"Zuma will not have a fair trial," said African National Congress (ANC) treasurer-general and qualified lawyer Mathews Phosa, at an event hosted by the Platform for Public Deliberation at the University of Johannesburg yesterday.

Phosa was speaking as part of a debate with David Unterhalter, a legal practitioner and professor, over the relationship between law and politics in South Africa.

Phosa explained that ANC President Jacob Zuma can not be accused of attempting to avoid justice, as he has repeatedly called for ‘his day in court'. However, he argued that, owing to the amount of media attention Zuma's case has received, it will be impossible to achieve an impartial ruling, and indicated this to be the reason behind Zuma's application for a permanent stay of prosecution.

Professor Unterhalter disagreed with Phosa, saying that Zuma can have a fair trial, as allegations that the judiciary cannot be neutral are unfounded. He explained that judges are carefully chosen and trained for their posts.

He continued that the appointment of judges was based on their sympathy to the values underlying South Africa's legal order. He said that it would be "subversive" to democracy if the judiciary was politically appointed. Judges were not elected, therefore, they carry no popular mandate and must be carefully chosen in terms of their fidelity to the legal order and the values enshrined in the Constitution.

He added that judicial independence and restraint were fundamental to constitutional democracy. Referring to Zuma's case, Unterhalter said that it was irrelevant whether the outcome of the judicial process was valuable to a certain political party or not.

Phosa, on the other hand, claimed that the country's legal framework was put in place by South Africa's Parliament, reflecting the policies of the ruling party.

Phosa added that it would be "short-sighted" if a judge's interpretation differed substantially from the views of the ruling party. This was why the judiciary was appointed by the party in power.

Referring to the relation between law and politics, Phosa implied that the two were undeniably connected. He explained that the ideological values underpinning law, were informed by the ruling party's political stance. As an example, Phosa cited the complete overhaul of apartheid laws with the advent of a democratic South Africa in 1994.

Unterhalter said in response, that it was only laws of a political nature that were changed at this time, as the fundamental rules regulating society, based on ancient common law, still remain in place.

The law professor emphasised that "it is not the case that legal values are coextensive with political values". He explained that what the law required in terms of values embedded in the legal order, was not the same as political values meant for pursuing party policy. Often legal values were not the same as political values, just as moral values might not match either. This was, he said, the challenge facing the judiciary.