Former President Jacob Zuma has met with the African National Congress’ (ANC’s) Top Six on Monday 8 March, with the ruling party saying that discussions with the corruption-accused former leader having been “very positive and constructive”.
This comes as Zuma allegedly fails to submit affidavits demanded by the State Capture Inquiry, which demanded that by close of business on Monday, Zuma must submit his responses to queries relating to alleged corruption that is believed to have taken place at the Passenger Rail Authority of South Africa (PRASA) and Eskom.
ANC Top Six meet with former President
In a statement released on Monday evening, the ANC said that they had met with ZUma. The meeting is believed to have taken place virtually, with ZUma remaining at his home in Nkandla, KwaZulu-Natal (KZN), while speaking with the ruling party’s most senior members.
“African National Congress National Officials have met with former President Jacob Zuma today, Monday 8 March 2021. The National Officials had very positive and constructive discussions with former President Jacob Zuma,” said party spokesperson Pule Mabe.
It is not clear at this stage what the discussions pertained to. Zuma has entertained a host of prominent figures from South Africa’s political arena over the past month, with Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leader Julius Malema and a contingent from the party having visited Nkandla for a “tea party” with the former President before Police Minister Bheki Cele did the same in controversial fashion.
Zuma understood to have missed ConCourt deadline
Meanwhile, Msholozi is understood to have failed to produce the required affidavits requested by the State Capture Commission before the 8 March deadline set out within their submission to the Constitutional Court last month, in which they submitted an application compelling Zuma to do so for violating a court order ordering him to testify. This according to news reports that emerged on Monday afternoon.
When asked by The South African to respond to Zuma’s alleged failure to produce the requisite documents, the Constitutional Court said that they are unable to provide comment on such matters.
Zuma defied the order, much to the Commission’s chagrin, and was subsequently the subject of a follow-up application by the Commission in which they suggested that he serve two-years direct imprisonment for his defiance of the order.
This is a developing story.