President Cyril Ramaphosa’s failure to axe justice minister Thembi Simelane is a stark reminder of how far he has fallen regarding what the constitution requires of him.
Simelane remained in her role as justice minister for months after damning media reports implicated her in the looting of the VBS Mutual Bank via a R575,000 loan from Gundo Wealth Solutions for a coffee shop she purchased in Sandton.
Further revelations this week by Daily Maverick and News24 provided documentary evidence of Simelane’s lavish lifestyle, including a trip to Disneyland and high-end shopping, the costs of which were out of kilter with her salary as Polokwane mayor at the time.
What is worse is that Simelane was unable to adequately explain the loan when she was grilled about it in parliament. Then there are further allegations that she is playing hard ball with the National Prosecuting Authority in allowing it access to crucial records from the state capture commission of inquiry in her now previous role as justice minister. Predictably, Simelane has cried conspiracy.
That she has not had the dignity to step down is telling, but Ramaphosa shirking his responsibility as the head of the executive by keeping her in a plum ministerial job is inexplicable.
Section 83 of the constitution clearly states that the president “is the head of the national executive” and he must “uphold, defend and respect the constitution as the supreme law of the republic”.
As head of state, his is no ordinary role — yet Ramaphosa often exercises it with the deftness of an intoxicated fisherman instead of in the way the constitution requires of him.
The Constitutional Court described the essence of what is expected from the country’s first citizen most eloquently in handing down its judgment on the upgrades to former president Jacob Zuma’s Nkandla home.
Ramaphosa should read it, on repeat, daily.
“He is the first citizen of this country and occupies a position indispensable for the effective governance of our democratic country. Only upon him has the constitutional obligation to uphold, defend and respect the constitution as the supreme law of the Republic been expressly imposed,” said the judgment.
“Almost all the key role players in the realisation of our constitutional vision and the aspirations of all our people are appointed and may ultimately be removed by him.
“He is a constitutional being by design, a national pathfinder, the quintessential commander-in-chief of state affairs and the personification of this nation’s constitutional project.”
The judgment continues: “He is required to promise solemnly and sincerely to always connect with the true dictates of his conscience in the execution of his duties … The president is expected to endure graciously and admirably and fulfil all obligations imposed on him, however unpleasant.”
Does shifting Simelane to another cabinet post represent the true dictates of Ramaphosa’s conscience? If so, SA is in an even deeper ethical morass than we thought.
Some of his allies argue that simply shifting Simelane instead of axing her is about internal ANC politics — she is described as a key Ramaphosa loyalist who formed part of his inner circle from the start, therefore removing her would be difficult and could push her into the arms of his opponents.
Then a weak attempt at whataboutism about deputy president Paul Mashatile appeared in a TimesLIVE report on Thursday. The argument is that it would be unfair to remove Simelane on the strength of media reports, when Ramaphosa’s deputy, Paul Mashatile, is also clouded in damning allegations, which he has not been charged for but has been reported about.
These are the arguments of the ethically impaired and the reason for the ANC’s credibility quagmire, which culminated in its decline in electoral support.
It was not just Zuma’s MK party that eroded ANC support in the May 29 polls, but the ANC’s willingness to sacrifice the constitutional project it began even before 1994 for an individual for nearly two decades and the shattered moral compass he left behind in the party and society.
Ramaphosa’s conduct indicates that he cares little for the legacy he will leave behind, nor about reshaping the toxic culture prevalent in the executive during the Zuma years: that of disregard for the constitution and zero accountability.
SA’s aspirations are not embodied by ANC politics, but by the constitution.
Ramaphosa, who was the chair of the Constitutional Council, should know better.
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.