The ruling by Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo that the State capture commission would apply to the Constitutional Court to find former president Jacob Zuma guilty of contempt of court and imprison him has left African National Congress (ANC) leaders scrambling for a solution to the impasse.

Party leaders are pinning their hopes on a planned meeting of the ANC’s top six leaders with Zuma to give up his ill-advised defiance of the Constitutional Court.

But Zuma and a group of his most vocal supporters have remained steadfast in his defiance, saying again on Monday evening that: “I wait to face the sentence to be issued by the Constitutional Court.”

ANC spokesperson Pule Mabe would only say that the meeting was on the cards but could not provide details of when it was scheduled to happen.

The ANC’s national executive committee took a firm view over the weekend that the party supported the work of the commission, and it had previously ordered that members avail themselves to testify if called.

Zuma’s defiance of this decision is, however, not likely to lead to any sanction in the party.

“The fact that officials are meeting Zuma, even though he expressed his intent not to appear before [Deputy Chief Justice Raymond] Zondo, shows that they understand the unity of the ANC is sacrosanct,” Mabe said.

“We have to listen to cadres expressing extreme views. It’s all about persuasion. We lead men and women who have different views in society,” he said.

On Monday, ANC KwaZulu-Natal chairperson and Premier Sihle Zikalala said party officials would convince Zuma to abide by the law.

Mabe said it was important that the ANC’s leadership understood Zuma’s objection to appearing before Zondo, who Zuma himself appointed when he was president.

Zuma has previously said he could not appear before Zondo because the deputy chief justice was biased against him owing to a child he fathered with the sister of one of Zuma’s wives.

The Constitutional Court ordered Zuma to appear before the commission and answer questions before it. Zuma, however, ignored the summons on Monday.

In his ruling, Zondo said Zuma was a former president of the country who twice took the public oath to protect and defend the constitution, and should lead by example.

Instead, Zuma was openly encouraging lawlessness that would render the country a banana republic.

Zondo said, ”This is very serious because if it is allowed to prevail, there will be lawlessness and chaos in the courts because there may be other people who may decide to follow his example. When they are served with summonses and other court processes they can decide to ignore them.”

Zuma continued a tirade against Zondo in a 12-page statement, saying Zondo “propagated some political propaganda” against him “unprovoked”.

He again argued that he was prejudiced by the commission amid a litany of other unsubstantiated claims.

Zuma also appears to have taken issue with President Cyril Ramaphosa, taking a number of digs at him without proof.

He claimed Ramaphosa, with the help of judges, was hiding “what on the face of it seemed to be bribes obtained to win an internal ANC election”. This was a reference to an alleged incident at the ANC’s Nasrec conference in 2017 for which there was no reported proof.

Zuma also took issue with the commission continuing to outline the evidence against him in his absence at the commission’s sitting on Monday.

More claims

Zuma’s supporters – including a group calling themselves RET Gauteng, with Carl Niehaus stating he is the secretary – also came out saying they would support Zuma.

They made a number of unsubstantiated claims about why they thought Zuma was being forced to testify.

Zuma’s son and most vocal supporter, Edward, said Zuma remains firm that he will not cooperate or entertain the commission any further.

He said, “We’re not worried about the example. The example that he is setting is a very good example because then it tells the other generation that come after him or us, you must die for what you believe in. We have our beliefs as a liberation movement, we must stick to it. Whether it is wrong or right, it is upon the public to make that judgment on us.”

Former Public Protector Thuli Madonsela said she did not understand why Zuma did not want to give his side of the story.

“Quite frankly, he complained during my investigation that he did not have enough time to explain himself. He had enough time to explain himself before the Zondo Commission and I did not expect that he would not seize the opportunity,” she said.

Madonsela said she further “cannot understand” Zuma’s efforts to force Zondo to recuse himself.

“If he felt strongly that anyone with some relation to him should not judge him he should have not appointed him to the commission or appointed him as deputy chief justice,” she said.

The former public protector, whose recommendation gave birth to the State capture commission of inquiry, said she did not believe Zuma’s defiance of the commission was a constitutional crisis.

“It is not a constitutional crisis. It is a sad constitutional moment,” she said, adding that the Constitution entrenches that everyone is equal before the law.

“It is a political crisis, it is a moral crisis,” she noted of Zuma’s defiance.