Zondo Commission chairperson and retired Chief Justice Raymond Zondo has warned the Johannesburg High Court that granting ANC chairperson Gwede Mantashe a chance to overturn the commission’s findings against him would open the floodgates for more reviews from every corrupt individual he nailed at the commission.
Zondo stated this in the supplementary heads of argument his legal team filed in the high court where he is opposing Mantashe’s application for a leave to appeal. Mantashe, who is also the Minister of Mineral and Petroleum Resources, is appealing Johannesburg High Court’s dismissal of his initial application to review and set aside the commission’s adverse findings against him. The commission recommended that Mantashe should be criminally investigated for the installation of security cameras at his homes in Gauteng and Eastern Cape by the now defunct Bosasa entity, which benefited from state tenders.
Central to Mantashe’s argument is a claim that Zondo—who chaired the commission while a sitting Constitutional Court judge—has no legal standing to oppose him.
To accept Mantashe’s logic, Zondo rebuts, would be to invite a “procession of corrupt individuals” to dismantle the commission’s work in unopposed hearings.
“The applicant says that Justice Zondo should have adopted a hands-off stance and left the matter unopposed, with the reviewing court to make the decision on the basis of the applicant’s evidence and submissions only,” he stated.
“That stance, we submit, would be music to the ears of the procession of corrupt individuals who were exposed by the commission.
“And it would be irresponsible of Justice Zondo to leave the careful findings of his commission, based on years of accumulated evidence, in the hands of those either found to be corrupt or suspected of being corrupt in unopposed review proceedings.”
The legal clash hinges on the interpretation of Section 47 of the Superior Courts Act, which governs civil proceedings against judges.
Mantashe contends that a review application to set aside a commission chair’s decision is not one “instituted against” the judge personally. Zondo’s team labels this
interpretation “not faithful to the text”, “offside”, and “opportunistic”.
“[Mantashe] accepts that there is no distinction between the two. The commission is not a body corporate, and the two respondents are essentially one and the same person, Justice Zondo acting in his official capacity,” the papers state.
Later, they underscore the point: “[Mantashe] appears to agree that there is, in fact, no distinction between the two respondents, as Justice Zondo in his official capacity is the sole personification of the commission. Therefore, on the applicant’s papers, this is a matter between Gwede Mantashe and Raymond Zondo.”
Zondo’s submission argues that Mantashe’s reliance on precedents about judges not defending their own rulings is misplaced. Those cases, he notes, involve “two distinct adversaries” before a neutral decision-maker. A commission of inquiry is fundamentally different—its chair is the steward of its evidence and findings.
“Reliance is then placed by the applicant on various judgments that discourage opposition to judicial reviews of judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings by the decision-maker. This reliance makes sense where there are two distinct adversaries conducting a dispute before the decision-maker.
“In a review of such a decision, it will primarily be between the adversaries that the review will play out. The decision-maker can appropriately play an independent, information-providing role. But that is not generally the position with a commission of inquiry and certainly is not the case here.”
Consequently, Zondo petitions the court to dismiss Mantashe’s leave to appeal “with costs, including costs of two counsel”.
The reason is blunt: “The applicant has failed to demonstrate that an appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success or that there is some other compelling reason why an appeal should be heard.”
He continued: “We submit that there are no reasonable prospects that an appellate court will find that the words ‘instituted against should be interpreted to exclude a judge in the position of Justice Zondo on the bases proffered by Mantashe.
