IMPORTANT NOTICE: Lily Gosam is a pseudonym and Lily Gosam does not tweet or write Facebook posts or publish on social media. Any accounts appearing with the name Lily Gosam are fake accounts and in no way reflect the views, opinions, likes or dislikes of Lily Gosam. These fake social media accounts are an attempt to deceive the user, and perhaps to discredit Lily Gosam. Caution is advised.
SA TITANIC
“Nobody in the ANC appears to know what Zuma’s game plan is regarding the Cabinet reshuffle. Because Zuma does not make his decisions based on logic or in the interests of the country, speculation about what he will do is futile,” Ranjeni Munusamy wrote in the Daily Maverick[1].
It may appear “futile”, but an attempt to figure out Zuma’s next move must be made, for it is a national imperative.
That said, all indications are that Zuma may be planning the demise of our rights and freedoms in an act of treason. And a Cabinet reshuffle is but the tip of the iceberg for what captain Zuma of the SA Titanic is steering us towards.
Thus, South Africans will have to decide in the coming days and weeks (not months): Do we allow Zuma to sink our Constitutional democracy, for which people have sacrificed their lives to attain; or, do we swim hard against his evil tidings.
Either way, brace yourself, as impact is imminent.
Below is an endeavour to navigate Zuma’s intended collision course.
MEETINGS SO STRANGE
On the 10th of October 2016, a bizarre and secretive meeting took place at Luthuli House, the headquarters of the African National Congress (ANC)[2]. Those present consisted of the ethically-challenged: [president] Jacob Zuma; National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) head Shaun Abrahams; justice minister Michael Masutha; state security minister David Mahlobo; and, finally, the minister of social development Bathabile Dlamini[3].
What made the meeting suspect was not just the strange venue, or that it was kept a secret (until the media broke the story nearly two weeks later), but in addition questions remain of why these particular individuals attended, what was their true agenda, and why did they meet on that precise date.
To uncover Zuma’s plot, we have to follow his minions as they head off in three different directions. First, we will track Zuma, NPA head Abrahams and justice minister Masutha; then, state security minister Mahlobo; and lastly, social development minister Dlamini.
They then will all meet up at a devastating point, which cannons into the heart of our Constitutional democracy.
FIRST: SHIP OF FOOLS
For our first voyage, we will track Zuma, Abrahams and Masutha.
(To get better acquainted with Zuma’s pirate crew of Abrahams and Masutha see Note 1.a and 1.b below.)
For months, the Hawks circled around Gordhan, waiting for an opportune time to pounce
In December 2015, Zuma was forced - after four days of relentless pressure by the ANC leadership, other society leaders, and strong market reaction - to appoint Pravin Gordhan as finance minister, in place of the Gupta-warmer and “back-bencher” David Des van Rooyen[4] [5].
Within two months of Gordhan’s appointment, a campaign began in (dis)earnest by Zuma’s lackeys - Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (‘Hawks’) head, Berning Ntlemeza, together with Abrahams - to extricate Gordhan from Treasury (and keep him in check, generally). The harassment of Gordhan started with a list of 27 questions from the Hawks[6] [7] [8] [9].
For months, the Hawks circled around Gordhan, waiting for an opportune time to pounce (which is indicative of the lengths the Hawks are prepared to go to feather the nest of any plans the conjoined Zuma-Gupta axis may choose to hatch)[10] [11] [12].
Finally, on the 10th of October 2016, the bizarre Luthuli House meeting took place between co-conspirators Zuma, Masutha, and Abrahams (and the two others)[13].
Not twenty four hours later, and with much fanfare, Abrahams criminally indicted Gordhan with trumped up fraud and corruption charges relating to an employee’s pension pay-out, based on an investigation by the Hawks[14] [15]. (The City Press reported earlier that Abrahams had prepared to personally manage the case against Gordhan[16] [17].)
After the NPA announced it was charging Gordhan, R50 billion was wiped off the Johannesburg Securities Exchange almost immediately[18]. (This is according to the Helen Suzman Foundation and Freedom Under Law in their founding affidavit at the time in defence of Gordhan’s rights against the NPA’s meritless charges[19].)
When the October 10 meeting came to (public) light nearly two weeks after Gordhan had been charged, it only heightened suspicions that his prosecution was politically motivated.
To stem the fallout over the meeting’s revelation, Masutha insisted that Gordhan’s case had not been discussed. He stated, “That matter had already been communicated well ahead of that day and I had already communicated to the President the decision.”[20] Instead of being reassuring, Masutha’s statement only adds to the concerns over the NPA’s independence[21] [22].
Despite calls for Abrahams to be suspended for his actions in charging Gordhan, Zuma announced on the 3rd of March 2017 that he would not suspend Abrahams
(Cathleen Powell, senior lecturer in public law at the University of Cape Town, had concluded that the NPA’s actions regarding Gordhan’s case displayed a “reckless disregard of the…law” [the Conversation][23].)
Furthermore, a senior government official in the security cluster said to the Sunday Times that, “it is unlikely he [Abrahams] wouldn't discuss such a big charge if he was in the same room with the president."[24]
It also remains unclear why the meeting was held at Luthuli House. Masutha stated that he had “invited” Abrahams to the ANC’s headquarters. In response, the senior government official said that, "It is highly undesirable that he [Abrahams] went to a political party's offices. It then explains the mess around the charges [against Gordhan].”[25]
Only adding to the controversy, the Sunday Times drew attention to the fact that Zuma remains a potential accused in his corruption case since the High Court ruled that Abrahams and the NPA should reinstate corruption charges against Zuma[26].
(The Supreme Court of Appeal is yet to hear Zuma’s argument against the High Court ruling[27] [28].
Thus all told, the meeting’s timing, its venue and secretiveness, the characters involved, and the potential subject matter, are all suspect, with potential prejudice against fairness, law and justice.
Despite their denials, the 10th October 2016 meeting, in all likelihood, involved – amongst other things - a discussion on charging Gordhan, charges which were “legally flawed and factually unfounded”, according to retired Constitutional Court justice, Judge Johann Kriegler of Freedom Under Law [PoliticsWeb][29].
(Less than three weeks after charging Gordhan, Abrahams - having come under fierce resistance by legal experts, civil organisations, and the public - dropped the charges, much to the fury of Ntlemeza[30].)
Despite calls for Abrahams to be suspended for his actions in charging Gordhan, Zuma announced on the 3rd of March 2017 that he would not suspend Abrahams[31].
Zuma is thus protecting Abrahams with an executive decision, as well as frustrating HSF and FUL from applying to the Courts to have Abrahams’ suspended and establish an inquiry into his fitness to hold office[32]. In essence, Zuma has Abrahams by the short and curlies.
As such, if the Court orders the 783 counts of fraud and corruption against Zuma to be reinstituted and Abrahams moves in that direction, Zuma will set the HSF and FUL on him faster than he can say ‘Brazilian wax’.)
The meeting attendees denied the meeting had anything to do with Gordhan. So what reason did they provide to explain its purpose?
Masutha said that he had “invited” Abrahams to discuss the unrest at universities.
(Countrywide violent student protests had sprouted out of the #FeesMustFall movement, which had been established in October 2015 against tuition fee increases at higher learning institutions[33]. See End Note 2 on the students’ struggles.)
The Citizen reported in October 2016 that a “state of anarchy” was on the cards for South Africa if the volatile student protests at centres of higher learning continued[34].
As with any deceit, there is always an element of truth. The subject matter of the meeting most likely included a discussion of the student violence, but the question is whether it was to de-escalate the situation, or perhaps to escalate it?
To find where exactly the X marks the spot of truth, we have to consider Zuma’s next pirate member, namely state security minister Mahlobo.
[To see why Mahlobo and the State Security Agency, or SSA, is an albatross around SA’s neck, read End Note 1.c below.]
SECOND: AN ILL WIND BLOWS FINGERLESS PRINTS
To explain the violence at universities, a number of “third force” nominees have auditioned for the part.
But there is one bad actor in particular in this drama - who is conspicuous by their camouflaged absence – and that is the State Security Agency (SSA), overseen by Zuma’s mini-me, state security minister Mahlobo, who was present at the October 10 meeting.
UNWELCOME ADVANCES
In November 2015, Jane Duncan, a journalism professor at the University of Johannesburg (UJ) stated in The Conversation that, “In the wake of the student protest at Parliament in Cape Town [on 21st October 2015], the government activated the National Joint Operating Centre, the government body that co-ordinates joint work of the police, intelligence agencies and the military.” [35] [36]
This can lead to function creep, where more and more cases of criminality are recast as much more serious threats to national security, which risks escalating rather than reducing conflict
— Jane Duncan
Duncan added that, “This decision opens the door to the army being deployed against the students in the future to assist the public order police. Government spies have also stated their intention to ‘increase ground coverage’. This makes it more than likely that spies are present on campuses and are infiltrating student organisations,” Duncan warned[37].
Duncan stated in the Daily Maverick that a case had not been made for why instead of the Crime Intelligence Division of the South African Police Service (SAPS) doing the investigations into the violent student protests, the SSA under Mahlobo took charge[38].
Duncan warned that, “this can lead to function creep, where more and more cases of criminality are recast as much more serious threats to national security, which risks escalating rather than reducing conflict.”[39]
Ra’eesa Pather of the Mail and Guardian (M&G) pointed out in November 2016 that non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and interest groups have voiced their increasing concern around the use of state security in dealing with the student protests, as it created a climate of fear and intimidation[40], and as Duncan asserted, it prevented more moderate protest action[41].
“[It] is a democratic imperative to resist the SSA’s involvement in the protests,” wrote Duncan[42] [43].
In justifying SSA’s involvement in dealing with the student protests, Mahlobo remarked that although he was sympathetic to the students’ demands, state security was necessary, making reference to possible motives of “regime change” and that “we can’t be naïve”[44].
During a seminar held by the Institute for Security Studies (ISS), Mahlobo - as one of the panellists – made the startling claim that the SSA had evidence of students receiving military training. Duncan said that if this proved true it was a compelling argument presented by the SSA for their involvement. However, Duncan tempered her responses to Mahlobo’s claim, noting that “he made this assertion along with other bizarre assertions”[45].
Here are some of his “bizarre assertions”, which reveal that students are not the SSA’s only persons of interest.
With threatening overtones, Mahlobo stated that the state agency had compiled a list of names of academics he said were teaching Afro-pessimism. (“Afro-pessimism typically stems from the old racist canard that Africans are unable to govern themselves. If any proof of this pernicious fallacy were still needed, the positive developments in African governance over the past two decades would provide it.” – Hazel McFerson, African Studies Review.)[46] [47]
The DailyVox reported that academics took to social media upon learning this revelation, stating their concerns of being profiled by security agencies, such that it would shut down robust debate about decolonisation, and it infringed on academic freedom enshrined in the Constitution[48]. Duncan noted that, “It is also highly unlikely that academic speech would incite imminent violence (the constitutional test for limiting inciteful speech)”[49].
These are very problematic statements, which suggest that the State Security Agency under the watch of the state security minister are making very threatening moves on freedom of association
— Murray Hunter
Joel Modiri, who teaches jurisprudence at the University of Pretoria, wrote in the Daily Maverick that “the Fallist [FeesMustFall movement supporters’] call for decolonisation – however inchoate it may appear – promises to cultivate a truly rigorous and lively academic space and open up a much wider intellectual archive”[50].
However, a constructive and enlightening debate cannot be freely held while Mahlobo and SSA cast their sinister shadow over campuses and classrooms.
Mahlobo’s other strange and cryptic accusation was that unnamed NGOs were funding the protests and acting on behalf of foreign forces bent on regime change.
This was not the first time Mahlobo cast aspersions on NGOs. Months earlier, in April 2016, he condemned unidentified NGOs of working “to destabilize the state” [51]. He said that, “there are those who are used as NGOs, but they are not. They are just security agents that are being used for covert operations.”[52]
Murray Hunter of Right2Know responded on Radio 702, “These are very problematic statements, which suggest that the State Security Agency under the watch of the state security minister are making very threatening moves on freedom of association, freedom of expression [and the] right to protest… It feels more like a disinformation campaign than a state institution that is doing its job.”[53]
As with the case of the academics, Mahlobo asserted that a list of the apparent offenders had been compiled, and he threatened to have the (as yet unidentified) NGOs deregistered.
(NGOs register voluntarily with government to enhance their credibility and make fundraising easier[54]. Marianne Merten highlighted in the Daily Maverick that SA NGOs - such as the Right2Know Campaign - list their annual reports and financials on their website, and provide their funders alongside details of various campaigns[55].)
Coincidentally (or not?), one month prior to Mahlobo’s April 2016 accusations against nameless NGOs, the Helen Suzman Foundation (HSF) had “deep suspicions” about a robbery that took place at their offices[56] [57] [58]. HSF director Francis Antonie described the attack on their offices as well-planned and executed in a military style [Daily Maverick][59].
Around the time of the break-in, the HSF – along with Freedom Under Law, FUL - was applying to the courts to have Anwa Dramat reinstated as the Hawks boss, together with the reversal of Zuma’s appointment of Berning “lacks integrity and honour” Ntlemeza[60] [61] [62] [63], a Zuma-cadre of the highest order. In 2014, veteran journalist Jacques Pauw exposed in the City Press a rogue Special Operations Unit within the SSA that had carried out campaigns to discredit Anwa Dramat, amongst others[64] [65] [66] [67] [68].
A “suspicious” robbery also took place at the home of a High Court judge who was presiding over a SARS’ case against Julius Malema, leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters, and staunch Zuma critic[69]. As well as, the office of university professor Patrick Bond was ransacked, while being named in a bogus document designed to discredit National Union of Metalworkers of SA, which the union accused the SSA of orchestrating against them. The phony document said the accused were working with foreign agencies or on the payroll of foreign donors[70] [71].
BACK IN THE DAY
Adding to the “democratic imperative” of SSA extraction from student protests is the following, which must be admitted is circumstantial, but worth pondering nevertheless.
In March 2015 - shortly after controversy erupted over SSA’s unlawful signal jamming in parliament[72] - Mahlobo announced that the security agency was investigating allegations made in an anonymous blog that EFF leader Malema, the then Public Protector Thuli Madonsela, Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union (Amcu) leader Joseph Mathunjwa (against whom the SSA allegedly helped establish a bogus union[73]), and former Democratic Alliance (DA) parliamentary head Lindiwe Mazibuko were spies for the United States’ Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)[74]. All of them were a thorn in Zuma’s side at the time.
(Despite using the excuse of a tip-off from a “blog” to investigate potential CIA operatives, deputy defence minister and ANC’s military veterans association leader, Kebby Maphatsoe – who secured a stake in the Gupta’s uranium mine for MKMVA[75] - accused Madonsela of being a CIA agent six months earlier, during her investigations into Zuma’s homestead Nkandla[76].)
On the 19th of October 2015, seven months after Mahlobo’s pronouncement, he stated in Parliament that their investigations into the spy allegations against Malema, Madonsela, Mathunjwa, and Mazibuko were “at an advanced stage”[77].
(Nearly a year and a half has passed since then, and yet their findings against the 4 M’s remain a mystery, denying the four ‘accused’ of having their names publically cleared of the fanciful charge.)
On the 23rd of October 2015, four days after Mahlobo’s pronoucement, deputy finance minister Mcebisi Jonas was unknowingly driven to Saxonwald by Zuma’s son Duduzane. They were not there to visit the Saxonwald Shabeen, but rather, Jonas found himself at the Gupta’s family residence, which he had never been to before[78].
Jonas was introduced to Ajay Gupta, who then apparently informed Jonas that they were going to make him the minister of finance[79]. (Jonas reported that he was left shocked and irritated by the statement[80].) The post came with the condition, though, that he must remove the director general of the Treasury and other key members of the executive management[81].
Jonas rejected the offer and was heading to the door when Gupta allegedly offered him R600 million, to be deposited into an account of his choice, together with an immediate cash-and-carry offer of R600 000. Again Jonas rejected the offer[82] [83] [84] [85] [86].
(In February 2017 Gupta denied under oath that he had offered Jonas the finance minister job and millions of rands two months before finance minister Nhlanhla Nene was fired. However, he did not deny the meeting took place at the Gupta’s family compound or that there was an attempt to bribe Jonas [M&G][87]. Gupta stated that if there was any truth to Jonas’ claims he would have reported the Gupta family to the Hawks, the special investigative unit, who happen to show an uncanny ability to avoid investigating anything Gupta-related [M&G][88] [89] [90] [91].)
As significant as that event was, something else happened on the 23rd of October 2015.
There is no denying that this plan is insane, but the dots are the dots, no matter how dotty they appear
On the exact same day Jonas was told he was going to be the next finance minister, about 15 000 students - by police estimates - gathered at the Union Buildings in Pretoria to hear the outcome of a meeting between Zuma, university management and student leaders, over tuition fees[92].
Was this coincidental?
Or was the installation of a Zupta-inspired finance minister meant to have taken place under the cover of violent mayhem, while the 4 M’s of Malema, Madonsela, Mathunjwa, and Mazibuko were to have been charged for being behind an attempt at regime change?
(There is no denying that this plan is insane, but the dots are the dots, no matter how dotty they appear.)
However, getting back to reality, chaos did not erupt during the October 2015 Union Building march, and Jonas refused the bastardised minister position. Then a little over a month later, on the 9th of December 2015, the Zuptas appointed David Des “weekend special’ van Rooyen. It, however, was done without any distractions occurring in the country, and this did not pan out too well for the Zuptas. In fact, it plunged them into hot water, for which they have never fully recovered.
(On the 9th of December 2015, with Nene refusing to approve the 9 600MW nuclear procurement programme, as well as ordering Dudu Myeni – chairperson of the South African Airways and the Jacob Zuma foundation – to ratify a swap transaction with Airbus before the 21st of December 2015 or face financial misconduct charges, the Zuptas - who apparently wanted SAA to lease the aircraft through a little known company - were forced to pull the trigger and fire Nene in plain sight[93] [94].)
[To read what really happened on the 23rd of October 2015 at the Union Buildings, see End Note 4 at the end of this article.]
FULL-ON ROGUE
With the SSA so far removed from looking after the country’s “national interest”, and having gone full-on rogue [see End Note 1.c for more details and Zuma, spies, smugglers, and the killing fields of marikana[95]], it is not much of a stretch to consider that they are capable of “hijacking” the already volatile student protests for their boss’ hidden agenda, based on his very own manifesto.
“It is clear that the state security agencies have, themselves, become a threat to national security,” declared higher learning minister Blade Nzimande (in reference to the abuse of state security agencies for taking sides in the internal divisions of the ANC and government)[96].
The general secretary of the union Solidarity, Gideon Du Plessis, warned that those who, with their hidden political agendas, are inciting students to protest and commit acts of violence, must be identified and isolated, thereby preventing the devastating ripple effect it will have [BizNews][97].
Du Plessis’ cautionary words apply most especially to Zuma’s spooks, the SSA. For, instead of investigating any potential plot to destabilise the nation – including the Zupta’s efforts – the SSA appear to be the very ones helping to instigate it.
Du Plessis’ warnings also apply to Zuma’s Stormtroopers, the ANC Youth League (ANCYL)[98] [99].
The ANCYL is no stranger to making areas of SA ungovernable, especially the Western Cape.
During an ANCYL gathering on the 21st of December 2016 - in which the media, although invited, were not made to feel welcome – the subject of economic liberation was addressed by the ANCYL president and Darth Vader side-kick, Collen Maine. Maine declared, with Zuma present, that,"[T]he youth might be forced to do what it did not want to do, and we will start in Cape Town, the wine farms."[100] [See End Note 3 for more details.]
(It is possible that acts of ungovernability deployed in the Western Cape will mysteriously migrate to Tshwane and the City of Johannesburg, where the DA governs after the 2016 local elections, due to support from the EFF.)
But concerns of ungovernability is also applicable to the EFF and the little known Workers and Socialist Party (Wasp) – both of whom are itching to start a full-blown society revolution in SA (to over throw the capitalist system, specifically white or non-discriminatory, respectively) [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106].
By destabilising the universities with a confrontational, combative stance where consultation, compromise, and peaceful protests are disallowed, the EFF, Wasp, and angry students[107] are playing right into the dirty hands of Zuma, his pyromaniac spooks and stormtroopers.
If the destructive actions of the EFF, WASP, angry students, rogue SSA, and ANCYL stormtroopers are indistinguishable, then one has to ask who is truly the enemy of the people?
In essence, the EFF, WASP and angry students are being used by Zuma as his patsies. This is because, in pursuing their own destructive agendas, they are threating the existence of the greatest vehicle for social transformation, namely public universities, which help produce “clever blacks” - to use Zuma’s term[108] - and is the source of scarce expert knowledge. In addition, Zuma’s patsies are unknowingly helping to place pressure on Zuma’s enemies of Gordhan and Nzimande, and providing Zuma with the perfect pretext of mayhem to further his goal of becoming supreme leader of SA. “Ultimately, violent protest action hurts those who have fallen for the hidden agendas most,” Du Plessis said[109].
In October 2016 Malema said that although the closure of universities and the loss of an academic year would be "unfortunate", "there is a price to be paid in any revolution. There has to be a fight. It's a justifiable fight"[110]. Seven months previously, in March 2016, Malema graduated from the University of South Africa with a Bachelor of Arts degree and a major in political science[111]. It thus appears the end justifies the means, as long as there is no ‘me’ in ‘means’.
If the destructive actions of the EFF, WASP, angry students, rogue SSA, and ANCYL stormtroopers are indistinguishable, then one has to ask who is truly the enemy of the people?
The EFF, Wasp and the SSA were all present – in one form or the other - during the 2012 Marikana miner massacre[112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117].
Political analyst Andre Duvenhage told The Citizen newspaper in October 2016, “What is clear is that universities are a soft target that can be destabilised easily. But the country at large is unstable.”[118]
And so, we return to the original question, was the October 10 meeting about de-escalating or escalating the student protests?
Let’s now move on to the last part of our journey, which focuses on Zuma’s final pirate crew member, namely the social development minister Dlamini.
LAST: THAT SINKING FEELING
SPINELESS
Zuma appointed Bathabile Dlamini as the minister of social development in 2010.
Her department has a budget of over R150 billion, of which 94% goes to social welfare grants, which forms the largest single item of government spending, accounting for about ten percent of the national budget and over three percent of SA’s economy[119] [120] [121].
The social grant programme supports over 17 million people in need every month[122] [123] [124].
But, in spite of the great human weight borne by the social development department, Dlamini makes light work of the ministry (as you will discover below).
Instead, Dlamini makes it her sole mission to defend Zuma in her capacity as president of the ANC’s Women’s League (ANCWL), a position she secured in 2015 with the help of the “premier league” (which forms part of the Zuma faction, and consists of the premiers of the North West, Mpumalanga and the Free State. Although, cracks in the powerful ANC faction have been reported recently.)[125] [126].
Her efforts have done nothing to remedy her reputation. The Citizen reported that Dlamini has been accused of being a drunkard, earning herself the name “Badkwile”[127]. But that is not her only nickname.
Craig Mckune of amaBhungane wrote that Dlamini is widely ridiculed as being the “minister of smallanyana skeletons” after she warned her ANC comrades not to speak publicly about corruption because “all of us in the [ANC NEC] have our small skeletons and we don’t want to take all skeletons out because hell will break loose.”[128]
With that, we must see what bone we have to pick with Dlamini, the last of the October 10 attendees.
But before we do so, let’s first get to grips with the vital service the social development provides to South Africa’s developmental State of being.
GIFT OF THE GIVERS
Spread the Love
As part of the social development department, the South African Social Security Agency (Sassa) distributes R11.6 billion’s worth of social grants each month to 17.2 million people in need, including 12 million children, with the remainder going to pensioners, war veterans, and those with disabilities[129] [130] [131].
But the welfare grants are so much more than that. For not only do the grants – as basic as they are - prevent the recipients from starving, the meagre income helps alleviate suffering for the whole household.
The bottom-line is that the expected R150 billion to be spent on social grants in 2017/18 is the human-right thing to do
Research by the South African Labour and Development Research Unit (SALDRU) and the School of Economics at the University of Cape Town (UCT) found that the size of the grant for ‘older persons’ is “sufficient to lift many households out of the poorest quintile”. Moreover, a “quarter of the unemployed derives income support exclusively from the grant income of other members of their household” [AfricaCheck][132].
Jannie Rossouw, head of UCT’s school of economics and business science, wrote in The Conversation, “The social grant net is the government’s biggest poverty alleviation and redistribution intervention. There are others, such as government housing provision and free water allocation. But payments in grants outstrip these by a large margin.”[133]
Thus, the grants enable millions of households to buy bread, pay for schooling and transport, and generally stay alive despite high levels of unemployment and working poverty in the country [Business Day][134].
And contrary to what some believe, the SALDRU and the Centre for Social Development of Africa (CSDA) found that there was little empirical evidence to support claims that people stopped looking for jobs when they received a grant; rather the findings supported research that grant recipients did not wish to be ‘dependent’ on cash transfers and continued to place a high value on paid employment, and that they were “extremely motivated to get work and want to exit the welfare system as soon as they can.” [Africa Check][135]
The bottom-line is that the expected R150 billion to be spent on social grants in 2017/18 is the human-right thing to do[136] [137] [138].
And although the Zuma-led government likes to take all the credit, a debt of gratitude is owed to the 2.3 million personal income taxpayers who contribute about 33% of government’s total revenue, permitting the distribution of social grants. (The remaining 66% of government income comes from company tax, vat, and other taxes.)
Thus, there is approximately one personal income taxpayer for every seven grant recipients[139] [140] [141].
Do me a favour
Besides social grants being a human-right imperative, there are political rewards, which the majority party of the ANC reaps for itself.
The Centre for Social Change (CSC) at the University of Johannesburg (UJ) conducted a 2016 exit-poll which found that “Social grant recipients were more likely than non-recipients to vote for the ANC, by 14 percentage points, and less likely to vote for the EFF (by 9 percentage points) and the DA (by 6 percentage points).”[142]
Therefore, government’s distribution of social grants results in a difference of at least 20% in ANC’s favour.
“The ruling party takes for granted the fact that South African citizens think that IT and not the state is responsible for dishing out vital grants that mean the difference between life and death,” Marianne Thamm observed in the Daily Maverick[143].
Yet, despite all of this, Zuma is placing the programme in huge peril, and with it South Africa’s very stability, and his party’s future existence.
BEST DEFENCE IS AN OFFENCE
As stated above, Mathusa insisted the October 10 meeting was just about the university unrest.
However, as the Sunday Times noted, if the meeting was indeed about the student protests, then the absence of police representatives and the higher education minister, Blade Nzimande, made the meeting even more bizarre than it already was[144].
And compounding the strangeness was the presence of social development minister Dlamini.
Zuma and his gang justified Dlamini’s attendance by saying that she was there to discuss the student protests not in her designated post as social development minister, but rather as acting defence minister and thus by extension the chairperson of the justice and crime prevention cluster[145] [146].
But their explanation does not stand the test of time; ten days to be precise.
On the 20th of October 2016, ten days after the meeting, Zuma added Dlamini as the social development minister to a ministerial task team on higher education, which had been established days earlier to normalise the situation at higher education institutions across SA[147].
In this instance, they could not justify Dlamini’s presence by saying that she was there as the acting defence minister, because the real defence minister, Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula was already a member[148]. Thus, the inclusion of both Dlamini and Mapisa-Nqakula on the task team on higher learning institutions brings into question their original justification for Dlamini’s presence at the October 10 meeting.
In other words, the question remains of what was Dlamini doing at the October 10 meeting if she was not really there as the acting defence minister. And if she attended the meeting as the social development minister, why did they feel the need to cover up the fact?
NIGHTMARE ON ALMS STREET
amaBhungane investigative journalist Craig McKune wrote that there are two inter-playing conversations over social grants. The one is who will pay the grants in the medium to long term. The second, and more urgent question, is who will pay the grants days following March 31, after the contract with Cash Payment Services (CPS) expires[149].
— in 2016, Sassa incurred R1.1 billion in irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure, R316 million of which the watchdog body - Corruption Watch - contends was an illegal payment to CPS and has thus taken the social agency to court
But before we get into that, here is a little background on CPS.
In 2012, welfare grants were distributed on behalf of government by CPS, a subsidiary of the US-based and JSE-listed company, Net1 UEPS Technologies[150] [151].
However, two years later the Constitutional Court declared the then R10 billion five-year contract with CPS was “unlawfully obtained”, as Sassa had been “unhelpful and almost obstructionist” in its defence of CPS to the detriment of a losing bidder[152] [153] [154].
Consequently, the Concourt ordered Sassa to initiate a new tender process, but in the meanwhile CPS was allowed to continue with its contract to ensure grant payments were not interrupted [Fin24][155]. Since then Sassa has gone to extraordinary lengths to ensure that there were no other bidders for the distribution of the grants, and thus the contract between Sassa and CPS continued uninterrupted[156] [157].
Since the Concourt’s ruling, alleged dirt on the contract, CPS’s questionable business practices, and misspending by Sassa has blown wide open into the media, soiling both the reputations of Sassa and CPS[158] [159] [160] [161] [162].
For example, in 2016, Sassa incurred R1.1 billion in irregular, fruitless and wasteful expenditure, R316 million of which the watchdog body - Corruption Watch - contends was an illegal payment to CPS and has thus taken the social agency to court[163] [164].
CPS director denied any wrong doing, saying to amaBhungane that CPS and the parent company had been “cleared on all counts” in investigations by United States and SA authorities[i] [ii]. However, amaBhungane stated that his response was not accurate, since the US department of justice stated their investigation remains open, and the Securities and Exchange Commission’s investigation, although closed, stated that this “must in no way be construed that the party has been exonerated” [iii]. A Hawks investigation found no evidence of wrongdoing [iv]
We will now start with the grand reveal of Zuma’s medium to long term goal for social grants.
Slimy plan
By mashing all the segments of Zuma’s plan together (thanks to responses by his lackey’s in the media and in Parliament), his slimy social grant plan coagulates into the following.
Sassa will extend the contract with CPS, but that is only their “contingency plan”[166]. In October or November 2017, six service providers owned by Zuma-aligned benefactors will be awarded tenders to distribute the grants as they see fit, giving Zuma enormous political capital over millions of vulnerable households and access to billions of rands[167] [168].
How do we know this?
The former director-general of the department of social development, Zane Dangor, stated in December 2016, that Sassa would not be ready to distribute grants on 1st April 2017 and so a payment partner would still be needed, and yet he gave no indication who that partner might be[169]. He did say, though, at the time, “We have come up with some really good models, but those models will only be able to kick in from October and November next year.”[170] [171] Again, he gave no further details[172].
(Dangor, who was appointed in November 2016, resigned on the 4th of March 2017, stating his reasons as, “It’s a breakdown in the relationship between the myself and minister following disagreements on the management of the processes on paying the grants on 1 April, particularly disagreements on Sassa’s obligation in relation to the Constitutional Court.”[173] [174].
Thamm wrote in the Daily Maverick that it had become increasingly clear that Dangor, and Sassa CEO Thokozani Magwaza, were side-lined and kept out of what appears to be a closed loop with regard to the agency's readiness to act as paymaster for social grants as well as backroom negotiations that have been taking place with CPS[175].)
— Dlamini made a very confusing comment in Parliament. She said, “We don't want to be pushed about who is going to pay the money, because it looks like there are other interests beside the interest of the human rights of the grant recipient to get a grant.”
Sassa’s project leader Zodwa Mvulani (considered Dlamini’s “point woman” at Sassa[176]) informed the parliamentary committee on the 30th of November 2016 that the function currently delivered solely by CPS, would be split into six multiple service providers[177]. Thamm stated that this announcement generated howls of protests by the committee members, who said that Sassa - already buckling from over R1 billion in misspending - would now open itself up to even more potential corruption[178].
The identities of the intended service providers remain a mystery (perhaps the deserts of Dubai unaccountably wafted through your mind). For a clue, Dlamini made a very confusing comment in Parliament. She said, “We don't want to be pushed about who is going to pay the money, because it looks like there are other interests beside the interest of the human rights of the grant recipient to get a grant.”[179] (To which the Daily Maverick editor wrote, “Huh?” [180])
But ask yourself: Did the minister of social development – who represents the most vulnerable of our society - just state in the people’s Parliament that if she revealed who was being considered to distribute the grant money, it would create the impression that government was failing to place the human rights of the grant recipients ahead of all other interests? If that is the case, then the reputation of the chosen service providers precedes them.
Thus, it appears Zuma’s devious manoeuvrings thanks to his minion, Dlamini, has all been about the state capture of the R150 billion’s worth of social grants, and control of the fate of a third of South Africa’s most vulnerable citizens.
Therefore, while Sassa is tasked with ensuring grants are paid each month to the recipient at the lowest cost, in the most convenient, reliable, and efficient manner possible – in fulfilment of their duty as custodians of spreading goodwill and dignity to man, woman, and child - the agency instead will be left holding nothing but a corrupt can of worms, to distribute to those in need.
But that is not where this horror story ends. It is just the beginning.
The State capture of grants is Zuma’s medium to long term aspiration. However, the second and more immediate question of what will transpire on the 1st of April 2017 has a Zuma plot all of his own making.
Desperate measures
As April 1 draws ever nearer, the department of social services has declared war with itself. Or perhaps more apt, the department is at war with a rogue unit within its midst.
Dlamini instructed nobody to attend, threatening insubordination. Crazy. The minister has gone completely rogue
— Department official
amaBhungane reported that Dlamini faced a revolt from social grant officials over her alleged meddling in their efforts to present a social grants payment plan on the 1st of February 2017 to Parliament’s portfolio committee on social development[181] [182].
A number of alarmed officials approached amaBhungane of how Dlamini tried to force in a last-minute plan to boost the role of private contractors – particularly CPS – in the social payment scheme[183]. The officials said that Dlamini’s plan contradicted the approach that Sassa, Treasury, the department of social development, and the SA reserve bank had fleshed out[184].
Dlamini’s favoured plan would extend CPS’s role to at least 2019[185]. However, worried officials told amaBhungane that Dlamini appeared to want to extend CPS’s contract but then later replace it at some unclear point in the future with a new outsourced proprietary solution, which would increase the risk of tender corruption[186]. This sounds much like the six Zuma-friendly service provider solution mentioned earlier.
When officials refused to table Dlamini’s plan, she tried to prevent them from making a presentation to Parliament at all[187]. “Dlamini instructed nobody to attend, threatening insubordination. Crazy,” said an official, who noted, “The minister has gone completely rogue”[188].
One official said, “Staff decided to defy the order for her own good.”[189] Thus, officials redrafted the presentation last minute, which resulted in an awkward compromise[190]. Dlamini did not show up for the February 1 parliamentary committee meeting (or previous meetings scheduled for the January 25 or 16th November 2016[191] [192]. Dlamini also did not show up to a Scopa meeting on the 28th of February 2017). Dlamini’s “point woman” Mvulani (who allegedly takes instruction from Dlamini and not the Sassa CEO Magwaza)[193] arrived 40 minutes late and out of breath. amaBhungane described how Mvulani slumped into a seat at the door, where she remained for the remainder of the meeting[194] (perhaps having failed to prevent the presentation from taking place).
amaBhungane wrote that for weeks their contacts have consistently described deep divisions between officials and Dlamini on how to proceed come April 1[195]. amaBhungane also revealed that Dlamini had recently inserted Zuma’s lawyer Michael Hulley into the CPS’s contract deliberations[196]. Hulley is not Sassa’s attorney on record[197].
In 2012, Hulley had been the “overall strategic advisor” on the original and later invalidated tender that led to CPS’s appointment[198] [199] [200].
Hulley shares multiple financial interests with the Zuma family (and appears to be equivalent to Zuma’s Rasputin)[201] [202].
Sassa CEO, Thokozani Magwaza, warned that should social grant payments be interrupted, “The country is going to burn.”[203] Magwasa told the committee to some audible gasps in the room, “If you ask me to choose between irregular [processes] and the country going up in flames, I choose irregular.” [Daily Maverick][204]
It appears Magwaza had challenged Dlamini’s plan, and again defied her by going ahead with Sassa’s own presentation to Parliament on February 1[205]. Although Magwaza denied that this had occurred, an official told amaBhungane that, “It is possible that taking over this morning [in Parliament] was Magwaza stamping on his authority, which has been undermined since he took over.”[206] Magwaza was appointed CEO in June 2016, but Dlamini only installed him in November 2016, thus for five critical months she left Sassa without a leader [amaBhungane][207].
MANUFACTURED EMERGENCY
Warning bells have been ringing incessantly over the looming social grant distribution crisis.
We believe Sassa wilfully manufactured an emergency that would leave them with no choice but to extend the current invalid contract with CPS
— Bridget Masango
“Any disruption of grant payments will… have a massively detrimental on a large number of poor households,” warned UCT school of economics and business science, Jannie Rossouw. “These households will be destitute if they do not receive grant payments in a timely fashion. They will not be able to buy food as households receiving grants typically don’t have savings. To survive they have to spend whatever they receive,” Rossouw wrote[208].
“There cannot be any further delay in holding Sassa to account for what could potentially become democratic South Africa’s biggest national crisis,” wrote Black Sash Advocacy Manager Elroy Paulus in Ground Up[209].
It would appear that social grants are firmly placed in Zuma’s ‘Do Nothing’ pile, which is a deliberate strategy to obfuscate, frustrate, weaken, and to buy time. (He has two other piles: “Fast Track” and “Irrelevant” – see Zuma's secret blueprint for total power for more details.)
But how does Zuma hope to gain by placing the distribution of social grants at such risk?
On the 15th of February 2017, DA MP Bridget Masango said, “We believe Sassa wilfully manufactured an emergency that would leave them with no choice but to extend the current invalid contract with CPS.” [ENCA][210] [211]
This appears to be the most obvious and most logical explanation to explain Zuma’s motives.
But it may be devastatingly wrong.
Where Masango and others are making a grave error is that they are not thinking the unthinkable. They are failing to think like a megalomaniac, where there is no sense of humanity. They are failing to think like Zuma.
Zuma’s plan is not to ensure that there is only one service provider. He is trying to make sure that there are none (for a certain period at least).
It is unthinkable to believe that someone could be evil enough to risk the very survival of 17 million South Africans, and jeopardise the stability of the country for their own ends. But Zuma appears to be doing exactly that.
If Zuma has his way, come the 1st of April 2017, there will be no service provider from which the 17 million of SA’s most vulnerable citizens can draw their “vital lifeline”[212].
On the 30th of November 2016, Dlamini said the following in Parliament “We have agreed that we should… look into government regulations, what government regulations say about a pressing emergency and issues that affect directly communities and issues that have to do with finances and human beings. So there we have to develop our contingency plans. And we don’t want to reveal our contingency plans as it might risk the department and the work we are doing.”[213]
To which DA MP Lindy Wilson responded, “To say [what] we ask is putting the department at risk is absurd, unless the plans are secret.”[214]
Dlamini’s peculiar and cryptic response occurred twenty days after the October 10 meeting. Thus it is possible that during the October 10 meeting, the co-conspirators discussed their “contingency plans” in the event of a “pressing emergency”, a plan which Zuma and Dlamini have gone out of their way to “manufacture” (as the opposition parties claim)[215] [216], or “self-created” (as Treasury declared)[217].
“All Portfolio Committee members got this week was a Minister who refused to disclose ‘contingency plans’ as they might put her department – yes, her department and not grant recipients – ‘at risk’. Let's just clarify: the disclosure of the plans can put Minister Dlamini at risk only if there is an enemy who can benefit from this. In this specific case, Minister, the enemy is YOU,” wrote Thamm [Daily Maverick][218].
The time has now come to pinpoint where exactly all three routes of Gordhan’s removal, student protests, and social grant catastrophe intersect, marking Zuma’s final dark and diabolical motive.
Addressing the first Umkhonto we Sizwe national council gathering, the ANC veteran, Joel Netshitenzhe, warned in December 2016 that, “when there is the sense that the central authority is unable to exercise that authority and doesn’t enjoy legitimacy the social tinder will catch fire. Sometimes there won’t be direct links between things that happen and that reality of a declining legitimacy…. Now, the danger that the social tinder threatens to catch fire manifests in various ways.”[219]
But as shown, Zuma is deliberately igniting the social tinder. The only question is why.
We have followed gunpowder routes that led us to two social powder kegs - social grants and student violence. Treasury and the higher education department have done their best to head off the student violence by addressing the students’ legitimate calls for greater funding. [See End Note 2.]
But social grants are still primed and set to detonate on the 1st of April 2017 by Zuma and his co-conspirators. The resultant controlled social conflagration is Zuma’s last checkmate move. For it will ensure that by the time the smoke dissipates, our rights and freedoms will have been vanquished.
“The country is on the brink of a major catastrophe if 17-million people are unable to receive social grants in April. Yet there is no alarm from the Presidency and Cabinet. Millions of households around the country are entirely dependent on social grants for survival and the consequences of payments being held up are cataclysmic,” Munusamy wrote in the Daily Maverick on the 3rd of February 2017[220].
Below is how Zuma plans to benefit from detonating the social powder keg of social grants.
But best you stock up on liquid courage first, for you’re going to need it.
PRE-SUSPECTS
HIDDEN TREASURE
On the 3rd of March 2017, Treasury said it could not participate in the negotiations between the social development department and CPS for the contract for payment of grants, despite the department asking for Treasury’s participation[221].
The reason Treasury could not participate was because the department had announced publicly that at some point it wanted Treasury to regularise the process underway, and thus Treasury’s participation “will amount to a conflict of interest” [222].
The options proposed by the Sassa team cannot be supported unless the Constitutional Court were to approve such an option
— Pravin Gordhan
However, Treasury reiterated that it remained committed in assisting when required “to find solutions within the confines of the constitution and the procurement regulatory framework, to ensure that the deserving beneficiaries of the grants did not suffer.”[223] [224]
CPS is reportedly seeking an additional R1.3 billion to negotiate a new deal, which would amount to a 50% leap from the current fee of R2.2 billion. Treasury has informed SASSA and Dlamini that it would not agree to a deviation[225]. Furthermore, on the 1st of February 2017 Gordhan wrote to Dlamini, stating, “Sassa’s proposed interim agreement with Cash Paymaster Services will not be lawful.”[226] [227]
However, Gordhan added, that “The options proposed by the Sassa team cannot be supported unless the Constitutional Court were to approve such an option.”[228] [229] To do otherwise, Gordhan warned, would open government to “legal challenges”[230]. Gordhan made it clear, “Our only interest at this stage is to help Sassa, and yourself [Dlamini], to ensure that social grants are paid out on April 1, 2017.”[231]
Gordhan provided alternative options to ensure that the grants are paid after April 1. These include continuing to use CPS but only with Concourt approval, bringing in commercial banks, and/or procuring the services of the South African Post Office (Sapo)[232] [233] [234].
The Star reported that Gordhan allegedly prefers a new contract awarded to commercial banks and Sapo[235] [236] [237] [238]. However Dlamini’s ANCWL stated, “Support to such [a] plan will be a conscious sabotage to the radical socio-economic transformation agenda.”[239] [240] Which begs the question of what they could possibly mean by a “transformation agenda” considering their president is the one ‘sabotaging’ the country’ distribution of life-giving social grants to society’s most vulnerable[241].
The short term solution mentioned by both Sassa and Treasury was for about 13 million of the social grant beneficiaries to access their grants through their existing bank accounts or have the banks open accounts for them[242] [243] [244] [245] [246]. And as for the estimated 4-million beneficiaries who access their grants through the approximately 10 000 cash pay points spread throughout the country (particularly in the deep rural areas), the post office infrastructure (or another bid company) could be used for cash payments[247] [248] [249] [250].
— After Treasury informed Sassa and Dlamini that it was prepared to consider a contract deviation if the Constitutional Court granted Sassa’s request, Sassa backtracked
Dlamini’s minion Mvulane admitted in Parliament that such a plan could take two weeks to implement[251]. McKune of amaBhungane therefore questioned why if it was so simple and quick to implement, why had Dlamini caused such gnashing of teeth over extending an invalid CPS contract[252].
In the Concourt’s 2014 judgement on CPS, it opened the way for private companies that won government tenders to be subject to the same levels of accountability and scrutiny as the government itself, and it prevented private companies who were awarded essential-service contracts from holding the government to ransom [Business Day][253].
Constitutional law expert Pierre de Vos wrote in the Daily Maverick, “the Constitutional Court held that CPS became an organ of state when it was contracted to provide social grants to citizens as it was implementing the realisation of a constitutional right.”[254]
During Sassa CEO Magwaza’s presentation to Parliament on the 1st of February 2017 – during which he had to mop his brow several times with a white handkerchief[255] - Sassa promised to go back to the Concourt on the 8th of February 2017, to request the Concourt’s permission to negotiate a new contract with CPS [256] [257]. However this failed to materialise.
Instead of approaching the Constitutional Court on the 8th of February as promised, Sassa approached CPS on February 9 for its first formal request, with just seven weeks to go before the contract expired[258].
amaBhungane reported that if Sassa presented their negotiating terms to the Concourt before sitting down with CPS, it would set the terms “in stone” and thus strengthen Sassa’s hand. Conversely, if Sassa did not make presentation to the Concourt, CPS’s position becomes formidable[259]. In other words, the timing of Sassa’s Constitutional Court report is critical[260].
(Zuma’s legal advisor, Hulley, it is said, is pushing Dlamini and Sassa to negotiate with CPS before filing to the Court, which is understood to be opposite to the advice given by Sassa’s own senior counsel[261].)
After Treasury informed Sassa and Dlamini that it was prepared to consider a contract deviation if the Constitutional Court granted Sassa’s request[262], Sassa backtracked.
amaBhungane reported that Sassa’s Court report was made ready for filing on Wednesday, 15th of February 2017, but Dlamini intervened and stopped it. Dlamini’s spokeswoman provided a reason, “the ministry could not move ahead… without national treasury.”[263]
Dlamini delayed the filing again on the 16th, and then again on the 17th. In addition, Sassa had still not started formal negotiations with CPS[264].
During the February 22 parliamentary meeting, Dlamini refused to commit herself to a date for the court filing[265]. Sassa announced that it would only approach the Concourt on the 31st of March 2017, the exact day the current CPS contract expires[266].
De Vos wrote in the Daily Maverick that the decision by Sassa, under the authority of Dlamini, not to approach the Constitutional Court with a request to extend the contract of CPS, “is difficult to understand” , as it would have ensured that CPS remained accountable[267]. “One way to read the decision by Sassa not to approach the court to ask it to extend the CPS contract is thus that it amounts to an attempt to avoid this form of accountability,” De Vos concluded[268].
Solutions to the social grant crisis are clear, either: to use the banks and Sapo (or other legal tender bidders) to ensure the uninterrupted grant payments to the recipients; or, approach the Concourt which will hold CPS accountable for any new contract, whose terms will be set in “stone”.
Both workable solutions have been sabotaged by Zuma, through Dlamini.
On the 24th of February 2017, the Sunday Times reported that Magwaza – without informing Dlamini - had written a letter to the Sapo chief Mark Barnes asking for assistance to help fast-track a deal to take over the distribution of social grant payments, come April 2017. Sapo is one of 18 bidders for the social grant tender[269]. The letter was sent after the deadline for bid submissions[270] [271].
“Given the extremely limited time available for payment in April‚ Sassa would like to inquire whether there is anything that Sapo could assist us with. Should this be possible‚ a transitional arrangement could be entered into through an intergovernmental agreement‚ which could not necessarily require a full procurement process‚” read the letter[272].
Governance expert William Gumede told the Sunday Times that the letter could result in court action from the other potential bidders, which may ultimately nullify the entire process[273].
Be that as it may, Magwaza’s actions reflect his desperation in trying to head off a disaster of epic proportions. According to the Sunday Times, Dlamini’s spokesperson said the minister had no idea the letter had been written and had only been made aware of it by media inquiries[274]. The Star reported at one point that Magwaza was facing suspension for allegedly defying Dlamini[275] [276]. On the 28th of February 2017, Magwaza was absent from Parliament’s accounts committee hearing on Sassa’s controversial contract with CPS. It was reported that he had been granted 12 days leave due to hypertention[277]. Magwaza will get back to work on the March 31 (what that will do to his stress levels is anyone’s guess).
With an impending catastrophe which will affect the lives of the 17 million who depend on grants, it will be Treasury who will be scapegoated and blamed and not Dlamini or SASSA
— Marianne Thamm
In Parliament, Magwaza had said that “CPS is our first option” but that, “If something falls through we need to have a back-up … and the Post Office is part and parcel of that.”[278] For Magwaza to have written a letter to Sapo behind Dlamini’s back may indicate that he believes CPS is not an “option”, but is in fact nothing but a ruse[279]. This would explain his urgent but undisclosed correspondence to Sapo to secure plan B.
McKune of amaBhungane wrote that as things stand Plans B and C don’t really exist, and CPS holds all of the cards[280].
However, it is more apt to say, rather, that it is Zuma who holds all of the cards; it is just that we have refused to even imagine his diabolical game plan.
“And here is where the blackmailing and setting up of Treasury is revealed,” wrote Thamm in the Daily Maverick[281].
“With an impending catastrophe which will affect the lives of the 17 million who depend on grants, it will be Treasury who will be scapegoated and blamed and not Dlamini or SASSA,”[282] stated Thamm.
And to prove the point…
On the 15th of February 2017, Parliament’s portfolio committee on social development was cancelled. ENCA reported that a notice sent out informing MPs of the cancellation blamed Treasury, saying that it would not go ahead as the Treasury ministry had indicated it was unable to attend. This is despite – as Gordhan explained – payment of social grants was the responsibility of Dlamini and not the mandate of Treasury, and thus it was the responsibility of the social development department to account to the portfolio committee[283].
Additionally, in explaining why Sassa failed to approach the Concourt on the 8th of February as promised, Dlamini said the following on the 22nd of February 2017, “Looking at the recommendation of the Treasury we are not going to meet the deadline that was suggested in that last meeting of the last portfolio committee. When the team came here we were still negotiating with the Treasury which is why I was personally jittery about coming here and presenting a solution that was not endorsed by the Treasury. Because Treasury is important in our work and secondly the work streams, I must say they have started doing their work but they have not been approved by the Treasury. I don’t want to pass the buck to the Treasury because we also started late in October last year to do the work with the work streams and when they looked at the report of the advisory committee.” [284]
For someone who does not want to pass the buck onto Treasury, she sure mentions them often enough (six times in four sentences, to be precise).
Thamm went on to say, “Should Treasury and Gordhan insist that SASSA and the Minister of Social Development respect the rule of law, it is THEY and not the real culprits who will be blamed for what must rank as one of the most serious manufactured crisis in post-apartheid South Africa. SASSAgate will come to be remembered as a seminal moment in the desperate pushback against what appears to be an attack on treasury, the Constitutional Court and the rule of law.”[285]
Treasury - together with the Constitutional Court and the Reserve Bank[286] [287] - have been set up to take the blame for the social cataclysm, come April 2017, by adhering to the law.
But they are not the only ones manoeuvred into position by Zuma to take the fall.
KITCHEN SINK VIOLATION
In December 2016, the M&G broke the story that that Gauteng Hawks boss Prince Mokotedi had submitted an affidavit to the police against four respondents[288]. Moketedi accused the four of having committed high treason, espionage, conspiracy to commit murder, corruption, intimidation, harassment, defeating the ends of justice, tax evasion and a contravention of the immigration laws[289]. In other words, he accused them of everything he could possibly think of. (He seemed to have forgotten to include parking violations).
The four accused persons are:
· Robert McBride (head of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate, IPID, who are investigating Hawks boss Berning Nltemeza for fraud, perjury and crimen injuria, as well as acting national police commissioner Kgomotso Phahlane for corruption[290]);
· Shadrack Sibiya (former Gauteng Hawk’s head and newly appointed as the forensic department head of the DA-run Johannesburg city council[291]. His investigations may have the potential to unravel the patronage networks);
· Paul O’Sullivan (forensic investigator with reported incriminating evidence against acting Phahlane, corruption at SAA and by its chairperson - and close Zuma confidante - Dudu Myeni, as well as lodging statements against members of what was a rogue unit at the NPA, consisting of Lawrence Mrwebi, Nomgcobo Jiba, and Mokotedi, all with links to former crime intelligence head Richard Mdluli[292] [293] [294].) O’Sullivan referred to Mokotedi as a “dishonest criminal with a badge”[295]; and
· Captain Candice Coetzee (a crime intelligence officer, who is suspended for allegedly leaking classified information to O’Sullivan[296]; in other words, a “whistleblower”).
It is only fair – considering Mokotedi has thrown stones – to examine his glass house.
Before Mokotedi was parachuted in as Gauteng Hawks boss – in place of Sibiya - he headed the Integrity Management Unit at the NPA, a position he resigned from in 2014 just as he was about to face multiple misconduct charges[297].
Just before leaving the NPA, Mokotedi made a wide range of allegations, including against the then NPA prosecutor Gerrie Nel and insisted that the NPA was divided politically (into the Zuma and Zille camps)[298].
FUL head and retired Constitutional Court justice, Judge Kriegler, described Mokotedi’s allegations at the time as the “tricks of a master of disinformation” and warned people not to believe any of them [Daily Maverick][299]. Kriegler’s message was that if Mokotedi has anything to say, he should do so under oath, where he can be cross-examined and his accusations tested [Daily Maverick][300].
According to Moketedi’s affidavit, the overall strategy by the so-called conspirators was said to be to implicate Zuma and his supporters of corruption. Mokotedi listed supporters of Zuma as himself; Hawks boss Ntlemeza; Phahlane; NPA head Abrahams; and SSA’s director general (mislabelled as ‘head’), Arthur Fraser[301].
Moketedi further alleges in his affidavit that the “treasonous” four conspired to overthrow Zuma with the following plan[302] [303]:
1. Murder him and Hawks boss Ntlemeza;
2. Use information gathered on Duduzane Zuma, Zuma’s son, “to mobilise the community to revolt and pressure the president to quit office”;
3. “Mobilise for an ‘Arab Spring’ type of revolt in the country”; and
4. “Destabilise the security forces of the country and to oust the president of the country through popular revolt”.
The M&G wrote that there is no indication of evidence to substantiate any of Mokotedi’s charges[304]. The M&G also observed that since the story broke, Mokotedi seemed to have struggled to keep his story straight[305] [306] .
Mokotedi was challenged by one of the accused, IPID head McBride, to take a lie-detector test[307]. Having initially agreed, Mokotedi then backed out[308]. McBride, meanwhile, subjected himself to a polygraph, to test whether he was being truthful when he denied any knowledge of Mokotedi’s allegations. McBride passed the test[309].
Another accused, Sibiya, explained to the M&G that O’Sullivan had written a report in conjunction with AfriForum, in which he and the others were mentioned, and so they had met to provide input and help join the dots[310]. Thus Sibiya confirmed a meeting had taken place, but he denied they planned any conspiracy against Zuma, Mokotedi or Ntlemeza[311]. (The referred report by O’Sullivan called “Joining the Dots” can be read here.)
Afriforum also denied the claims, and in turn accused, “Mokotedi of attempting to conceal his own role and those of other supporters of President Jacob Zuma in the capturing of the criminal justice system by telling lies” [Times Live][312]. Afriforum is considering laying a complaint of perjury and defamation[313].
In the latest developments, former NPA prosecutor, Gerrie Nel, resigned from his post in January 2017 to join Afriforum to establish a new private prosecutions unit[314]. Nel stated in an interview on ENCA that only after he had resigned did he learn that he was being investigated[315]. It turns out that heading up the investigation is Mokotedi [Daily Maverick][316]. Nel said in regard to the investigation, “I’m not concerned about that at all, I am not.”[317]
(This would not be the first time Mokotedi investigated Nel. In 2007, the rogue unit at the NPA, consisting of NPA deputy head Nomgcobo Jiba, commercial crimes head Lawrence Mwrebi – both of whom are on special leave and have been struck off the roll of advocates - former crime intelligence head and murder accused Richard Mdluli[318], and Mokotedi were all involved in an investigation against Nel[319] [320]. amaBhungane reported that Jiba went to considerable lengths to help procure an arrest warrant for Nel, who she allegedly blamed for the arrest and conviction of her husband for stealing money from a trust fund[321]; he was later pardoned by Zuma and his criminal record expunged[322]. amaBhungane wrote that the moves to arrest Nel were interpreted as a calculated attempt to prevent Nel from charging police commissioner Jackie Selebi[323]. Subsequently, Nel was arrested in 2008 but the case against him was withdrawn due to a lack of evidence[324].)
While The Citizen reported that police minister Nhleko told parliament’s portfolio committee on police in December 2016 that there were a number of “sinister attempts” to tarnish the police’s work[325]. He further claimed that right-wing NGOs and other individuals were behind an “orchestrated attempt” to destabilise the police[326].
Afriforum describes itself as an NGO with the aim of protecting the rights of minorities, with a specific focus on the rights of Afrikaners living in SA[327]. Others have labelled it a white nationalist organisation[328] [329].
Mahlobo, as stated earlier, condemned unidentified NGOs of working “to destabilize the state” and were “just security agents that are being used for covert operations” [330].
The M&G wrote that the Mokotedi report accusing the “treasonous” four of plotting against Zuma seemed to borrow from the dubious Browse Mole, Ground Coverage and Spider Web “intelligence reports” – all of which made grandiose claims but were thin on fact… In each of them Zuma and his cohorts are the central figures[331].
In particular, the Spider Web report suggested Treasury was captured by apartheid-era intelligence operatives and white capital who ultimately controlled the country’s finances. It surfaced in 2015 from the email address of Dudu Myeni[332].
The only radical thing to have happened under Zuma’s presidency was the radical capture of the state by Zuma’s family and friends, the Guptas
— Adriaan Basson
According to Thamm of the Daily Maverick, a UK-based public relations consultancy – Bell Pottinger - has been tasked with orchestrating the “white minority capital” narrative, in order to counteract state capture charges levelled against their client, the Guptas[333]. The Gupta family is said to be paying the company a reported R24 million annually to manage their reputation [Daily Maverick][334] [335].
Bianca Capazorio wrote in the Business Day that former public protector, Madonsela, said she had noticed how the use of the phrase "white minority capital" had started to flourish in the wake of her “State of Capture” report, and that she had read how governments in Africa "whip up ethnicity as an issue"[336].
Madonsela added that‚ "the answer to white minority capital is not having two families enriching themselves through state resources”[337].
Zuma has plagiarised the provocative, populist rhetoric of the EFF, with phrases such as “stolen land”, “white monopoly/minority capital”, “radical economic transformation”, as well as stolen the EFF’s radical economic transformation plans for SA’s banks, companies, mines, and farms[338] [339].
Zuma has done so not because it is in the best interest of the ANC or the country, but because radicalism entails deposing the existing system.
“The only radical thing to have happened under Zuma’s presidency was the radical capture of the state by Zuma’s family and friends, the Guptas,” wrote Adriaan Basson, editor of News24[340].
Zuma’s real “radicalism” is not just to rid himself of Gordhan and Jonas and grab hold of Treasury, but he wants the country’s entire State economic cluster, which includes the ministry of finance, trade and industry, economic development, tourism, small business development, public enterprises, public works, labour, energy and mineral resources, among others[341].
“If Zuma wrests control of the National Treasury, and other ministries key to the economy, fiscal policy recklessness is expected to become the order of the day,” said Mtimka, NMMU lecturer of political and conflict studies[342].
Therefore, one has to look beyond Zuma’s intention to capture just Treasury. One also has to conceive that his plan is to take hold of other clusters as well.
Analysts told the M&G that the Mokotedi report was “never meant to assist a court to secure a conviction” and that every indication points to an “ulterior motive”[343]. The M&G concluded that this latest development indicates an all-out war for power and control of the justice cluster[344].
Putting all the pieces together, Zuma intends to “self-create” an emergency over social grants, which, in turn, will force the people to turn against the State. What this ultimately means is that Zuma has found a way to manufacture a Coup d’etat of our Constitutional Democracy[345] [346].
‘ALTERNATIVE FACTS’ UNIVERSE
FIGHT CLUB
Jonas stated that there is the danger of a “parallel government” where the big decisions are taken “elsewhere” and “where the security forces don’t protect the citizenry any more” [Fin24][347] [348] [349].
But a parallel government – or a more apt terms is a “rogue government” - has already been set up and is operating in plain sight, we have just failed to recognize it for what it is.
For a successful coup d-etat, one must gain control over the security cluster, communications, border control and general social mobility, and State wealth[350].
On the 11th of October 2016, just one day after the October 10 meeting, Zuma established a ministerial task team on higher education, set to help normalise the situation at higher learning institutions. The task team consisted of eight ministers with the inclusion of Nzimande, but he was outgunned by Zuma’s sycophants.
Zuma had littered the task team sand box with his fat-cats: the minister of state security, police, justice, and home affairs minister Malusi Gigaba. The non-Zuma aligned minsters included are: Nzimande; minister of the presidency Jeff Radebe; science technology minister Naledi Pandor; and, defence minister Mapisa-Nqakula.
Then, on the 20th of October 2017, Zuma added Gordhan to the ministerial task team (but which should rather be interpreted as the addition of the ‘finance minister’ to the task team).
Simultaneously, Zuma swelled the ranks of the team with three more ministers, including two out-and-out Zuma lackeys, namely communications minister Faith Muthambi and the ubiquitous social development minister Dlamini[351].
Thus, the composition of the ministerial task team consists of:
· the security cluster (police, defence, and justice ministries);
· State communications (communications ministry);
· border control, citizenship and social movement (home affairs and human settlements, together with police and defence ministries);
· economic cluster head (Treasury); and
· current and expected sources of social disquietude (by students and social grants recipients, with the departments of science and technology, higher education and training, and social development).
Therefore, Zuma is planning to blow away our Constitutional Democracy in a regime change, and the ministerial task team is SA’s emergency rogue government in waiting.
So what is Zuma – the biggest rogue of them all – and his rogue government waiting for?
After the detonation of the social grant powder keg in April, Zuma will likely initiate his Cabinet reshuffle with the following: replace Gordhan with Brian Molefe (and Jonas with Sfiso Buthelezi); defence minister Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula[352] with deputy defence minister Kebby Maphatsoe. While Nzimande, Pandor, Sisulu, and Radebe, will probably be replaced with Zuma pawns.
And then say hello to your new core government, and a brave new SA.
— This is how it works—the slow creep, and then the rapid descent, into a police state. We are well into the slow creep part of the procedure - Richard Poplak
But what does this all mean. How will it unfold?
Below is an ‘alternative facts’ universe consisting of an as yet unrealised reality in which April 2017 arrives but for the 17 million recipients the distribution of R11.6 billion social grants does not. What follows is a step-by-step guide to a successful do-it-yourself Constitutional coup[353].
It should be noted that what follows assumes Zuma’s plan works like a charm in every detail.
(As opposed to being another of his cursed failures and a blessing for the country, as was the case with Des “weekend Treasury special” van Rooyen and the violent student protests.)
BLOWING IN THE WIND
“This is how it works—the slow creep, and then the rapid descent, into a police state. We are well into the slow creep part of the procedure. Our current president, an ex-intelligence hack himself, has surrounded himself with spies and baton-wielders,”[354] Richard Poplak wrote in November 2016 in the Daily Maverick.
After April 1, the creeping will end spectacularly.
“Any glitch in the system could literally mean life or death, food or starvation for many of the country’s most vulnerable citizens,” wrote Thamm in the Daily Maverick, regarding grant pay out[355].
With 17 million people – which is over a third of South Africa’s population - failing to receive the very sustenance they need for their and their family’s survival, they will grow angry, as in A-bomb angry.
(Thamm wrote in the Daily Maverick that even if 90% of grantees could receive their grants via pre-existing bank accounts in April, as explained by Dangor, it would still leave 1.7-million people without a guarantee they could eat after the April 1. And, as Thamm highlights, if one considers that most of them have dependents, that number can grow to 5-million people placed in life-threatening danger[356].)
And their anger and desperation will spill onto the streets, which will not only to be directed at government buildings, it will be directed at the playground of the Have’s – shopping centres, city centres, urban areas. As Thamm warned in the Daily Maverick that if you thought the #FeesMustFall violence was bad, a much greater catastrophe looms[357]. “The scale of such a catastrophe is difficult to fathom,” stated Thamm[358].
ANC veteran Netshitenzhe cautioned that once the social tinder has ignited, “The danger is that the security agencies can then become the first and last line of defence. We end up depending on the security forces, rather than on social delivery, on exercising our authority [and] legitimacy.”[359]
And that is precisely what Zuma and his securocrats want.
With the police and the SSA fully engaged, they will only fuel the scene, spreading injustice and violence in their wake, resulting in the call for the army to be deployed. This will precipitate further retaliatory action by the public against the government across the country.
UJ journalist professor Duncan wrote, “If we understand some of the factors that got us to the point where fires are being lit in our communities and on our campuses, then it should be clear that approaching the problem of violent protests increasingly through a security lens, especially a national security lens, is likely to pour oil on these fires.”[360] [361]
With countrywide havoc, Parliament will have no choice but to support a declaration of a state of emergency.
And this was Zuma’s plan all along, the necessity for a state of emergency.
The Zuma-Gupta combo has made a concerted effort to capture State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) for their own gross enrichment[362]. This programme has now evolved into capturing the ultimate SOE, namely a State Of Emergency.
However, the induced social grant catastrophe may be Zuma’s Plan B in this regard. Plan A was a student uprising, a plan that nearly succeeded.
Poplak pondered in the Daily Maverick in November 2016, “What if the student protests in this country were fanned until something went horribly wrong? What if [protests] led to the declaration of a state of emergency – one of those ye olde apartheid-era stopgaps the government is so fond of dusting off? What if our democratic rights were suspended until the situation “quieted down”? What if the situation never quiets down?”[363]
Likewise, in a speech prepared for delivery during the 2016 Christmas midnight mass sermon at St George’s Cathedral, Anglican Archbishop Thabo Makgoba of Cape Town – in reviewing the 2016 year - stated, “It feels as if we are back to the national pain of 1963, living under a state of emergency, imposed on us by careless and corrupt leaders who have forgotten us, stripped us of our dignity.” [News24][364].
(Their sentiments were later echoed by DA chief whip, John Steenhuisen, and EFF’s leader, Malema, on the night of the 2017 State of the Nation Address[365].)
According to the Constitution, a state of emergency can be declared if the life of the nation is threatened by a general insurrection, disorder or other public emergency (amongst others), and that the declaration is necessary to restore peace and order[366] [367].
A state of emergency affords Zuma the luxury of time to consolidate his power within government[368] [369].
(The Constitution provides for an initial emergency declaration, lasting 21 days. After that, the state of emergency can be extended 3 months at a time, but only if at least two-thirds or 66% of the members of the National Assembly agree[370] [371].)
The only challenge for Zuma is that for the fuse of a social powder keg to ignite, something has to happen on the ground. Zuma cannot start a revolution from the executive offices high up in the ivory tower of government. There has to be a physical “spark” to set it all off. Or, to bastardise a salesman’s saying – nothing happens until someone throws a Molotov cocktail. And that is where the SSA, ANCYL, EFF, Wasp and angry students were meant to come into play. But instead Zuma has to now rely on the detonation of social grants.
Be that as it may, once a state of emergency is officially declared, the Bill of Rights in the Constitution is affected, including the State’s ability to detain a person without trial (although under strict conditions)[372].
The “treasonous” four will then be held, accused of being agents of “white monopoly capital” and for planning “to mobilise the community to revolt and pressure the president to quit office”; “Mobilise for an ‘Arab Spring’ type of revolt in the country”; and “Destabilise the security forces of the country and to oust the president of the country through popular revolt” [373] [374].
A state of emergency will, thus, permit Zuma to take control of the police, army and other security agencies, with the assistance and installation of crony ministers and removal of any enemies on the “ministerial task team”. This will leave the justice and security cluster and - the real prize - Treasury and the economic cluster ripe for a Constitutional coup by Zuma’s rogue government.
It will also give him the space to constrain Parliament and opposition parties, intimidate civil society and religious leaders, assert greater control of State Owned Enterprises (SOEs), and undermine any court action against him and his collaborators.
In addition, he will use the opportunity to replace unwanted premiers, and make strategic civil servant appointments.
Under such circumstances, he will force through the nuclear deal, and sign draconian freedom-destroying legislation, as well as legislation that assist in the capturing of the State and the grabbing of privately-owned assets.
He will also drive through the manufacture of unencrypted top-set boxes, guaranteeing that 25 million of SA’s poor and low income citizens are exposed to vapid “good story” reruns from the monopolised, propagandist free-to-air broadcasters of Gupta-run TV and Zuma’s state-controlled SABC[375].
At the same time he will shake his broader Cabinet free of enemies (and by extension undermine them in the ANC’s NEC), and replace them with grateful pawns. This obviously includes the replacement of the economic cluster, including the minister of finance and his deputy, thus ensuring the Zuptas get their hands on the R1.857 trillion sitting in government’s Public Investment Corporation, like a plumb duck cooked for the feasting, as well as allowing them to gorge on the tender loins of state tenders[376] [377].
Once Zuma has secured his position, the solution to the social grants will be fast remedied, with a six month’s contract with CPS, followed by the distribution of tenders to six Zuma-aligned service providers. He will appear a hero for restoring law and order, and securing the income of 17 million of the poorest of the poor. (Here is a friendly reminder that we have entered Zuma’s fantastical coup dream.)
By the time the state of emergency ends, (assuming it does), Zuma would have seized control of the State in a Constitutional coup, using a manufactured social insurrection as a cover story. And in so doing, our Constitution will be consigned to the dustbin of history, replaced with the rule of majoritarianism aka ‘might of Zuma is right’, while being overseen by a compromised justice cluster, including a subservient Court[378].
(As written elsewhere, if we subdivide ourselves into categories of race, religion, language, gender, tribe, political affiliations, and so on, ultimately we are each a minority of some sort or other. And at the very least, we are all a minority of one – an Individual. Therefore, individual and minority rights enshrined in the Constitution - including the Bill of Rights - is essential because it protects each and every one of us, whomever we may be, from being disempowered by ‘the majority’. And that is why Majoritarianism is as evil as Apartheid’s white minoritarianism, for both provide the leadership with absolute power.)
On the 4th of March 2017 and in preparation of creating a submissive Court, Zuma withdrew three respected legal brains from the Judicial Service Commission – a body that advises the government on any matters relating to the Judiciary or administration of justice, including interviewing candidates for judicial posts[379] [380]. The EFF has insisted that Zuma cannot remove the three advisors without a “valid explanation”[381].
(The EFF also rejected Zuma’s appointment of Raymond Zondo as the new deputy Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, stating that there were better suited candidates[382].
In 2015, Constitutional Court justice Zondo put defamation of Zuma ahead of freedom of speech of the DA, regarding the DA’s release of an SMS saying, “The Nkandla report shows how Zuma stole your money for his R246 million home.” Zondo’s judgement was overruled by other Concourt judgements that found in favour of freedom of speech[383] [384].)
The above ‘alternative reality’ is unimaginable, but as Zuma said in July 2016, “If it were up to me and I made the rules, I would ask for six months as a dictator. You would see wonders, South Africa would be straight. That’s why if you give me six months, and allow Zuma to be a dictator, you would be amazed. Absolutely. Everything would be straight. Right now to make a decision you need to consult. You need a resolution, decision, collective petition, Yoh! It’s a lot of work,” said Zuma, meant to be the prime defender of our Constitution[385].
While Zuma’s eldest son (and apparent part-time cigarette smuggler[386]), Edward Zuma, declared, “We want economic liberation and if it means we attain that economic liberation we have to fight for it and kill people, so be it. We will kill people to attain this economic liberation.” [387]
Besides the human tragedy that will befall SA, there are also economic considerations.
With the expected social unrest, reaction to the rand will also be violent. But ANCYL president and stormtrooper extraordinaire, Collen Maine, said not to worry: "We want the rand to fall, we need those economic turntables. The rand will fall but when it rises, we will be in charge of the economy of South Africa... I want actions to be taken so that the rand must fall. It must fall. We won’t be dictated to by white monopoly capital."[388]
Social instability will also precipitate a ratings downgrade to junk status. But again, Maine said not to worry, because “as far as I am concerned we are at junk status already.”[389] (What he fails to comprehend is that if a downgrade does indeed occur it will spell the end of his - and his party’s - political future, since the downgrade and capital flight will quickly lead to SA’s bankruptcy, necessitating an International Monetary Fund bailout…)
CONCLUSION
In an attempt to defend his presidency, Zuma and his faction within the ANC have resorted to painting all of their enemies with the same brush, accusing them of working with “white monopoly capital”[390] [391], “western intelligence agencies”[392], “counter-revolutionaries”[393], “imperialist forces”[394] [395], or resisting transformation[396] [397] [398], and whatever other ideological whitewashing they can think of to rally support and justify Zuma’s actions.
Meanwhile, Zuma’s pawns head up rogue units in the SSA[399] [400], the South African Revenue Service (SARS)[401], the NPA[402], the Hawks [403] [404], and on boards at strategic State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) such as Eskom (and formerly the South African Broadcasting Corporation)[405]. And that is besides Zuma’s minions in his Cabinet, including that of the minister of state security, police, justice, social development, water, small business, cooperative governance, energy, communications, and mineral resources.
Zuma’s tried-and-tested conspiratorial tactics may have continued to work if those calling for his head were only rival union leaders, religious bodies, opposition parties, NGOs, legal experts, business leaders, and the general public[406].
But Zuma now also has to contend with a revolt by those within his own party - from members of the NEC[407] [408]; card-carrying ANC members, branches, and provinces[409]; a large number of ANC parliamentarians[410]; the ANC voting public[411]; party veterans[412]; and alliance partners[413] [414] - all of whom likely bristle at Zuma’s accusation of being disloyal to the cause of social transformation (radical or otherwise).
Zuma has lost all credibility of being a true representative of the interests of the ANC as party president, and a leader who honours the SA public as president of the country[415] [416]. In summary, at the diseased heart of a criminal enterprise to capture the State lies Zuma[417] [418].
With the growing organised resistance to Zuma’s presidency, both from within government, within the ANC, civil society, and by society at large, together with the fast approaching ANC conferences, attempts at electoral reform by the party, and numerous court cases against Zuma and his lackeys, Zuma is fast running out of time, and possibly money (what with Treasury tightening the tender purse strings).
During Zuma’s State of the Nation Address (SONA) Zuma deployed 441 soldiers to Parliament, because he thought the ‘mood’ of the country warranted it; that there was a sense of danger and violence in the air. But he read the mood wrong, and so his actions came across as being paranoid and weak.
Basson wrote in News24, “In the absence of convincing evidence about an impending revolution, there is simply no justification for this over-reaction by the commander-in-chief.”[419]
Zuma had jumped the gun – he saw what was to come, not what was.
In so doing, Zuma had failed to see the true State of the Nation.
He clearly ignored the fact that 15 000 students gathered at the foot of the Union Building in 2015 and it did not end in a national firestorm. The vast majority of students unequivocally rejected the use of violence in their protest, and refused to be provoked. We should recognize this and give thanks to the students for their remarkable fortitude.
And it should make us question why the violence reared its ugly head on campuses thereafter, or as Johan Burger, senior researcher at the Institute for Security Studies (ISS) told The Citizen in October 2016, there has to be an investigation into those “behind this [student violence]” since “there is much more to the protests than addressing the high cost of studying” [420].
Zuma also overlooked that - although experts were warning in October 2016 that government may have no option but to declare a state of emergency due to violence on campus[421] - the student unrest died down in November 2016, because the vast majority of students insisted on writing their exams[422] [423] [424] [425].
(We may not fully recognize it now, but in October 2016 we probably came within a whisker of Zuma making a play for total power, with the help of his ‘fiends’, the SSA and ANCYL, and patsies: the EFF, WASP and angry students.)
Zuma also failed to recognize the fact that the people of SA used the system’s fundamental democratic mechanism, namely the ballot box, in the 2016 local government election to display their discontent with his government, in a free, fair and (on the day) peaceful election.
Thus, during SONA, Zuma over-estimated his manufactured revolution. It was not as far along as he had thought it was, and he underestimated people’s respect for SA’s Constitutional democracy.
Bottom-line Zuma is so caught up in his own maniacal imaginings that he is out of touch with the country.
All told, the system of the State is not the problem; the problem is the enemy of the State, namely Zuma and his co-conspirators, who are a Trojan Horse within government that is stampeding all over our freedoms and rights. And thus it behoves us to defend that which we hold dear.
The ONLY way Zuma and his backers can hope to evade justice, while also seizing control of trillions of rands, is to destroy the system that is ready to stand in judgement of them. That system is our Constitutional democracy.
“It is only the Constitution that has stopped Zuma from getting away with Nkandla, from not instituting martial law, from simply ruling with an iron fist. If that seems melodramatic, don’t think for a second that the thought hasn’t entered his mind. But our Constitution needs people to interpret it, people to rule on it, people to give it force and effect,” said Stephen Grootes [Daily Maverick][426]
At a rally in Durban in 1990, SA’s eventual first democratic president, Nelson Mandela, said to the gathering, “Since my release, I have become more convinced than ever that the real makers of history are the ordinary men and women of our country; their participation in every decision about the future is the only guarantee of true democracy and freedom.”[427]
That leaves just one final question, which we each must answer for ourselves. Come April Fools’ day, who is going to be the bigger fool, us or Zuma?
(To see a musical version of this article, watch Gupta's Paradise[428].)
SUPPORT DEMOCRACY
As stated in the previous article, show your support for SA’s Constitution defenders, where ever they may be found, whether within the ANC, or by opposition parties, civil society, religious organisations, civil servants, the free press, at centres of higher learning, or just respected individuals or groups.
They are all fighting for your rights and your future.
And they need your help, be it your voice, your signature, your moola, or your peaceful mobilisation in defence of democracy.
Heed their call.
Each and every one of us has a civic duty to uphold, defend and respect our Constitution.
Here are NGO freedom defenders referred to in the article, or of note:
Accountability Now (IFAISA)
Social Justice Coalition (SJC)
South African Institute for Security Studies (ISS)
People’s Motion: **SIGN IF YOU ARE SO INCLINED**
(The Author does not work for or receive funding from any NGO, political party, religious organisation, or foreign government.)
FREEDOM IS NOT A DESTINATION, IT IS A LONG WALK.
Click here for NOTES and FOOTNOTES
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.