Bonang Mohale, president of Business Unity SA (Busa), admits organised business did not do enough to oppose state capture.
“In hindsight there is more that could have been done,” and in fact business played a “hugely” collusive role in state capture, he says.
“Judge Zondo [in part 4 of his report into state capture] had some choice words to say about that. But remember we marched in our suits to the Union Buildings when Nhlanhla Nene was fired [as finance minister] and we were given Des van Rooyen, the weekend special.
“It was organised business that insisted there must be a commission of inquiry into state capture, and we were part of drafting the terms of reference when the former president [Jacob Zuma] wanted to start in 1652. Organised business said 'no, we want only the tenure of the ANC-led government.'”
Business has been criticised for making much of its role in forcing Zuma to dump Van Rooyen while dodging the real issue, which was that ministers and top state enterprise officials were being forced to obey the Guptas.
“We confronted it head on,” says Mohale. “We gave the example of Siza Mzimela, who was fired as SAA CEO because she refused to give the most profitable route to the Guptas, to say, 'this is how state capture works'.
Only in hindsight did we realise that some of us, like EOH, like Bain & Co, were working with the Guptas
“It was business that highlighted the fact that four senior black executives were fired from Eskom because they refused to sign the Optimum coal contract.”
The latest instalment of the Zondo report reveals how Eskom made a R659m prepayment enabling the Guptas to acquire ownership of Optimum coal mine in Mpumalanga.
“It was business that said state capture works by repurposing state-owned enterprises [SOEs]. We said state capture is about capturing the National Treasury and the South African Revenue Service.”
What of the argument that by forming a partnership with the Zuma government, through the so-called CEO Initiative, to stave off a sovereign downgrade without insisting on Zuma's removal as a condition, business facilitated state capture by prolonging his presidency?
“Our role was to address the political economy, not get involved in party politics,” says Mohale. “We asked for regulatory certainty and policy stability.”
He concedes organised business failed dismally to achieve this.
“We still don't have this today.”
While agreeing that business, which he says has put the cost of state capture over five years at R1.5- trillion, didn't do enough to fight it, he denies that it was ineffective.
“We were the ones that alerted the country to state capture when the sitting president was asking, 'What is state capture?' We raised the issue of Nkandla sharply when the president was laughing about it, so you can't say business was ineffective.”
It's been argued that business harmed the country's credibility with ratings agencies and the international investment community by promising that SA would meet commitments on government spending and SOEs though it knew this would not happen while Zuma was president.
“We had every intention to make him meet those commitments,” says Mohale. “There wasn't a single year we didn't meet with him. We told him government debt must be reduced. We told him the public sector wage bill needed to be reduced.
“We were constantly having critical, crucial and courageous conversations with the then sitting president.”
Was it a mistake to agree to form a partnership with Zuma's government through the CEO Initiative?
“In hindsight we could have done it differently. But it was not a mistake because we achieved a lot of things. One of them was to be the single voice of organised business. Moody's was the very last to effect a downgrade because we kept on saying to them, we can do this. And they believed us.”
I personally called the sitting president a thief to his face when we were at the presidential guest house
Business was criticised for making these promises knowing full well they would not be met as long as Zuma remained president.
“No, we didn't know that,” says Mohale. “We knew that we had the agency to effect policy formulation. That's what business does. We lobby for policies that are business friendly, and we did that to great effect.”
In what sense were government policies business friendly?
“They were not as friendly as we wanted. But we provided an environment in which investors could speak to us. Remember, the first investment conference was organised with business.” He concedes that was only after Zuma's presidency.
“We ensured that the corrupt Eskom board was replaced.”
Another criticism of business is that instead of focusing on Eskom it worried about relatively less important things such as the establishment of an entrepreneur fund while the power utility, and the country's future, were being destroyed in full view.
“That's absolutely correct, but we created five working groups and the South African SME fund was only one of those five. And it invested in entrepreneurship. So we accomplished some things. But in hindsight we could have done more, we could have insisted on certain things.”
Given the terrifyingly high stakes involved, was business brutal enough with the government?
“I personally called the sitting president a thief to his face when we were at the presidential guest house. He laughed the cynical laughter that he normally gave.”
Mohale was CEO of Business Leadership SA from 2017 to 2019, and before that deputy president of the organisation when the late Jabu Mabuza, co-convener of the CEO Initiative with Zuma's then finance minister Pravin Gordhan, was president.
At the time, business leaders were criticised for lending their credibility to an administration they knew was involved in state capture to persuade international markets that things in SA were coming right, when they knew it was a lie.
“We were doing our best in our pursuit of patriotism to be conscious capital. We believed this was what was needed at that time.”
Giving credibility to a regime that was destroying the country?
“Only in hindsight did that become clearer,” says Mohale. “But we have always known that the [Zuma] administration aided and abetted state capture, and that the president was going to do everything for the Guptas.”
He says business tried to curtail the Gupta's control of SA, “but in hindsight we could have done much, much more. Only in hindsight did we realise that some of us, like EOH, like Bain & Co, were working with the Guptas.”
