Missed or ignored – perhaps this is just a sign of how little regard the ANC have for pesky legal frivolities like the Constitution.

During yesterday’s Parliamentary sitting at the motion to impeach Zuma the Presidency released a statement, in which it claimed that the ConCourt DID NOT find that he had broken his oath of office.

The statement was ostensibly to ‘correct media reports’ that had claimed otherwise, with some of the statement below from the Mail & Guardian:

“The Presidency wishes to correct media reports wrongly stating that the judgement by the Constitutional Court found that President Jacob Zuma had broken his oath of office. The Constitutional Court did not make such a declaratory order.

“In fact, whereas the counsel for the EFF, the Applicant, specifically asked for the Constitutional Court to declare that the President had acted in violation of his oath of office, the Constitutional Court did not grant a declaratory order in those terms.”

Sure, OK, but they’re kind of missing the point. Constitutional law expert Pierre de Vos clarified exactly what the ConCourt had said via Twitter:

(1) Semantics: Con Court made no ORDER of breaking of oath of office by President, BUT found President did not uphold, protect Constitution.

(2) By not upholding and protecting the Constitution as required by his oath of office, the President found in breach of it.

(3) Just because this was not included in the order does not mean the Court did not find this. Not all findings contained in the order made.

(4) To claim the absence of an order means there was no finding that president breached oath of office is again to make untrue statement.

The Presidency issuing a statement that contained untruths? What outrage, except we have become so used to having the wool pulled over our eyes that this barely registers a reaction any longer.

[source:mg]

[imagesource:citizen]