The charges originated in Zuma's refusal to provide testimony to Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo's judicial commission of inquiry into alleged state capture.

The majority judgment was written by Acting Deputy Chief Justice Sisi Khampepe, who held that it was justifiable for the court to impose a punitive, unsuspended prison sentence in order to vindicate its own integrity and uphold the rule of law.

A two-member minority of the court, comprising Justices Chris Jafta and Leona Theron, argued that the majority's order trenched on Zuma's constitutional right to a fair trial.

Zuma, who had again declined to oppose the commission's application, submitted to arrest in Estcourt, KwaZulu-Natal on 7 July; observers linked his detention to an outbreak of civil unrest later the same week.

Although Jafta was critical of the commission for not having issued Zuma with summons earlier than the spring of 2020, he held that it was overwhelmingly in the public interest for the court to hear the application.

In addition, inspired by a threat made by one of Zuma's lawyers, the court issued a declaratory order stating that Zuma did not have a right to remain silent during the commission's proceedings – where he was a witness, not an arrested or accused person – but that he was entitled to all privileges granted to witnesses under section 3(4) of the Commissions Act, including the privilege to abstain from self-incrimination.

However, on the morning of his scheduled appearance, his lawyers released a statement alerting the public that he had decided not to attend, in violation of the Constitutional Court's order in Zuma I.

[22] The Commission applied for direct access to the apex court on an urgent basis, giving rise to a second application, Secretary of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector including Organs of State v Zuma and Others (Zuma II).

Zuma again declined to oppose the application, though he released a public statement hours after the hearing in which he complained about "the emergence of a judicial dictatorship in South Africa".

It is a travesty of justice to observe how the Constitutional Court has allowed itself to be abused in this manner, and the repeated warnings I have made in this regard continue to go unheard simply because they emanate from me.

Writing on behalf of the majority, Acting Deputy Justice Sisi Khampepe reflected broadly on the role of the judiciary, the importance of the rule of law, and the dual coercive (or remedial) and punitive functions of imposing sanctions for contempt of court.

In this regard, Khampepe considered both Zuma's unique political influence as a former president and the "intensity" of his "attacks on the Judiciary", which she described as "part of a deliberate and calculated strategy to undermine this Court's authority".

Theron concluded that Khampepe's judgment had unjustifiably "pushed the bounds of our law of contempt in order to meet these exceptional circumstances".

[27][28][29] It was welcomed by South African legal commentators including Pierre de Vos, Richard Calland, and Eusebius McKaiser, each of whom congratulated the majority on recognising the severity of the impending threat to the rule of law.

[34][35] On 9 July, the Pietermaritzburg High Court dismissed Zuma's application to have the arrest overturned, citing a lack of evidence for the medical grounds his lawyers raised.

[37][38] Commentator Moeletsi Mbeki questioned whether it was "worth it" to uphold the rule of law, a Western construct, at the cost of the civil unrest and concomitant economic and social damage.

In court papers, Zuma argued, inter alia, that he had medical problems requiring "constant and intense therapy and attention", meaning that "In the present circumstances, it is the right to life itself which may be at stake.

Two non-profit organisations, the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution and Democracy in Action, were newly admitted as amici curiae in the rescission matter.

Judgment was handed down on 17 September 2021,[48][49] by which time the matter was practically moot because Correctional Services Commissioner Arthur Fraser had granted Zuma medical parole.

This is an unprecedented state of affairs and to uphold the order, which is fruit of the poisoned tree, would result in substantial hardship and injustice to Mr Zuma."

Accusing Jafta and Theron of "judicial decadence", he wrote in the Daily Maverick that:[the Zuma II dissent's] main point – that there may, in most instances, be constitutional problems with sending a contemnor to prison using motion proceedings instead of a criminal trial – is one over which reasonable people could easily differ, and with which I have some sympathy.

This is because it treats a rescission application as an appeal, and tries to re-argue the original case in which the dissenters lost the argument, but claims that it is doing no such thing.