.

When Judge Hilary Squires passed judgment on Schabir Shaik, we said “that the judge only found Schabir Shaik guilty, and not Jacob Zuma”, and went further to say that “the calls for Zuma’s resignation smacks of opportunism and should not be heeded …”

The Young Communist League made these statements because, as indicated in a subsequent statement, “ until due processes of the law have been completed, he (Zuma) remains innocent”.

This is the rule of law we are going to respect. Those who made the calls to respect the rule of law have insisted that the African National Congress (ANC) and its allies ensure that they do not interfere with the legal processes enshrined in the constitution. Our concern is that this call is made with great expediency.

To the Democratic Alliance (DA), respect for the “rule of law” means that if the Scorpions go around flaunting their guns at Zuma’s house, the VIP protection unit should compromise its principles and not confront the Scorpions over turf.

In the media, reverence for the rule of law, to some, means that the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) may leak investigative information about the subject of their investigation, and that the media can build a public case around the guilt or innocence of this individual.

For the NPA, respect for the rule of law means that it can allow the director of that body to say, publicly, that there is a prima facie case against Zuma but that it will not charge him. It may also mean to the NPA that it can express its disrespect publicly towards the public protector should he rule against it.

Many in the court of public opinion castigated both the Young Communist League and the ANC Youth League for having called Squires a former apartheid judge, and also for having criticised him for, in effect, finding Zuma guilty before his day in court. All these matters about his personal history, and the prospect that he may have had his own bigotry towards Zuma, given that they were on opposing ends during apartheid, remain uncontested. We were told to “respect the rule of law” because SA has the best constitution, which needs no political interference.

Who, then, shall speak of political interference by the media, the justice system or the Scorpions?

Opportunists of all kinds have forgotten that while the judiciary is independent from the executive and Parliament, it remains responsible to the public that it serves. In the same manner, the judiciary has a responsibility to public criticism.

Where were the DA and the other propagators of the rule of law when information on the investigation of Zuma was leaked to the media? Where were they when Zuma was declared guilty through a political trial conducted in the media, and is now going into court to prove himself innocent?

All that we asked for was that Zuma should be treated in terms of the requirements of the rule of law — as innocent until all due processes of the law take place.

The very same attitude goes for corruption. By calling for Zuma to receive a fair trial, the Young Communist League, the South African Communist Party, the Congress of South African Trade Unions, the ANC and ANC Youth League have all been labelled as defenders of corruption.

We all have a responsibility to defend the rule of law — including those who prosecute, defend and judge without any fear, favour or prejudice! It is not only the duty of those who want to see Zuma cleared in a fair trial.

Manamela is national secretary of the Young Communist League.

With acknowledgements to Buti Manamela and the Business Day.