Parliament has labelled as “inappropriate” comments made by chief justice Raymond Zondo, who criticised its alleged failure to protect South Africans from state capture, saying it could have prevented the loss of R58bn.
Zondo was speaking during a keynote address at a colloquium organised by the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) on Thursday.
In a statement issued hours after Zondo spoke, parliament said: “The criticism made by chief justice Zondo is therefore unfortunate, lacks merit and undermines the principles of separation of powers. As the head of the judiciary, it is essential for the chief justice to foster an environment of mutual respect and co-operation.”
The statement goes on to say that parliament has taken decisive steps to implement recommendations of the State Capture Commission.
“It is not the place of the chief justice to make such public remarks unless and until he is required to adjudicate on a matter with impartiality,” the statement reads, adding that parliament is developing rules and guidelines to enhance its oversight processes.
The chief justice criticised parliament for its failure to protect the people from state capture, saying it could have prevented the loss of R58bn. “I have said before that if another group of people were to do what the Guptas did, parliament would still not be able to stop it” because “I’ve seen nothing that has changed”.
The only solutions, Zondo said, were electoral reform and a constant commission of inquiry into corruption.
Allowing people more power over members meant members could go against party lines and, by virtue of being favoured by a constituency of ordinary people, they could return at a next election, he said.
Since handing over the last parts of the state capture commission report a year ago, Zondo has expressed both dismay and hope at progress in thwarting corruption in SA.
Answering the question whether state capture put SA’s democracy at risk, Zondo said the answer “is an unequivocal yes”.
Most definitions of state capture, Zondo said, were about perpetrators finding ways of “changing the rules” to benefit them. However, the commission found that state capture was more about perpetrators using their “influence and control over government officials, including the head of state ... to ensure existing rules and regulations would be breached for the purpose of advancing [the perpetrators’] business interests.”
Zondo said the commission’s findings noted how the Guptas had been at work in implementing state capture long before Zuma became president in 2009.
The Guptas began their state capture project with Transnet, Zondo said. He noted that in 2010, the Guptas’ newspaper, New Age, said Brian Molefe would be Transnet CEO before it was officially announced. After he did take up the position, Molefe testified before the commission that this had been “a coincidence”.
In 2015, Zondo said the Guptas targeted Eskom. In March of that year, they had already “made sure”, said Zondo, that lots of people sat on the board were friendly to them. Eskom officials were then suspended and eventually fired. Molefe was then moved from Transnet to Eskom, Zondo said.
Having perfected their methodology, the Guptas used this on Denel. Zondo said the commission found that former public enterprises minister Lynne Brown made sure that people were appointed to Denel that had a “relationship” with the Guptas.
The commission’s report concluded “Brown was a witting participant in the Guptas’ schemes to capture Denel and Eskom”.
In his speech, Zondo noted that Brown appointed an attorney, Daniel Mantsha, who was once struck off the roll of attorneys for dishonesty, incompetence and misappropriation of funds. Despite a 2007 judgment indicating this, Zondo noted that Brown announced him as Denel chair in 2015.
Mantsha, however, said a 2011 ruling had reinstated him. Mantsha testified at the commission in 2021 and was questioned about receiving overseas trips from the Guptas soon after his appointment.
He insisted there was nothing wrong with the trips as they were made in his private capacity.
Zondo said all of this had put SA’s democracy at risk but had strong words about the former president. “Where a president no longer makes decisions that serve the interest of the people but makes decisions that serve [his] own interest,” Zondo said, “or his family or his friends — that undermines democracy.”
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.