In a rough day in the hot seat for President Cyril Ramaphosa — who appeared before the state capture inquiry to explain what he did to stop industrial-scale looting of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) — his go-to comeback during the eight-hour session was barely anything, because “he did not know”.
Under oath in front of deputy chief justice Raymond Zondo, Ramaphosa, in accounting for his term as deputy president under Jacob Zuma from 2014 to 2018, said he found out much of how the state was being plundered at the same time that the public did.
“We have come from a dark place. There have been lapses, lapses and errors, but they are being corrected. A line has been drawn,” Ramaphosa said as he started the two-day hearing on Wednesday.
It is a defining moment for Ramaphosa, who ascended to high office on a reform ticket promising proper governance and management of country and a crackdown on corruption.
His testimony during the first day of the two-day hearing, however, paints a picture of an aloof leader who did not bother to intervene as SOEs’ finances were trashed by overpriced contracts and weak management teams.
Ramaphosa went as far as to admit that he suggested to Zuma that former Transnet CEO Brian Molefe be put in charge of Eskom in 2015 as he had no knowledge that Molefe had ties to the Guptas, a politically connected family at the centre of the state capture project.
Molefe has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.
“All of this is quite shocking, I can’t use that word anymore so I would say terrifying, frightening that this [has] happened to such capable professionals in our constitutional democracy,” Ramaphosa said.
He also said there was no line of sight to what was happening in much of the state and in parastatals like Eskom. “SOEs work in silos; even cabinet does not know what is going on. We are trying to change that.”
Ramaphosa, as Zuma’s number two both in government and the ANC, was the leader of government business and the head of the party’s deployment committee.
The state capture inquiry took issue with the ANC’s failure to provide minutes of high-level meetings that “instructed” that certain appointments be made in government. Ramaphosa said he relied on his own notes back then, but the practice of taking minutes was now a requirement. He also said the party merely made “recommendations” about strategic appointments in the government.
In an emotional exchange, Zondo said the poor state of some government-owned companies was depressing. “I can’t understand why the rail agency did not have a permanent CEO for five years. How was Prasa supposed to be successful, when it had no leader?” Zondo asked.
He explained evidence given about irregular expenditure at many SOEs climbing unrestricted for about 10 years, most of which time Ramaphosa was in office. “An ANC which is interested in who gets appointed as board members and CEOs should be an ANC that is interested in knowing how these people are doing,” Zondo said.
He accused the ANC of ignoring desperate pleas from some SOE leaders such as former Prasa chair Popo Molefe and the former Government Communication and Information System director-general Themba Maseko to stop the rot in public institutions in meetings they had with some in the ANC top brass.
Zondo asked specifically why Molefe and his executive, “who did so much to tackle corruption at Prasa”, were “allowed to go” after one term while then SAA board chair Dudu Myeni, who was the subject of multiple serious complaints by her board, had her term extended.
Ramaphosa had no answers, repeatedly saying that he “did not know” or blaming “system failures”.
In defending his own inaction, Ramaphosa said he considered resigning as Zuma’s deputy in the face of state capture but chose not to, saying there would have been “fewer impediments” to stop Zuma’s administration and it would have continued unhindered.
He cited how he stood up to Zuma when he fired former finance minister Nhlanhla Nene and his deputy, Mcebisi Jonas.
“I raised my concern that the minister and the deputy minister were being removed based on an unsubstantiated intelligence report,” Ramaphosa said.
“I told the former president that I disagreed with his reasons and that I would publicly state my objection ... I felt it necessary to speak out, especially because of the serious consequences this decision had,” he added.
But when asked why he did not intervene as strongly at Eskom, Prasa, SAA and Denel, which went from stable and in some cases highly profitable to financial distress, he had very few answers to defend his limited action. In one case, he argued that the “size and complexity” of Eskom’s operations made it difficult to keep track.
Ramaphosa will continue in the hot seat on Thursday.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.