Zuma in high-stakes wrangling with state capture inquiry

Former president Jacob Zuma is involved in a high-stakes, behind-the-scenes wrangling with the Zondo commission of inquiry into state capture in which Zuma seems to be resisting attempts to appear before the commission.

In letters seen by Business Day, Zuma says he will, “when the time is right, publicly negate the manufactured narratives about him, the biases displayed by the so-called legal process”.

This he will do in forums that are “truly independent, credible and impartial”. Zuma did not say what those forums would be.

The commission is investigating allegations that certain influential players, including the Gupta family, illegally captured key elements of the state for private profit during Zuma’s tenure as president. Should the behind-the-scenes negotiations fail, the commission can subpoena and compel the former president to give evidence and answer questions.

Through his lawyers, Lugisani Mantsha Attorneys, Zuma denies that he is seeking to frustrate the commission by neither appearing to answer questions nor to cross-examine any of the witnesses who have implicated him.

Zuma says the conduct of the commission, chaired by deputy chief justice judge Raymond Zondo, has left him with the impression that it has “already prejudged him and seeks to portray him in a negative light”.

Our client has great respect for judicial processes and is deeply disturbed by the impression that this commission appears to him as merely an extension of a factional narrative that seeks to besmirch him and protect others

—  Lugisani Mantsha Attorneys, for Zuma

This was after the inquiry’s secretary wrote to the former president’s lawyers on April 30, and a week later — to ask if he would be available to appear before Zondo, between July 15-19 “to give his side of the story” on the evidence given against him, and to questions from the commission’s evidence leaders.

In response, Zuma’s lawyers wrote to the inquiry last week stating that he “relishes the moment when he will publicly, in appropriate, impartial, credible and truly independent forums, expose what lies behind this abuse of legal and judicial processes”. 

“Our client has great respect for judicial processes and is deeply disturbed by the impression that this commission appears to him as merely an extension of a factional narrative that seeks to besmirch him and protect others.”

Through his lawyers, Zuma also claims that he was “singled out for mention by the chairperson of the commission” Zondo, who had previously stated that he had asked the former president to respond to evidence given by former ANC MP Vytjie Mentor and former government communications head Themba Maseko.

Maseko and Mentor testified that Zuma had participated in, and that he was aware of, unlawful efforts by the Gupta family to influence or pressure them to do the family’s bidding in influencing key elements of the state.

Zondo inquiry spokesperson Mbuyiselo Stemela said that Business Day’s questions on Zuma’s accusations, sent on Sunday afternoon, created an “unreasonable time frame” for the commission to respond.

Zuma’s attorney Daniel Mantsha wrote to the commission’s acting secretary Peter Pedlar in late May: “We noted with concern that our client was publicly and in an unprecedented way singled out for mention by the chairperson of the commission, giving the impression that our client deserved to be treated differently.” 

Serious escalation

He said this “singling out our client as the chairperson did give our client the distinct impression that the commission has already prejudged him and seeks to portray him in a negative light. Our client finds this politicisation of a judicial process rather unfortunate and deeply disturbing.”

This claim — that the Zondo commission has become politicised — marks a serious escalation in hostility between Zuma and Zondo, who has repeatedly stated that he believes the former president will co-operate with his inquiry, and will voluntarily give evidence before it.

Zuma maintains that there is “not one shred of evidence” that implicates him in corruption or wrongdoing, and has repeatedly questioned state capture actually exists.

Former finance minister Nhlanhla Nene linked his shock December 2015 axing by Zuma — which sent the rand into freefall — to Zuma’s unhappiness over his resistance to a R1-trillion proposed nuclear deal with Russia. 

Zuma told Business Day earlier in 2019 that he continues to support such a deal, which he is adamant would not have been the financial suicide predicted by analysts and many Treasury officials — but would have “saved” SA from its energy crisis. 

Myeni has applied

Most recently, former African Global Operations (formerly Bosasa) COO Angelo Agrizzi detailed how the controversial facilities management company — implicated in multibillion-rand tender rigging — allegedly made large cash payments to the Jacob Zuma Education Trust and sponsored a lavish birthday party for the then president. 

While former SAA chair Dudu Myeni has applied to cross-examine Agrizzi over this evidence, Zuma has not.

Mantsha has told the commission, in response to letters sent by Pedlar on April 30 and May 6, that Zuma’s decision not to apply to cross-examine a single inquiry witness “cannot be interpreted as non-cooperation” — but simultaneously attacked the credulity of the inquiry.

“Your accusation that our client seeks to frustrate the work of the commission is untrue and reveals the commission’s antipathy towards our client. It is not clear to us on what basis the commission adopts this position when our client through his counsel communicated his willingness to co-operate,” Mantsha states in a letter sent to the inquiry in late May.

Mantsha further states that Zuma chose not to seek to cross-examine any witnesses because he believes that it would be “a futile exercise to request to cross-examine witnesses that are clearly being protected from such cross-examination at the expense of establishing the real truth”.

He does not state which witnesses he is specifically referring to.