Today is the deadline for former President Jacob Zuma to file answering affidavits to the Constitutional Court in his contempt of court case.

The Zondo Commission that is probing allegations of state capture took the former president to the ConCourt for violating a court order that he complies with a summons that he testifies before the inquiry.

The commission wants Zuma jailed for two years for this.

Zuma, together with the Minister and the National Commissioner of Police are named as respondents in the case.

The hearing has been set down for March 25.

Previewing the contempt of court case with Karyn Maughan:

Unusual

Constitutional law expert, Pierre de Vos, says it is unusual for the commission to tell the court what sentence to impose.

The law expert adds that the matters to be argued in the Constitutional Court on the 25th should not be confused with Zuma’s alleged breaching of the Commissions Act.

“Legally there are two ways in which the former President’s various refusal to testify and to obey the summons can be dealt with. One, the former President can be prosecuted. If summons to appear and testify were issued by the court and he refused, then there is contempt of court.

That is very different from breaching the Commission’s Act. This is a contempt of court, not for not appearing but for not respecting the court order that ordered him to appear,” he says.

On Monday, the respondents in the contempt of court matter may file answering affidavits if they decide to do so.

Thereafter, on Friday the commission will file responding papers.

Jacob Zuma’s intention to defy the ConCourt: