1) Leaving aside the false claims and the fundamental contradictions, Jacob Zuma's application for the recusal of justice Zondo as head of the State Capture Inquiry suffers from a complete misunderstanding of the inquisitorial nature of the Commission.

2) A Commission of Inquiry does not follow the adversarial process like our courts do. In an adversarial process the parties (state and accused in criminal trial; applicants and respondents in civil matter), are adversaries who present their case under strict procedural rules.

3) In an adversarial procedure the presiding judge acts as an impartial and rather passive referee. This differs from an inquisitorial (or non-adversarial) process, in which the court, or a part of the court, is actively involved in investigating the facts of the case.

4) The presiding judge acts as inquisitor who actively participates in the fact-finding to try to ascertain the truth. The judge can assess evidence, question witnesses, and (in a criminal case) direct prosecutors to look into certain allegations or assess certain evidence.

5) In this sense, the State Capture Inquiry acts as investigator (The Hawks), prosecutor (the NPA) and judge. South African lawyers unfamiliar with the inquisitorial system, find it difficult to comprehend that a non-adversarial system can be better at establishing the truth.

6) This system could reduce unfairness inherent in adversarial system where the quality of your lawyers play an outsize role. Complaining that Zondo is not impartial because he is actively involved in seeking the truth & not passively standing by is a legal misdirection.

7) At the heart of Zuma's application is a complaint that Zondo has been actively involved in seeking the truth, instead of acting as a passive referee. Understandable: in an adversarial system, an implicated person with good lawyers have a better chance of suppressing the truth.