South African President Jacob Zuma confirmed his relationship with Sonono Khoza and admitted to fathering a child with her. At the same time he marked his displeasure at the manner in which the story was broken in the media .
This follows a number of individuals, parties and groups who have slammed the press by saying he president is entitled to his privacy as set out in the Constitution. Against them equally numerous individuals, parties and groups who have supported freedom of the press and more importantly the public’s right to know.
In this regard people need to be aware that no right is absolute and the president’s right to privacy is tempered by other rights which compete with it. In accordance therewith our courts are tasked with interpreting the law and thereby creating precedents which can be used to demarcate the boundaries of these rights; where some rights end and others begin.
At times this can be a very difficult balancing act with those who demand privacy berating a system that allows too much media intrusion followed a week later by a public outcry when the courts interdict newspapers from publishing a particular story. In truth it’s a pendulum which swings from side to side.
The question in the case of President Zuma therefore has to be to what extent can the media or even the public intrude on his privacy.
As you would expect the law does not operate in a vacuum and as such weighs up all factors concerning a particular person. In the case of a politician who enters what we call public life that right is immediately tempered by the public’s right to know all about the person that they are being asked to vote for.
In the case of a president who represents the entire country and acts as a role model to millions of its citizens that right is drastically reduced even more.
We then have to factor in what prejudice that individual’s conduct is having on other members of the public. In the case of a president once again it is far in excess of what the man in the street can achieve and accordingly his right to privacy limited even further.
Two obvious examples that are applicable in this instance :
In the fight against HIV/Aids, where South Africa is one of the most devastated countries in the world, the act of carrying on unprotected sex is highly irresponsible. More so when you have vowed to the public that your previous conduct was reckless and would not be repeated. How this translates is that the less educated among the masses look to the man that they literally idolise and assume that if he is doing it then it must be safe. The fact that it flies in the face of the ANC’s own campaign means that a policy designed to literally save thousands of lives is being totally undermined.
Secondly in the eyes of the world Jacob Zuma is South Africa just as much as Barack Obama is America. As we witnessed in Davos the world has become a global village and the leading players like Zuma put under a microscope. As I stated previously I fully support the president’s lifestyle choice of polygamy but this latest conduct is not acceptable particularly because polygamy affords him so much more choice.
The president has pointed out that he has followed the Zulu customs to the letter of the law. I have yet to read anything vaguely derogatory about Zulu customs. However the president needs to be aware that he is the president of South Africa and not only the Zulu people and marriage in terms of the laws of the country have not been complied with as yet. Just as Obama is not the president of Christian Americans but all its citizens so too in the case of Zuma. Accordingly where he is to take another wife as he did in the case of Ms Madiba he is expected to advise the country who should only wish him well for the future.
This is not being hard on the president because the way this saga unfolded made us the laughing stock of much of the world and endangers the lives of the young people of this country. If regard is had to the Madiba marriage where the media only wanted to find out all the gossip and get some pictures as opposed to what has transpired here then it is easy to see what happens when things are done in the right way as opposed to the wrong way.
In the recent case of John Terry the court lifted an injunction because it said that if someone in the position of Terry holds himself out as a squeaky-clean individual and is paid a king’s ransom therefore the sponsors and the public have the right to know where this is false. The main premise upon which the judge based his decision is that where the conduct of an individual is prejudicial to the public then they have a right to know the true facts.
In the case of the president of a country where everything he says and does can have a major impact on the citizens thereof how much more compelling is the argument that the public has the right to know all things possible about the man they voted for?
Accordingly we have a very popular president in Jacob Zuma who enjoys the support of the majority of all races as things presently stand. In accordance therewith the president needs to continue to earn that loyalty by carrying our message to the world in the best possible light.
Shooting the messengers for reporting the indiscretion is both unfair and unworthy of the president and the ruling party and not in the spirit of rewarding that support.
Author
A prince with dignity and determination
Prince Ngarambe’s goals are to become Rwanda’s first transgender model and to uplift the country’s youth
The EFF’s principles are unshakeable
Unlike the ANC, the core values of the freedom fighters do not change with each leader it elects
