He didn’t enter the room with the pomp and ceremony of a crusaded or caped hero of any sort. If anything, as he entered the venue to deliver the first of a trilogy of state capture reports, the body language of acting chief justice Raymond Zondo betrayed a sense of unease.
Perhaps I was overly analytical of his body language. It could be that I projected my own unease whenever I had to deliver the conclusions of a high-stakes investigation during my days as public protector. I did not relish confirming that people, many of whom I had known in the past and had cordial relations with, had conducted themselves exceedingly badly at the public expense.
I must also admit that my other interest in Zondo’s delivery stemmed from the fact that I was the public protector who directed that a judge-headed commission of inquiry into state capture be established.
Despite all efforts to be dispassionate, I found myself being curious to find out in which direction the state capture findings would swing. I was curious to know if the observations of the report of the public protector titled “State of Capture” would be confirmed. I was also curious if the dots connected, and the state capture seeding and modus operandi articulated in section 7(9) of the Public Protector Act, issued to then president Jacob Zuma and others to inform them that they were implicated, as required by the law, would be confirmed in the Zondo state capture report.
Though I had prayed and meditated extensively for a dispassionate disposition to the commission of inquiry results, the human factor occasionally got the better of me. Memories surfaced of the harassment I had endured for daring to go ahead with the state capture investigation. It seemed like yesterday when a campaign that weaponised racial inequality grievances to push back against the state capture investigation by linking it to the interests of so-called “white monopoly capital” suddenly raged like wildfire.
I remembered that though to us as the public protector team this was a classical dead-cat strategy, there was a significant public embracing of the campaign as it tapped into the hanger (hunger and anger) dimension of unhealed divisions of the past and legacy poverty and inequality.
I recalled the insults, threats and insinuations hurled at me when I directed that a commission of inquiry be established to complete the investigation I hadn’t been able to finish. I recalled the Black First Land First (BFLF) group camping outside our offices demanding that the investigation be dropped, or alternatively that all state capture, including during apartheid, be added. You will recall that a formal UK public relations (PR) agency inquiry subsequently found that BFLF and the racially divisive white monopoly capital campaign had been initiated by notorious British PR firm Bell Pottinger to push back against the state capture investigation. The finding further confirmed that the Gupta family and Zuma’s son, Duduzane, who co-owned companies implicated in state capture, had procured the services of Bell Pottinger.
Though trying hard to be agnostic regarding the findings Zondo was about to reveal, part of me wanted to know if the dots that had been connected in my incomplete report, released in November 2016, would hold. There we were, five years later. I was also hoping to hear if the state capture seeding and timeline outlined in the section 7(9) notice to Zuma, at the core of which was the firing of then finance minister Nhlanhla Nene, would hold.
You will recall that the inquiry ordered by the public protector had a narrow focus, but its mandate was broadened by Zuma to cover any state capture and corruption. The original mandate sought to complete the office’s incomplete investigation by establishing if the finance minister had indeed been fired and replaced at the instance of, or due to the influence of, the Guptas and the president’s son. This was the allegation made by Mcebisi Jonas, who was a deputy minister at the time.
The public protector-ordered and court-endorsed investigation specifically sought to establish if the firing and replacement of the finance minister was part of a systematic hijacking of the state or parts of it, and repurposing these to advance the interests of companies co-owned by the Gupta family and the president’s son. The inquiry was also required to establish if this extended to the hiring and firing of other ministers, directors-general and boards of state-owned enterprises in strategic areas. It also had to investigate if law enforcement agencies and processes were equally captured or hijacked to evade accountability. I had also hoped for an account of the human, fiscal, social justice and rule of law costs of state capture.
Zondo refused to divulge the contents of the report. He attributed this to the fact that the president had publicly undertaken to make the full report available to the public within hours. I wondered if that was the reason or part of the reality of a man discharging the truth the best he knew how, without claiming to be a hero.
My expectations regarding the main allegations were not met. But though part one of the state capture report focused on the branches of the state capture tree, leaving the seeds and roots to a later date, it did confirm that state capture took place. It also named most of the key actors named in the incomplete “State of Capture” report. It also seems to suggest that former president Zuma was more than a mere enabler of state capture. If my reading is correct, there is a deeper question of who captured who?
Regarding the contents of the second and third parts of the state capture report, it is once again que sera sera for me. It is up to the reluctant hero Zondo has become to tell the truth he finds the best he knows how.
• Madonsela, a former public protector of SA, is Law Trust chair at Stellenbosch University.
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.