RANJENI MUNUSAMY: Don’t hold your breath over Zuma’s testimony at probe

A week of reckoning lies ahead. SA has waited for years to hear former president Jacob Zuma respond to the mountain of allegations that he colluded to capture the state for the benefit of the Gupta network.

Zuma has also evaded responding to allegations that he tried to ram through government approval for a R1-trillion nuclear deal.

Other than maintaining that he enjoyed the prerogative on cabinet appointments, Zuma has also not explained his decisions to hire and fire ministers and deputy ministers, and how the Guptas came to have prior knowledge of this.

It would be foolhardy to expect answers when Zuma appears before the Zondo commission over the next few days. The former president has said consistently that there is no such thing as state capture and claims that not a shred of evidence has been produced at the inquiry to incriminate him in the repurposing of the state for looting.

To uphold Zuma’s argument, his legal team will have to convince deputy chief justice Raymond Zondo that the evidence against him is false and illogical. They will have to call into question everything we know about state capture.

This is not inconsistent with the era we are living in, when everything and everyone is being redefined.

The legacy of Nelson Mandela is being rescripted because the settlement negotiated through multiparty talks (not him) fell short of securing economic equality for all races. An ignorant bigot can be deemed to be a successful US president because he feeds the prejudice in his country and because of short-term economic gains.

The legacy of Nelson Mandela is being re-scripted because the settlement negotiated through multiparty talks (not him) fell short of securing economic equality for all races

Maria Ramos, a respected business leader, can be subjected to misogynist and racist attacks by the EFF and campaigners for “radical economic transformation” because of a disinformation campaign against her and who she is married to. Public enterprises minister Pravin Gordhan’s qualifications as a pharmacist can be questioned by buffoons looking for any way to discredit him. It is a time when reality is easily distorted to suit a political agenda.

Through one clumsy report and negligible evidence, public protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane has resurrected the notion of a “rogue intelligence unit” operating at Sars. Discredited former Sars commissioner Tom Moyane suddenly has a new lease of life and the EFF has new ammunition to fire at Gordhan.

The EFF can present itself as the defender of the constitution by trying to physically assault a minister at a parliamentary podium.

ANC secretary-general Ace Magashule can claim to be a victim of a “fake news media conspiracy” because the National Prosecuting Authority has not been able to formulate a case against him despite myriads of illegal activities during his term as Free State premier.

The line between wrong and right is indistinct. Comrades lie and betray each other for financial gain. Love is relative. In an era of fake news and troll armies, nothing is as it appears.

So Zuma’s strategy will keep up with the times and make us question the world as we know it.

Was he an awful president who sold his office to his friends and made decisions that were deeply detrimental to the country? Or was Zuma misrepresented by his political opponents, who created the state capture narrative to remove him from power?

Was he corrupt, or merely targeted because he was an advocate for economic transformation?

Were state-owned enterprises such as Eskom run into the ground through the swindling of the Guptas and their henchmen or were they destined for bankruptcy through bad policies and management over time?

Were the Guptas really evil people who bribed politicians and officials to secure lucrative contracts, or just vulgar foreigners trying inelegantly to do business in a competitive environment?

Was Zuma justified in removing people as ministers and deputy ministers because the relationship between them had broken down? Did his actions signal corrupt intent, or would all employers do the same with subordinates who defy and disrespect them?

Were those who testified at the Zondo commission about meetings with the Guptas completely honest or did they augment their versions? And how can they prove Zuma had any knowledge of what the Guptas discussed with them?

How do we know that Zuma had corrupt intent in trying to secure the nuclear deal? Was he not merely trying to secure SA’s future power supply?

We know the answers to these questions now. But by the end of this week, we might doubt what seemed to be irrefutable facts, as well as our sanity.

Heroes and villains could swap places. Social media will be used to hype certain soundbites to influence public perception.

It is Zondo’s responsibility to hear Zuma out, not refute his arguments.

Only in a year will we see Zondo’s final report on state capture, and in that time the public mind could be completely distorted.

This article was first published by the Sunday Times.