President Cyril Ramaphosa’s assurances that the government was moving forward from the “bad lessons” of state capture into a “positive future” were met with a question about why those in power did not take action against the Gupta family.
On Thursday morning, Ramaphosa began his final day of testimony at the commission, which has been running public hearings since August 2018, six months into his presidency.
Advocate Anton Myburgh, an evidence leader at the state capture inquiry, first asked Ramaphosa about allegations of state capture, corruption and fraud at state-owned rail, port and pipeline company Transnet.
He pressed Ramaphosa for answers on the inaction of those in power when it came to the Guptas’ alleged interference in state-owned entities (SOEs) under former president Jacob Zuma.
Most of the questions Ramaphosa had been asked during the past two days concerned alleged state capture at SOEs while he was Zuma’s right-hand man. Ramaphosa has provided many lacklustre answers, which have largely gone unchallenged by the commission’s chair, Raymond Zondo, and members of the legal team.
Thursday morning included a moment of direct questioning in the context of the Guptas’ reported looting of SOEs to the tune of a forecast R7bn. Shadow World Investigations director Paul Holden cited the figure during his testimony.
Myburgh cornered Ramaphosa on the apparent inaction of leaders in government when evidence mounted against the Guptas, and became more and more widespread in the media.
He said: “For those people that weren’t complicit, how is it possible that this was not identified? This grand-scale looting that it’s clear […] was a programme. It went on for a number of years, and the Guptas literally did not miss an opportunity. This happened in the light of day. It was co-ordinated a literally a few kilometres up the road.”
Ramaphosa agreed while sitting in the witness chair at the Johannesburg Council Chamber in Braamfontein, which is less than 6km from the Guptas’ compound in Saxonwold, from which the family allegedly ran a parallel state.
Here, brothers Ajay, Atul and Rajesh “Tony” Gupta met Zuma and son, Duduzane Zuma. It’s alleged they groomed government ministers, including former public enterprises minister Malusi Gigaba, to do their bidding.
Zondo has heard several witnesses' testimony asserting the Guptas paid alleged kickbacks, and in cash (for example, to Gigaba) and offered bribes (for example, to Mcebisi Jonas, which he testified he shunned) from their home.
“How is it possible that no-one in a position of power identified this and raised the red flag? How is it conceivably possible?” prodded Myburgh.
Ramaphosa replied it was possible in the context of the state capture environment where it was co-ordinated through numerous structures.
“Those who will put everything into action have got protection and they’ve got the connections, the access and make sure that people who are going to implement this are also appointed people. That’s why moving forward we have got to be rigorous in the appointment of people,” he said.
On Wednesday, Ramaphosa defended his conduct, saying 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 said he stood up to Zuma when he fired former finance minister Nhlanhla Nene and his deputy, Jonas.
“I raised my concern that the minister and the deputy minister were being removed based on an unsubstantiated intelligence report,” testified Ramaphosa.
“I told the former president that I disagreed with his reasons and that I would publicly state my objection,” he added.
After Thursday’s questioning on Transnet ended, the legal team’s leader, advocate Paul Pretorius, asked Ramaphosa about state security. The president scrapped the ministry of state security in a cabinet reshuffle last week. Then, he announced the establishment of an additional ministerial post in the presidential office.
He appointed Zizi Kodwa as a deputy minister in the presidency responsible for state security.
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.