 Former South African president Jacob Zuma has continued his efforts to avoid imprisonment. His lawyers have urged a high court to stop an arrest order made last week by the country's highest court, the Constitutional Court. According to the order, the police was arrested Zuma by midnight on Wednesday after he was sentenced last week to 15 months in prison for contempt of court. Zuma's lawyers argue that the court should stop the police from arresting him until the Constitutional Court rules on his application to rescind the sentence which will be heard this month. Well, joining us on the news tonight is a senior analyst with the Southern African Times, Farai Moviti. Hello, Farai. How are you? Farai, please unmute your mic so we can hear you. Oh, great. Oh, sorry. Thank you for having me. I'm great. Thank you. Thank you so much. You can hear me now? Yes, I can. I guess within the era of Zooms, sometimes we may not zoom in. Yeah, that's understandable. That's understandable. It's good to have you with us. Thank you for having me. Well, it's about an hour to midnight. What do you foresee happening? Well, I think the South African scenario in as far as Jacob Zuma is concerned, you articulated the matters relating to his legal issues. I suppose in the context of that background, what we may see is today a judgment by the High Court to contest Zuma's lawyers launched a case with the High Court asking for the issue relating to the constitutional court to be rescinded, what the court has reserved judgment till Friday. There are two arguments from the South African legal opinion. What they are suggesting is that either the constitutional order, the constitutional court's order will remain in order for the police to fulfill it by end of day tomorrow. But equally, the other side of the argument is that, well, the police have written a letter to the constitutional court requiring a stay of that particular judgment awaiting the judgment of the High Court itself. But equally, that said, the constitutional court on Saturday accepted to hear the argument from Jacob Zuma's lawyers. So we may not see an arrest in as much as there is enthusiasm to see it. There are two fundamental aspects at play here. There's the question of national security and the basis of how it has caused unrest within the country after the judgment had been passed. But equally, there's a question of justice. So it's yet to be seen what the outcome will become. OK, so we keep our fingers crossed. Well, our continent is one of strong men who circumvent laws. Give us a sense of how that happens in South Africa. What's the situation in South Africa? Well, you start your question by making a piece of position of which one is to assume that I am meant to support. Well, I don't necessarily agree with that. I think that our continent has multiple democracies and they should not be seen as a monolith. So what happens perhaps in Nigeria or what happens perhaps in Malawi will not be simultaneous to the context and materialities occur in South Africa. But to answer your question directly, I suppose, within removing the presuppositions, one looks at South Africa as through the lens of the parties and issues that are happening. What was meant to be an ANC issue in relation to its own internal divisions has become a national issue. And perhaps it's inherent to a degree with the liberation movements within the frontline states of South Africa. But it is not to be misled as an issue beyond the legalities that we have highlighted. We have here a former president accused of corruption that has not yet been proven in the court floor. The legal process is undergoing. And bearing in mind that this particular contempt of court was not in relation to any of his ongoing cases, but in relation to the issues pertaining to contempt of not going to the commission. So in South Africa, there are two arguments at play. One argument suggests that perhaps Zuma is utilizing delay tactics leveraging his own support base to ensure that he sees a different legal outcome by applying pressure to the authorities. The other argument, however, is that perhaps the constitutional court is being used to subvert justice on his behalf. And that is his argument. But this is neither here nor there. I think the fundamental issues here are related to an internal political dynamic that simply needs to be looked at in isolation. In as far as the legal process, based on past judgments so far, there is precedence to the argument on both sides. It's, I suppose, with these unique circumstances. It's going to be quite enthusiastic too. I rather, what I mean to say is I'm enthusiastically waiting to see what the outcome should be. OK, well, while we wait for what the outcome would be, let's guess. What impact would an imprisonment of a former president make in South Africa? Well, I think in South Africa, we have a precedence within the case of Kavunda during the time of the leadership of Chiluban. And it had a regional response and it had a continental response. But in the context of Zuma, my submission would be that this may, if we're judging it on the basis of what happened in Kangida on Saturday, where Zuma's village is, the potential for national disturbance, particularly seen in German, in Eastern Pretoria, in Popo, and other regions within the country, not the cities within the country. It has potential to destabilize the country. So I suppose to borrow a thought from a legal mind from South Africa that suggests that there is going to be a distinction here that the president would need to make, which is, is it going to be national building or the pursuit of justice? However, in the pursuit of justice, one has to read it as a case that is quite unique. Because South Africa does not have a precedence of a former president being jailed. In fact, the other argument is that in similar circumstances, when it came to a commission of inquiry relating to apartheid, former apartheid leaders simply who refused to attend that commission got a slap on the wrist by virtue of having to just pay a fine. So this sentence is being read through that lens in other quarters. But there is also another quarter that sees this as just a principle to strengthen the constitution of South Africa by setting an example for all future heads of state, post-democracy, post an apartheid government, to ensure that they preserve the integrity of the institution of government and equally preserve the integrity of their party, in this case the ANC. So there are two arguments in that regard. As opposed to conclude, I would say in order to answer your question, the assumption would be that there is going to be need to marry two realities. And I do not end with President Ramakosa. Well, thank you Farai Muviti. I wish we could go on with this discussion, but time would not allow us. Farai Muviti is a senior analyst with the Southern African Times. Thank you so much again. Thank you for having me. Have a good day. Hello, hope you enjoyed the news. Please do subscribe to our YouTube channel and don't forget to hit the notification button so you get notified about fresh news updates.