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.
“Rogue” president Jacob Zuma not only places his own interests ahead of South Africa, he intentionally acts against the country he swore to serve and protect[1].
Zuma is the No. 1 enemy of the people.
This was blatantly illustrated on the 27th of March 2017, when Zuma “instructed” the then finance minister Pravin Gordhan and his then deputy Mcebisi Jonas to return home immediately, putting paid to South Africa’s international roadshow in the United Kingdom and United States, which was meant to encourage overseas investment in the country[2] [3].
But Zuma’s “rogue” status is now beyond any doubt, what with his decision to fire Gordhan and Jonas. He then replaced them with the Gupta-tainted and Zuma loyalist Malusi Gigaba, and Sfiso Buthelezi (who Ferial Haffajee described in the Huffington Post as a long-standing Zuma confidante[4]), as part of a shock Cabinet axing of nine ministers and six deputies (with 20 overall changes, including shifting positions)[5] [6] [7] [8].
(The Gupta-pickled Brian Molefe was likely not selected to replace Gordhan, so as to mitigate the fallout from members of the ANC’s top six and alliance partners, who had already expressed their strong views against him[9] [10].)
With the removal of Gordhan, Zuma has acted against the warnings by those in his own party of the African National Congress (ANC), together with party Veterans, alliance partners, the business community, civil right organisations, experts, and the opposition. Zuma has crossed the line in the sand.
Before Gordhan’s axing, Save South Africa (Save SA), a coalition of civil society organisations, called Zuma’s intended move against Gordhan “economic sabotage”.[11] They also said that, “It is a sign of extremely weak leadership and completely unsettles perceptions of South Africa’s stability – as can be seen in the way the rand has tumbled on foreign exchange markets.”[12] This statement is now exponentially true with the confirmed removal of Gordhan[13].
Business Leadership South Africa (BLSA) reacted to the then-expected firing of Gordhan by saying, “The president has… failed to provide policy clarity, certainty and effective administration. These failures will ramp up the costs and risks of investing in SA. They will worsen South Africa’s abysmal economic performance of the past seven years. They will render any notion of radical economic transformation stillborn. They will continue to impoverish the most vulnerable in our society.”[14] Now, with Gordhan’s confirmed axing, this warning bell rings ear-splittingly true. BLSA also stated at the time, “In the absence of a plausible explanation [from Zuma], it is very difficult not to conclude that the president put his own agenda, which remains unknown to the public, ahead of the country’s interests.”[15]
Despite all these dire warnings against Gordhan’s removal, Zuma went ahead – like a thief in the night - and officially fired him on the 30th of March 2017 just after 11pm, and not even bothering to phone and inform him in person[16] [17].
So, what was Zuma’s “plausible explanation” for ordering the immediate return to SA, and subsequent firing, of Gordhan and Jonas? (Both of whom the BLSA heaped praise on, along with the team at National Treasury, for their “exemplary leadership following the after-shocks of [Zuma’s firing of former finance minister Nhlanhla Nene],” and how they “upheld disciplined and prudent fiscal policy”[18].)
The M&G reported that in a meeting with the ANC’s top six, Zuma had presented concerns over Gordhan’s close relationship with “white monopoly capital”[19]. Zuma also presented an intelligence report to justify his decision, which accused Gordhan and Jonas of using the international roadshow to overthrow the State[20] [21]. However, ANC alliance partners, the South Africa Communist Party (SACP), responded to the accusation with scorn. The SACP deputy general secretary stated, “How can you believe such a trip is a trip against the country? We should not be treated like children... It is pathetic.”[22]
In reference to the document that formed the basis of Zuma’s determination to fire Gordhan and Jonas, the SACP said, “It’s a shoddy intelligence report, building suspicion. For God's sake, who can believe that a man [Gordhan] who participated in the highest form of service in the movement, the armed struggle, a man who was part of operation Vula, which was a sensitive project with life and death implications, that (that) man can sell [out] this country?"[23]
The leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), Julius Malema, said that they secured a copy of the intelligence report, and described it thus: “It looks like it was written by a student of early childhood development… it is not coherent.”[24]
Eye Witness News (EWN) reported that the SACP went on to criticise the state security organs of playing politics. “They are wasting huge resources, concerning themselves on matters that are insignificant just so that they can hype up the president’s decision,” stated the SACP deputy general secretary[25], who also observed that “it’s corruption on steroids… it’s abuse of state organs on steroids. We have to come up and stop this absolute nonsense that is taking place.”[26]
So what was the possible real reason for the urgent removal of Gordhan and Jonas?
Natasha Marrian wrote in Business Day that the bank accounts of Gupta-related entities were about to be closed by the only bank that would still have them, that of the Bank of Baroda[27]. (Local SA banks and the Bank of China have closed all their Gupta bank accounts, with some citing reputational risk concerns[28] [29].)
According to Marrian, more than half of the Gupta’s Baroda bank accounts have been closed in recent weeks, and the process was continuing[30]. Thus, Marrian stated the urgency for Zuma to act was underlined by the looming loss of banking facilities for the Guptas by the end of March[31]. (The Gupta controlled Oakbay denied this was the case.)
Without banking facilities in the country, the Guptas could face liquidity problems[32].
Furthermore, on the same day Gordhan was ordered back to SA, Zuma had attempted to intervene at the 11th hour as an “interested party” in another Gupta/bank related case. The case had been brought to Court by Gordhan as the then finance minister[33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]. Gordhan had asked the Court to declare that he had no authority to get the bank accounts of 14 Gupta companies reopened[39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44]. Zuma’s application to intervene was refused by the Court[45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50]. Judgement has been reserved. (Meaning, the Judge is considering the matter before declaring a finding.).
Still on Gupta banking matters, Fin24 reported that a company headed up by close associates of the Gupta family made moves to purchase a majority stake in the Habib Overseas Bank[51] (which operates in SA[52]). The purchase of a bank requires the approval of the Competition Commission, South African Reserve Bank (SARB), and National Treasury[53].
The Gupta-allies filed an urgent Court application on the 29th of March 2017 to force SARB to make a determination on the purchase within 48 hours, that is on or before the 31st of March, which is when their offer to purchase the bank expired[54] [55] [56]. SARB and Treasury opposed the matter, citing failure to provide financial statements of associated companies, as well as the “State of Capture” report by the former Public Protector Thuli Madonsela, as amongst the reasons for not approving the purchase[57]. (The report implicates those attempting to purchase the bank[58].)
On the 31st of March 2017, the High Court struck down the urgent application, on the grounds that it lacked urgency[59]. The Gupta-linked company responded that the merits of their application remained alive, just not as an urgent application[60]. The company also stated that it was still at liberty to agree to extend the date of the sale of shares agreement. But as Business Day reported, the sale would still require approval from the Reserve Bank and the finance minister[61].
It’s not outrageous to say today that the Guptas have taken control of the president of South Africa. They’re not his puppets, he is theirs
— Max du Preez
The Gupta’s banking squeeze may explain the Zupta’s sudden urgency to take control of Treasury, which also has ramifications for SARB, the Registrar of Banks[62]. The M&G reported that Gigaba could be tempted to make significant staff changes at National Treasury, and possibly at regulatory institutions such as the Registrar of Banks[63] [64]. The SACP said in a statement, “The timing of Zuma’s cabinet reshuffling and the deepening banking troubles faced by the Guptas is not, therefore, fortuitous. Once more it lays bare a disturbing reality. Increasingly our country is being ruled not from the Union Buildings but from the Gupta family compound. More and more, critical ANC decisions are being decided not by elected and collective structures in Luthuli House but in Saxonwold,” the SACP said[65].
Thus, Zuma’s presidency is a Gupta ‘off-road’ show[66] [67]. “It’s not outrageous to say today that the Guptas have taken control of the president of South Africa. They’re not his puppets, he is theirs,” wrote Max du Preez in News24, just prior to the Cabinet reshuffle[68].
Although the Zuptas’ banking dilemma may explain their timing, however it is certainly not their only motive.
In reference to Gordhan’s then-anticipated removal from Cabinet, Save SA stated, “Clearly, Zuma and his cohorts can no longer wait to get their hands on the public purse. Access to the state kitty, through the front door of National Treasury, is more important to them than the national interest. They want to loot, and loot with increased haste, while they still can.”[69]
For instance, as things stand, Zuma’s new finance minister Gigaba is now the shareholder representative of the Public Investment Corporation (PIC), and can appoint members of the Board with Cabinet approval, while his deputy Buthelezi is PIC chairman. That means the Zuptas have broken open the safe to the PIC’s holdings of about R1.85 trillion, the majority of which are government pensions[70] [71]. The government is the guarantor of those funds should there be any shortfall[72].
The currency will face plant; food and fuel prices will rise; ratings agencies will junk us; borrowing costs will explode – a steadily intensifying cycle of future imperfect phrases that will drag the country, our neighbours, and the entire region into a deepening maelstrom of economic recidivism
— Richard Poplak
Then there are State tenders to consider, which require Treasury approval … Not to mention Treasury-approval is needed for a little thing called the 9 600 megawatt (MW) nuclear deal, with its over R1 trillion price tag...
Besides the March Cabinet capture being a country-sized bank heist, the Zupta’s conjoined political power play comes in the wake of Zuma appointing himself chair of two inter-ministerial committees - one on the controversial social grants, and the other the communication of the presidency[73].
Moreover, on the 2nd of March, and in the lead up to the mother of all shuffles, Zuma sacked three of the most senior commissioners on the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) without cause, merely weeks before the body is scheduled to meet to interview a fresh crop of judges; that is, between the 3rd and 7th of April [City Press][74] [75]. Zuma’s three replacement candidates are said by top senior counsels not to have the level of seniority one would usually expect of presidential designates to the body [City Press][76].
Max du Preez wrote that if the Zuma faction of the ANC is trying to load the judiciary with more executive-friendly judges, this is a long term strategy that only makes sense from Zuma’s point of view if he intends remaining president for a few more years[77].
So this all adds up to a whole lot of… What?
Desperation? Determination? Weakens? Impunity? Success? Failure?
For years, under Zuma’s presidency, we have experiencing a ‘soft’ Coup, where - instead of a sudden, violent overthrow of our system of government – the Zuptas have been dismantling our Constitutional democracy one horrific appointment and Cabinet shuffle at a time. It is only now - with the Zuptas making their final move - that they can no longer disguise their true motive under cheap politicking. (Irrespective of how the Zupta-employed public relations company, Bell Pottinger, might attempt to subvert the truth[78]). The Zuptas move is a straight up grab for total power and unbridled self-enrichment.
A few hours after the Cabinet reshuffle announcement, Richard Poplak posed in the Daily Maverick, “What happens next?”, before striking his pose, “The currency will face plant; food and fuel prices will rise; ratings agencies will junk us; borrowing costs will explode – a steadily intensifying cycle of future imperfect phrases that will drag the country, our neighbours, and the entire region into a deepening maelstrom of economic recidivism. This is not conjecture. There are myriad examples detailing the results of just this type of fiduciary suicide.”[79]
In the coming days (and dare we say it, ‘weeks’), South Africans will have to decide if we are willing to accept taking a hop and a skip down a steep and tortuous road that leads to oppression and strife (and which will require another long walk back to freedom).
There is no denying that as a country, we have taken a step in the direction of despotism, and urgently need to backtrack. But, in order to find our way to the high road of law, justice, accountability, and equality, let’s take one small step back so we can trace Zuma’s tracks to tyranny.
DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE
In the early hours of Saturday 18th of March 2017 thieves broke into highly secured administrative offices of the Chief Justice in Midrand[80] [81]. According to the Gauteng police spokesperson, the thieves broke through the palisade fence before gaining entrance to the building through the emergency exit door [IOL][82]. The Chief Justice was informed of the burglary by the security guards, who were too slow to react to the alarm which was triggered at about 2am to catch the perpetrators red-handed[83] [84] [85] [86]. Closed circuit television footage of the burglary has not been released by the police[87] [88].
The burglars stole 15 laptops and/or hard drives from the human resource and facilities unit on the first floor, while ignoring computers in the IT, finance, training and communications departments on the ground floor[89] [90]. The Institute for Security Studies (ISS) stated that the burglary was carried out in a highly organised manner and cannot be seen as an opportunistic crime[91]. According to Business Day, investigators believed the thieves “were specifically sent to do this job… They could have stolen TVs, office equipment, you name it. But they didn’t.”[92]
The 15 computers are said to have private information – including ID details, bank accounts, residential addresses, and employment information[93] - of the country’s total 243 judges as well as over 1800 court officials[94][95] [96]. Although the information is all backed up, there is the potential that the thieves may be able to access the personal information on the stolen computers (which will remain the case whether the computers are ever recovered or not)[97].
The executive secretary of the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution (Casac), Lawson Naidoo, said “The information that has been stolen has the potential to seriously weaken the judiciary and places them in a position that undermines the rule of law in South Africa.”[98]
HACKING OLD SCHOOL STYLE
BAD FEELING
Condemnation of the brazen attack on the Judiciary was voiced across the broad spectrum of society.
However, suspicions were aired by the political opposition, such as the Democratic Alliance (DA) and the EFF, which had both pointed the finger squarely at the State Security Agency (SSA) led by the state security minister (and Zuma mini-me) David Mahlobo[99] [100] [101] [102] [103]. (Mahlobo retained his position, after the night of the long ‘knaves’ Cabinet reshuffle[104].)
The SSA released a statement on Twitter at the time, calling accusations of state security involvement in the “#ChiefJusticeOfficeBreakin” as baseless[105]. Spokesman for the acting police commissioner would not be drawn on whether the police were pursuing allegations that members of the SSA may have been involved, but advised against making “misplaced and/or irresponsible utterances and allegations”[106] [107].
Nevertheless, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) made the same inferences to State involvement.
“It has the hallmarks of being a carefully orchestrated operation that is more usually associated with a repressive state, in which the rule of law is deliberately trampled upon,” said Naidoo[108].
Gareth Newham of ISS, meanwhile, stated to Eye Witness News (EWN) that just two weeks before the burglary, the state security minister had mentioned that people in the judiciary were being misused to set regime change driven by phony intelligence agencies[109]. Newham added that, “If the minister of intelligence thinks judges are a threat to national security, they might be seen as a legitimate target and that this is why we’re having these allegations. They’re not coming out of nowhere.”[110] [111]
Furthermore, Save SA, headed by Sipho Pityana, stated, "Factions in the executive arm of government have been captured by forces intent on sabotaging our democracy and handing over public power and sovereignty to nefarious elements. We cannot allow the judicial system to be attacked in a similar way."[112]
Stephen Grootes, in writing about the Chief Justice burglary and compiling his own list of suspicious interconnections, observed in the Daily Maverick that “There’s just too much circumstantial evidence not to point a finger at Zuma. Sadly,”[113] and that, “it is as damning an indictment of his presidency as there can be, that he will be the first suspect for many people. It tells you everything you need to know about his legacy, and about how he has conducted himself throughout his time as President of South Africa.”[114]
Meanwhile, Richard Calland, public law professor at the University of Cape Town (UCT), said on the 19th of March 2017 in a Radio 702 interview with Karima Brown, “If there is no - very soon in fact - result in the investigations, then I think more is compromised by this than we’ve imagined. And as a stop gap I would support…. [the] idea of an independent body supervising the police here.”[115] Calland went on to say, “People who care about this democracy must realise this is an important matter. They must organise, mobilise, and make sure those in power listen.”[116]
SECONDARY, MY DEAR WATSON
Suspicions against Zuma’s rogue government-within-government were compounded by the fact that the break-in occurred within 24 hours of two landmark rulings against Zuma’s lackeys.
The appointment of Hawks head Berning Ntlemeza in 2015 by former police minister Nathi Nhleko, Mahlobo, and the justice minister, was declared invalid in the High Court[117] [118]. (“firepool” Nhleko is now public works minister, while Fikile Mbalula has gone from the minister of sport and recreation to police, which is in keeping with the ANC and government under Zuma “scoring spectacular own goals”, to quote the ANC’s chief whip, Jackson Mthembu[119] [120].)
On the same day, social development minister (and ANC Women’s League president) Bathabile Dlamini received a damning judgement against her by the Constitutional Court (Concourt) for endangering the distribution of social grants to millions of vulnerable citizens.
Naidoo of Casac noted, “The burglary took place after a period in which the courts have upheld the constitution and the law in the face of executive disdain for due process and the rule of law… This inevitably raises suspicions about the political motives for the burglary.”[121]
Then, two days after the Chief Justice burglary, the home of Zane Dangor, former director general of the social development department, was invaded by a number of men who forced their way inside and conducted a search of the premises[122] [123]. Dangor was not home at the time, but family members were[124]. ENCA reported that Dangor believed the men were looking for his laptop, which he had with him at the time[125]. No property was stolen[126]. After the incident, police at first refused to take a statement, saying “nothing had been taken”[127].
One day prior to Dangor’s home invasion, at least one of the two cars used in the raid on Dangor’s house was seen lurking outside the house of the CEO of the South African Social Security Agency (Sassa), Thokozani Magwaza[128] [129] [130] [131]. Marianne Thamm of the Daily Maverick wrote that the driver sped off when Magwaza’s family threatened to call the police[132].
Both Dangor and Magwaza had made attempts to fulfil the legal obligations previously set out by the Concourt, in defiance of Dlamini’s instructions[133] [134]. And as Thamm wrote in the Daily Maverick, they have intimate knowledge of what went down behind the scenes during the social grant scandal[135].
Meanwhile, the lawyer representing Black Sash, the main court applicant in the social grant matter, had his phone stolen around that same period[136].
On the 18th of March 2017, one day after the Concourt’s landmark social grant judgement, Zuma appointed himself to head the Cabinet’s inter-ministerial committee on social grants, raising fears amongst officials in Sassa that a long-term solution may be taken out of their hands and go awry [Business Day][137] [138]. Zuma’s move is seen as giving support to Dlamini and her suspect ambitions[139].
For more details read this:
Furthermore, as stated earlier, on the 27th of March 2017 Zuma appointed himself chair of the inter-ministerial committee on information and publicity, replacing Jeff Rabebe, minister of the presidency. (Radebe retained his position as planning, monitoring and development minister[140].)
Legalbrief analyst Pam Saxby noted at the time that it was ironic that Zuma’s first act as head of communications was to offer no explanation as to why he had “instructed” Gordhan and Jonas to urgently cancel the international investment roadshow and return home to SA [BusinessTech][141] [142] [143].
GHOSTS IN THE MACHINE
Normal people don’t have these gaping holes in their history in terms of their employment and it just seems that each and every person we contacted who was listed as a supposed employer of these people, they are saying they have never heard of them
— Pieter-Louis Myburgh
And if this all was not intriguing enough, three men were implicated and detained by police for the Chief Justice burglary (while a fourth man was released with no charge[144]). However, the men have a web of work histories that appear to be fake, telephone numbers that go unanswered or that are no longer in use, and what appears to be false residential addresses – this was uncovered by a News24 exclusive investigation[145].
On Radio 702’s Redi Thlabi show, one of the News24 investigative journalists, Pieter-Louis Myburgh, stated, “Normal people don’t have these gaping holes in their history in terms of their employment and it just seems that each and every person we contacted who was listed as a supposed employer of these people, they are saying they have never heard of them. It is starting to look like a concocted history.”[146]
But that is not all.
A source close to the police investigation told Business Day that one of the men, Nkosinathi Msimango - who police believe is the mastermind behind the theft - was being protected by elements in the state security services[147].
Business Day reported that Masimango has been implicated in cash-in-transit robberies and ATM bombings, but has not been arrested for these crimes[148].
Furthermore, Msimango had been arrested five times between 2005 and 2013 for a string of other offences including an armed house robbery, but each time he was acquitted or the cases were withdrawn[149]. The source told Business Day that, “The question we should be asking is why all these cases were withdrawn… I believe he’s being protected by, and paying people in, the police. He is connected to the security services.”[150]
A source informed Business Day that, “It’s highly unlikely a guy like this would steal a few laptops… They got an order and somebody was paying them big bucks to do this job. The laptops are wiped by now. Selling them is just a bonus.”[151]
News24 uncovered that Msimango’s defence lawyer in the Chief Justice burglary case has a history of taking on clients accused of crimes involving the SSA and the police[152].
That said, it may in fact turn out that these three men are just convenient scapegoats. An intelligence operative provided the M&G this caution, “I’m not saying this is the thing [that happened], but you should keep in mind that sometimes the cops keep small-time gangsters [at] hand just in case they need a ‘break’ on a big story.”[153]
ZUMA’S FINEST
If suspicions prove true that those within Zuma’s rogue security cluster were behind the break-in, then one must ask to what end? What political objective would Zuma hope to achieve by taking such a profound and desperate act, fraught with risk?
In answer, we need only look as far as some of the many pending court actions against Zuma, his pawn appointees, and his benefactors to find a motive. Below is a far from complete rap sheet of Zuma’s Sing Sing legacy.
BATHABILE DLAMINI
(Part-time Social Development minister and full-time ANC Women’s League president)
The 17th March 2017 Constitutional Court (Concourt) judgement against the social development minister found that, “One of the signature achievements of our constitutional democracy is the establishment of an inclusive and effective programme of social assistance… This judgment is, however, not an occasion to celebrate this achievement. To the contrary, it is necessitated by the extraordinary conduct of the Minister of Social Development (Minister) and of the South African Social Security Agency (SASSA) that have placed that achievement in jeopardy.”[154]
It’s a funny democracy, a funny legal system that a person before committing a crime must then be judged and punished … The rule of law does not say punish a person because you suspect the person is going to commit a crime. It’s almost like the law of the jungle
— Jacob Zuma
On the 31st of March 2017, Dlamini had to provide the Concourt with reasons why she should not pay for the legal costs (of as much as R5 million) “from her own pocket” for failing to fulfil her constitutional duties[155] [156]. (For the third time, Dlamini was late in filing her affidavit to the Concourt related to the social grant travesty[157].)
With great power, comes great responsibility, and (potentially) great consequences. The buck stops with you, minister.
A day before the Concourt’s 17 March findings on the social grants debacle, Zuma defended Dlamini in Parliament, saying, “Why punish someone before anything has happened…Only after the 1st [of April] you can say: ‘Take action against this minister, she has failed’”[158]. He then added, “It’s a funny democracy, a funny legal system that a person before committing a crime must then be judged and punished… The rule of law does not say punish a person because you suspect the person is going to commit a crime. It’s almost like the law of the jungle.”[159] [160]
Thus Zuma sets the bar for responsible leadership, not at the level of morality or ethics, or even basic logic (never mind productivity). Rather, he views accountability as a criminal conviction after a catastrophic failure. At least Zuma answers the ultimate question: How low can one go.
His attitude to governance helps explain his accountability-defying apologies, such as apologising on behalf of government for the “frustration and confusion” caused by the R215 million spend on his Nkandla homestead and consequently his and Parliament’s violation of the Constitution[161] [162] [163]. And as for jeopardising the social grant programme, he apologised on behalf of government for the “undue anxiety that resulted from the uncertainty”[164] [165]. Which is all just a snake-eating-its-own-tail way of saying, “Sorry you feel that way. It must really suck to be you.”
Dlamini, as president of the ANC Women’s League, is a staunch Zuma defender and pliable “smallanyana skeletons” puppet[166].
Zuma has retained Dlamini as the social development minister. “If that isn’t the most eloquent ‘fuck you’ ever extended to a nation of people, I just don’t know how better the man could say it,” wrote Poplak in the Daily Maverick[167].
BERNING NTLEMEZA
(A former apartheid cop, and head of the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigations, or ‘Hawks’[168])
When as acting-head of the Hawks, Ntlemeza was declared by a High Court judge in March 2015 to be, “biased and dishonest…lacks integrity and honour and made false statements under oath”[169] [170]. Despite damning findings made not by one but two judges against Ntlemeza - which are judicial pronouncements and therefore constitute direct evidence – former police minister Nathi Nhleko brushed them aside and appointed Ntlemeza in September 2015 on a permanent basis as the Hawks head[171] [172] [173] [174]. Nhleko also failed to notify Parliament of Ntlemeza’s appointment within the prescribed 14 days; it took him a whole year[175] [176].
In March 2017, a full bench of judges in the High Court ruled in a unanimous judgement that Ntlemeza’s appointment as head of the Hawks was unlawful and invalid, and thus set aside[177] [178] [179]. The application was instituted by the Helen Suzman Foundation (HSF) and Freedom Under Law (FUL)[180] [181].
In response to the judgement, the ANC said, “The ANC trusts…that today’s judgement brings this matter to finality.”[182] However, flying in the face of the party’s statement, Nhleko was said to have appealed the judgement[183]. The South African Police Union (Sapu) slammed Nhleko for abusing court process and called for him to pay the legal costs of the appeal out of his own pocket[184] [185].
Ntlemeza remains in his job until the request for leave to appeal is finalised[186].
The Court ruling against Ntlemeza was made on the 17th of March 2017. Then, in the early hours of Saturday 18th of March 2017 there was a “suspicious” burglary at the administrative offices of the Chief Justice in which specific computers were stolen.
Now travel back in time one year, and we find that HSF and FUL had originally filed their court application against Ntlemeza on 16th of March 2016[187] [188]. Four days later, on Sunday 20th of March 2016, there was a “quasi-military…raid” of the HSF offices, in which targeted computers were removed by six well-dress intruders (one of whom carried a shotgun)[189] [190]. One of the six was a woman, who - aided by a notepad and a phone call to someone - directed the men on what to take[191] [192]. Thamm wrote in the Daily Maverick that the HSF reported the crime, but after hearing the Foundation had just lodged an application against Ntlemeza, the investigating police officer failed to take any statements or fingerprints, saying the case was “above his rank”[193]. A year later, in March 2017, HSF’s foundation director, Francis Antonie, said in a Radio 702 interview with Karima Brown that the HSF had received “no feedback from the police”[194].
The raids on the offices of the Chief Justice and the HSF, and the apparent intimidation of Dangor and Magwaza, (as well as the Hawk’s holding a SARS official against his will[195]) are eerily reminiscent of the tactics used by the apartheid regime. Ntlemeza is a former apartheid cop[196] [197] [198].
To solve these cases, do we need the likes of Sherlock Holmes to exclaim, “It is elementary, my dear Watson”, or do we just need elementary school police work?
Thamm wrote in the Daily Maverick, “There are countless cases of suspected corruption by ANC-connected senior officials leading the country’s SOEs including the SABC, SAA, Eskom, Denel and Prasa that have simply been stonewalled, left uninvestigated or forced to the sidelines.”[199] Thamm added, “Instead the Hawks have poured resources and corralled teams of senior officials (some of whom have taken witnesses hostage in a SARS boardroom) in an all-out bid to stalk Gordhan while on the other hand assuring the Gupta family’s legal team that the directorate was not investigating charges against their clients.”[200]
The same can be said for failing to investigate whether Tom Moyane breached the Prevention and Combating of Corruption Activities Act and sections of the Financial Intelligence Centre Act (Fica) by not reporting alleged fraud and corruption by two senior SARS employees to the Hawks and breaches of Fica[201]. Then there is the alleged fraudulent inflated invoicing of R155 million for “security upgrades” at Zuma’s Nkandla homestead[202] [203] … and so the list goes on, and on.
In regards to other Hawks members, the SARS deputy director of law administration, Vlok Symington laid a case of kidnapping, intimidation, assault, robbery and theft at the Brooklyn charge office (CAS 790/10/2016) for being held against his will by the Hawk’s Crimes Against the State commander (oh the irony), Nyameka Xaba – a colleague of the Hawks boss Berning Ntlemeza – as well as the bodyguard of SARS commissioner Tom Moyane, while they were trying to retrieve a damning email that damaged their case against Gordhan and drew attention to the unethical and shoddy conduct of the Hawks and the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA)[204] [205] [206].
Having a law enforcement system that acts with fear, with favour and with prejudice means impunity is always up for sale. But the price is steep. Over a six year period, between 2011 and 2016, Zuma’s government has misspent over R342 billion (or approximately R559 billion, adjusted for ‘government’ inflation) (These figures exclude 2016 local government misspending, which is still to be released) [See Note 1]. This is equivalent to over a third of government’s entire revenue. Or to put it another way, it is a 13th cheque from hell.
NOMGCOBO JIBA and LAWRENCE MRWEBI
(The deputy national director of public prosecutions, and the special director of public prosecutions).
The High Court ruled in September 2016 that Jiba and Mrwebi had, “…failed the citizens of this country…brought the image of the legal profession and prosecuting authority into disrepute… have ceased to be fit and proper person to remain on the roll of advocates.”[207] Consequently they were struck off the roll of advocates.
The judgement stemmed from the pair’s decision to drop charges against former crime intelligence head Richard Mdluli, who according to News24 was facing a number of indictments, including defrauding a secret slush fund[208].
(Mdluli is currently standing trial in the High Court for the 1999 murder of his former lover’s spouse[209]. News24 reported that former Gauteng Hawks head, Shadrack Sibiya said his career ran into trouble after he began investigating Mdluli for the murder[210]. In September 2015, Sibiya was fired by Ntlemeza[211]. According to amaBhungane, a former Independent Police Investigative Directorate investigator, who had originally investigated Sibiya and former Hawks boss Anwa Dramat for misconduct, made a statement in March 2016 to the effect that Ntlemeza and Mdluli had collaborated to remove Sibiya and Dramat[212]. Sibiya has since been appointed as forensic department head of the DA-run Johannesburg city council[213]. Dramat resigned as Hawks boss after reaching a “settlement”; he was replaced by Ntlemeza[214].)
In January 2017, Jiba and Mrwebi were granted leave to appeal the Court’s findings[215]. The case is still to be heard.
Thamm wrote in the Daily Maverick, “The NPA’s deputy director of public prosecutions, Nomgcobo Jiba, has been flame-grilled by 12 judges on four benches in several high-profile cases, including her stonewalling with regard to the Zuma ‘spy tapes’.”[216]
Jiba’s husband was jailed in 2005 after he stole from a trust fund. In 2012 Zuma issued a presidential pardon and expunged his criminal record [Huffington Post][217].
Zuma has placed Jiba and Mrwebi on special leave with full salary, pending the court outcome. (According to the NPA, only Zuma can revoke their salaries [News24][218].)
DUDU MYENI
(Chairperson of: South African Airways; Mhlathuze Water Board[219]; and Jacob Zuma Foundation)
In February 2017, water and sanitation minister Nomvula Mokonyane asked the Court for permission to appeal a High Court judgement that found the term of office of the Myeni-led water board had been illegally extended and thus must be dissolved[220]. City Press reported that Mokonyane initially made the decision not to appeal, but a senior official in the water department said the instruction to appeal “may have come from above”[221].
Mokonyane has retained her ministerial post[222].
(City Press reported that Myeni – in her capacity as Mhlathuze water board chair - had also allegedly irregularly donated millions of rands in cash meant for charity to other causes, including Zulu King Goodwill Zwelithini’s wedding[223]. In addition, Business Day wrote that Myeni is reputed to have spent over R675 000 of the water board’s public funds on five-star hotels, business class travel, hotel room service and a limousine ride[224].)
Moreover, the City Press reported that Myeni is fending off another court challenge against her, this time to eject her chairing the SAA board. In March 2017, the Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (Outa) and the SAA Pilots Association (Saapa) filed a lawsuit aimed at having Myeni declared a “delinquent director”[225]. The M&G reported that the court papers outline how Myeni allegedly lied, and went against advice of board members, and thus by her actions she failed to safeguard the assets of the public entity and “grossly abused the position of director”[226]. If the application is successful, Myeni could be barred from holding a directorship or executive position in any SA organisation for at least seven years[227].
For more on Myeni, read this:
The M&G reported on the 8th of March 2017 that Myeni will have one month to file responding court papers if she intends lodging a defence against the claim[228].
Linda Ensor wrote in Business Day that Myeni, who had fierce clashes with Gordhan and wanted her removed, will now be sitting pretty as she will have sympathetic ear in Treasury for her spending planes for SAA[229].
Myeni is the chairperson of the Jacob Zuma foundation, as well as his close confidante[230] [231].
(As an aside, BizNews reported in December 2016 that Outa opened a criminal case against Hlaudi Motsoeneng, several South African Broadcasting Corporation board members, as well as managers at the public broadcaster, on charges of fraud, misrepresentation and racketeering[232].)
PASSENGER RAIL AGENCY OF SOUTH AFRICA (PRASA) CONTRACTS
A contractor that was awarded tenders from Prasa worth R4 billion between 2011 and 2014, had made mysterious payments totalling R550 million to a known ANC benefactor and friend of Zuma, namely Chockalingam Moodley or companies directly linked to him[233]. Moodley, a security tycoon, is said to often appear in public with Zuma[234] [235].
(At the time of the News24 article, the paper made several attempts to obtain Moodley's comment; he did not respond to calls to his cellphone or to text messages[236].)
These developments were exposed by the forensic investigator Paul O’Sullivan, who in 2015 lodged a criminal complaint against the contractor[237]. In August 2016 O’Sullivan told News24 that he had not been informed of any progress in the investigation by the authorities[238].
In November 2015, Prasa, under the then board chairperson Popo Molefe, approached the High Court to have the disputed R4 billion contract set aside[239].
In an exclusive investigation, News24 reported in August 2016 that there had been three large unexplained payments Prasa contractors made to individuals closely linked to Zuma and his family[240].
Besides the payment mentioned above, in 2012 a R3.5 billion Prasa tender was awarded to another contractor (for locomotives which would later be found unsuitable for SA’s rail network), which then paid R40 million to a friend of Zuma, who he had visited at her home on more than one occasion[241] [242] [243]. The contractor also paid another R40 million over to a lawyer and business partner of Zuma’s eldest son, Edward[244] [245].
In August 2016, Popo Molefe had written to NPA head Shaun Abrahams, pleading for help with a pile of cases at the rail agency[246]. One investigator at the rail agency was said at the time to be working on 39 cases[247].
Popo Molefe told Business Day in an interview in October 2016 that they had tried but failed to petition the state’s anti-corruption task team (which includes the NPA, Hawks and SARS, and is chaired by Ntlemeza) to investigate cases the rail agency wanted to refer to the unit[248].
News24 wrote in March 2017 that Popo Molefe’s last act as Prasa chairperson, before the transport minister Dipuo Peters dissolved the board without notice, was to send a scathing letter to the Ntlemeza over his unit’s failure to probe suspect tenders worth billions of rands[249] [250]. The letter stated that the Hawks had “failed to comply with its constitutional and statutory obligations to investigate these matters [the allegedly crooked contracts] and to bring the investigations to finality"[251]. The Huffington Post reported that according to court papers, Popo Molefe and the board were due to start proceedings against the Hawks within days before they were fired, with affidavits already having been prepared[252].
We are dealing with persons in executive positions who have no respect for the rule of law in the country. They forget that we live in a constitutional democracy
— Popo Molefe
Peters was axed from Cabinet, replaced by Joe Maswanganyi as transport minister[253].
Upon hearing of the board’s dissolution through the media, Popo Molefe stated, “It also demonstrates that we are dealing with persons in executive positions who have no respect for the rule of law in the country. They forget that we live in a constitutional democracy and not in the jungle where the law of the jungle applies.”[254] (Days later, Zuma used the same turn of phrase in Parliament in defence of Dlamini, “The rule of law does not say punish a person because you suspect the person is going to commit a crime. It’s almost like the law of the jungle.” [255] Was Zuma mocking Popo Molefe perhaps?)
In March 2017, Popo Molefe filed an urgent application to the High Court to overturn Peters’ decision to dissolve the board, as he charges that the minister’s actions was unlawful and “imperils ongoing investigations into R14 billion of irregular expenditure; actions taken by this Board in the courts to recoup losses up to R7 billion; criminal investigations that involve suspected corruption‚ fraud and money laundering that involves several billions of Rand; and the turn-around in Prasa operations."[256] [257]
Judgement has been reserved[258].
Newly appointed deputy finance minister, Sfiso Buthelezi, was chairman of the Prasa board, from 2009 to 2014, the same period in which the above three unexplained payments were made. In 2014, Popo Molefe took over the Prasa chair[259].
CORRUPTION'S NUCLEUS
Earth Life Africa Johannesburg (ELA-J) together with the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (Safcei) instituted a court challenge against Zuma’s 9 600 megawatt (MW) nuclear procurement deal with Russia, signed in secret in September 2014[260] [261].
TimesLive reported that the procurement deal would be the largest in the country’s history at an estimated R1 trillion (equal to government’s total annual tax revenue)[262]. It equates to more than 11 Arms Deals, excluding finance costs. (R1 trillion divided by R90 billion, which is equivalent to R30 billion in 1999 after inflation).
In September 2014, energy minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson signed the agreement with Russia on strategic partnership and cooperation in the fields of nuclear power and industry, which was then authorised by Zuma [TimesLive][263] [264]. The agreement laid the foundation for SA’s 9 600MW nuclear power plant procurement and development programme, based on the construction of up to eight nuclear power plant units with Russian reactors[265]. The agreement is said to contain clauses that are against our country’s national interests, is in conflict with our constitution, and leans heavily in Russia’s favour[266]. (The agreement was leaked to the media in 2015 by Vladimir Slivyak, deputy chairman of the Russian environmental group Ecodefence[267].)
Joemat-Pettersson was axed from the Cabinet, replaced by Mmamoloko Kubayi as minister of energy[268]. Ensor reported in Business Day that Joemat-Pettersson fell out of favour because she put on the brakes on the 9600MW nuclear programme with the draft integrated resource plan, which postponed the roll-out of new nuclear plants for another 10 years[269]. While Ferial Haffajee reported in the Huffington Post that Kubayi is one of Zuma’s strongest loyalists, signalling a push on the nuclear deal[270].
ELA’s branch coordinator stated that the deal was unlawful, and thus should be reviewed and set aside[271]“The decision to proceed with procuring these nuclear power plants… has occurred without any of the necessary statutory and constitutional decisions having been lawfully taken‚” said ELA-J[272].
Moreover, the executive director of Safcei stated, “Governance processes are in place to ensure ethical, fair, and transparent decision making. The government’s failure to follow the rule of law in this nuclear case creates a deeply concerning impression that these officials and politicians consider themselves above the law”.[273]
After months of delays and postponements, ELA-J and Safcei had their day in court in late February 2017. Judgement is yet to be delivered[274]. Safcei wrote, “If we are successful, we need to mobilise people to raise their voices and speak out in the public participation spaces that this court action will create.”[275]
ELA-J and Safcei have also appealed for donations to cover their legal costs, as well as to continue their mobilisation work. (To show your support, go to http://nuclearcostssa.org/.)
See video “SA’s nuclear bomb – why government’s nuclear deal will destroy SA”, made by the NGOs Outa, Safcei and ELA-J:
JACOB ZUMA - WORKERS ASSOCIATION UNION (WAU)(Bogus labour union)
In December 2016, City Press reported the founding member of a bogus labour union, WAU, was suing Zuma and several government ministers and departments (including Mahlobo and the police minister) for R114 million[276] [277] [278].
The civil suit related to costs for - amongst others things– the setting up of the fake union in February 2014 with the assistance of spies linked to a rogue Special Operations Unit (SOU) embedded in the SSA[279].
WAU was allegedly created - under instruction from Zuma - with the centred purpose of disempowering Amcu (Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union) by drawing members away from it in the platinum mining sector[280].
For further details, read this:
JACOB ZUMA and the ARMS DEAL(The riotous president of a “funny democracy” [281] [282])
In April 2016, and after a seven year court battle by the DA, a full bench of the High Court ruled that the decision by the NPA in 2009 to drop the 783 counts of alleged corruption, fraud, money laundering and racketeering against Zuma, stemming from the Arms Deal, was “irrational” and that the charges had to be reinstated[283] [284] [285] [286] [287].
Constitutional law expert, Pierre de Vos wrote in the Daily Maverick, “President Zuma has not – as one would expect from an innocent person – been enthusiastic to explain why he is innocent. He has not, to put it mildly, demonstrated an eagerness to clear his name through the judicial process.”[288]
And true to form, Zuma appealed the judgement, as did NPA head Abrahams. Zuma’s appeal was denied by the High Court, so he approached the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA)[289]. Abrahams, meanwhile, appealed straight to the Concourt, but he was refused a hearing because the case was being addressed at a lower court[290] [291] [292].
In November 2016, BusinessTech reported that the DA had calculated that since Zuma came to office, the presidency had spent more than R43 million on legal fees (excluding funds diverted from other budgets)[293].
In January 2017, Serjeant at the Bar wrote in the M&G that the SCA granted Zuma the right to argue: firstly, why leave should be granted; and secondly, if his appeal application was successful, why the order of the High Court should be set aside[294]. If the SCA upholds the High Court ruling that the charges should be reinstated, then - as Serjeant wrote - Zuma has but one final throw of the dice, and that is to approach the Concourt. And if that is rejected, Zuma could find himself in the dock.” [295] [296] [297] [298].
Serjeant went on to say that Abrahams may decide to reject the court order, but the said writer stated at the time that even for Abrahams, it would be a significant bridge to cross[299].
On the 3rd of March 2017, Zuma announced that he had decided not to suspend Abrahams, despite the bungled prosecution of the then finance minister, Gordhan[300]. Before Abraham had dropped the charges against Gordhan, senior public law lecturer at the University of Cape Town, Cathleen Powell, stated that, “the reckless disregard of the substance and procedure of the law by the very state agencies which claim to protect and enforce it is deeply ominous”[301].
Zuma thus decided to retain Abrahams’ services. Yet, just a day earlier he fired three senior commissioners on the JSC, a body which interviews candidates for judicial posts and deals with complaints brought against judges (amongst other functions)[302].
JACOB ZUMA and the GUPTAS
In November 2016, after a report by the former Public Protector, Thuli Madonsela, was released, the DA filed a criminal charge against Zuma[303] [304]. The “State of Capture” report indicated that Zuma may have allowed members of the Gupta family to influence Cabinet appointments and the awarding of State contracts, and in so doing violated the Executive Members Ethics Act[305] [306] [307]. Zuma and the executive also failed to address allegations and investigate irregularities[308] [309].
(Zuma, his cooperative governance minister, and minerals resource minister, had applied to stop the report’s release. However, the DA, EFF, United Democratic Movement, the Congress of the People, and former ANC MP Vytjie Mentor successfully intervened in the High Court to ensure the release of the “State of Capture” report, based on public interest[310] [311] [312].)
The DA further asked police to investigate whether cooperative governance minister David Des van Rooyen and minerals resource minister Mosebenzi Zwane, as well as former Eskom CEO Brian Molefe, the Guptas, and several others implicated in the report, broke the law [Sunday Times][313].
Madonsela’s report ordered Zuma to appoint a commission of inquiry within 30 days, headed by a judge “solely selected by the Chief Justice” (in order to avoid Zuma being his own judge and jury[314]), and who would have the same powers as the public protector. The commission of inquiry is meant to complete its task and present its findings and binding recommendations to the President within 180 days[315].
However, Zuma asked the High Court to review and set aside the remedial action prescribed by Madonsela[316]. Zuma said, “This report has been dealt with in a very funny way. Very funny, in my view… No fairness at all.”[317] Instead, Zuma wants the report referred back for further investigation to the new Public Protector, Busisiwe Mkhwebane (who is a fan of the Gupta-owned TV station[318], lamented Brian Molefe’s resignation as Eskom CEO[319], and has links to the SSA[320].) Mkhwebane is opposing Zuma’s review of the report[321].
For more on Mkhwebane, read Zuma, smugglers and the killing fields of Marikana.
Zuma’s review is also being opposed by former ANC MP Vytjie Mentor, who was interviewed by Madonsela during her state capture investigation[322].
In February 2017 Mentor stated, “I want South Africans to see it as the beginning of a difficult period that will make or break the country. We therefore have to rise in our numbers – even more so than when we fought apartheid. These people (Zuma and his supporters) are digging in and they’re dangerous. It’s not going to be easy.” [Fin24][323]
And finally we come full circle with the case that involved the then finance minister Gordhan, seeking a declaratory order from the High Court that he should not intervene in a decision by the country’s banks to close Gupta-controlled company accounts [Sunday Times][324] [325] [326]. The Court reserved judgement[327] [328].
SETTING THE BAR
Zuma made a comment in Parliament which highlights his motive for capturing the NPA and the Hawks, and why he would oh so love to take control of the Judiciary. “I thought this country is a democratic country, which adheres to the rule of law. If there are allegations, allegations are not convictions. Allegations are allegations,” he said (while defending the appointment of his fellow “State of Capture” brethren, Brian Molefe, as a member of Parliament[329], and who was Zuma’s first pick as Gordhan’s replacement as finance minister, before deciding on Gigaba as a compromise to try appease opponents[330] [331]).
Thus, Zuma’s political conviction is to avoid a criminal conviction.
“The hope of escaping with impunity is the greatest incentive to vice” - Marcus Tullius Cicero[332].
WHEELS ON THE BUS
If Zuma ordered the high risk move against the Judiciary, it would indicate that his attempt to overthrow the country’s constitutional democracy is not going according to plan, seriously.
REVOLUTION DELAYED
In October 2015, the Zuptas were meant to remove Nene under the cover of student protest mayhem, which was supposed to have ignited at the Union Buildings. But this did not happen, so two months later they were forced to install Des van Rooyen, with no diversions. And as history shows, this did not pan out too well for them.
For more details, read this: Zuma's constitutional coup nears its end-game. You have been warned.
Then, in 2016 student protests at centres of higher learning were supposed to have built into a countrywide crescendo of violence and destruction, peaking in early 2017. But again this did not happen, thanks in large part to the timely financial interventions of Gordhan and higher education minister, Blade Nzimande (both Zuma enemies[333]), as well as the majority of students, who were determined to write their exams.
Specifically, the 2016/17 Zupta plan is evident in a December 2016 affidavit dreamed out of the bent mind of Gauteng Hawks boss, Prince Mokotedi. According to Mokotedi’s affidavit, a (contrived) ‘Arab Spring’ revolt was meant to have begun in the first week of January 2017. His predetermined fall guys are members of the justice cluster and Zuma’s usual anti-suspects (aka Constitutional democracy defenders), namely Robert McBride (head of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate), Shadrack Sibiya, and Paul O’Sullivan[334].
The M&G wrote that there is no indication of evidence to substantiate any of Mokotedi’s charges[335].
And as to endangering the distribution of billions of life-sustaining rands to the 17 million social grant beneficiaries after the 31st of March 2017, the Zupta plan would have again threatened the very stability of the country, thus creating the ultimate diversion, and climaxing in their final state capture project, namely that of a state of emergency.
Thus, if the Zupta’s social grant plan had panned out as envisaged, the headlines would have read at the end of March 2017, of how National Treasury (and not Dlamini) was risking the payment of the social grants, and this would have served as proof that the finance department then under Gordhan (and his deputy Jonas) stood in the way of economic transformation – an accusation Zuma allegedly made in late January 2017 against Treasury at the ANC’s lekotla, during which sources told Business Day political editor, Natasha Marrian, that Zuma’s criticisms against Treasury may have been “preparing the ground” for removing Pravin or Jonas[336].
Evidence against Treasury’s apparent resistance under Gordhan to societal transformation would have been engineered on the basis of the finance department’s refusal to ratify a signed agreement between Sassa and Cash Payment Services (CPS) – most likely late in March 2017 - while ignoring the fact that the agreement would have had onerous terms (such as permitting the selling of beneficiary information and products to a captive audience[337]), set at an exorbitant cost (as much as R1.3 billion over-budget)[338], and being unlawful without Concourt approval[339] [340].
(In December 2016, Zuma’s legal advisor Michael Hulley had been inserted in the CPS deliberations, despite not being Sassa’s attorney on record, and was said to push Sassa to negotiate with CPS without first obtaining Concourt oversight [341] [342]. Hulley, Dlamini and Tom Moyane were all involved in awarding the original 2012 social grant tender to CPS, which in 2014 was declared unlawful by the Concourt [343] [344] [345] [346].)
However, due to the timeous Concourt hearing on the 15th of March 2017 - brought about by the non-governmental organisation (NGO) Black Sash, joined by Freedom Under Law (FUL) and the admission of Corruption Watch as a ‘friend of the Court’ – the Zupta's subterfuge against Treasury was destroyed.
This Court and the country as a whole are now confronted with a situation where the executive arm of government admits that it is not able to fulfil its constitutional and statutory obligations
— Constitutional Court judgment
But more importantly, the constitutional rights of the 17 million social grant beneficiaries were championed by the civil rights movement, against Zuma’s rogue unit in government,which has become the enemy of the rights and freedoms of the people.
“The primary concern here is the very real threatened breach of the right of millions of people to social assistance in terms of … the Constitution,” wrote the Concourt Judgement, delivered two days later, on the 17th of March 2017[347].
The Concourt summed up the situation against Zuma’s appointed social development minister Dlamini, and the actions overall of Zuma and his Cabinet: “This Court and the country as a whole are now confronted with a situation where the executive arm of government admits that it is not able to fulfil its constitutional and statutory obligations to provide for the social assistance of its people. And, in the deepest and most shaming of ironies, it now seeks to rely on a private corporate entity, with no discernible commitment to transformative empowerment in its own management structures, to get it out of this predicament.”[348]
The Judgement went on to declare, “Judges hold office to serve the people, just as members of the executive and legislature do. The underlying danger to us all is that when the institutions of government established under the Constitution are undermined, the fabric of our society comes under threat. A graphic illustration would be if social grants are not paid beyond 31 March 2017. It is to the practical avoidance of that potential catastrophe that we must now turn…”[349]
Ultimately the Concourt ruling showed a complete breakdown of trust that the social development department under Zuma’s appointee of Dlamini was willing and/or capable of fulfilling their constitutional obligations in delivering the country’s social assistance programme, which the Concourt stated provided weight to the “the core constitutional values of dignity, equality and freedom”.[350]
The Concourt entrusted Treasury to investigate and make recommendations, regarding the pricing of the CPS contract, during the 12 month extension period[351]. This responsibility now falls to Zuma’s lackey, Gigaba.
The Zuptas failed to place blame of the social grants contrivance onto Treasury and induce countrywide chaos, but nevertheless they were forced to axe Gordhan as finance minister, because of their own banking crisis. And so (as with Nene’s firing) they had no diversion to hide their deceit, except for a hastily concocted intelligence report, which Gordhan described as “absolute nonsense”[352].
The “9/12” Nene firing proved a disaster for the Zuptas. One can only hope that one day, looking back, we will say the same about “30/3”.
PROPAGANDA FAILURE
The hypocrisy of Zuma and his faction in ensuring the retention of CPS to distribute social grants is spectacular.
They have perpetuated a fear-mongering campaign against “white monopoly capital”[353] [354], “imperialist forces”[355] [356], and those supposedly resisting transformation[357] [358] [359].
Yet Zuma, through Dlamini (and apparently his legal advisor, Hulley), have ensured the continued privatisation of an essential function of government by retaining the services of CPS[360].
Furthermore, CPS is a foreign-linked, profit-driven, non-black owned company, which allegedly used fronting to win the original contract[361].
In addition, CPS has been accused of performing onerous business practises that prejudice social grant beneficiaries, the majority of whom are the historically disadvantaged[362] [363] [364].
And if that was not propaganda-busting enough, The Citizen reported that CPS, through its ownership structure, is linked to Johann Rupert, the reputed face of “white monopoly capital”[365] [366] [367].
No propaganda campaign by the Zuma-Gupta duo can conceal such blatant deceit.
DESPOT DEPO
As stated earlier, the timing of the Zuptas capturing Cabinet was due - in large part - to their banking woes. But there were also political pressures that forced them to expedite matters.
With the ANC’s policy conference just over two months away (and the demands by the party Veterans for an intervening Consultative Conference, as well as the South African Communist Party holding a National Imbizo in April, in which alliance partners, civil society organisations, Veterans, and other interested organisations, are invited[368]), the Zuptas likely felt that they were (and are) fast running out of time, forcing them to ‘fast track’ their plan of action, while risking defeat.
If the Zuptas are to succeed, the policy conference in June would have to consist of the passing and enforcing of ANC resolutions that read like a wish-list of any self-respecting dictator-wannabee, such as: censure media freedom and transparency; undermine human rights and the organisations that defend them; force the public to comply with unfair and unpopular policies; treat municipalities and provinces as if they were pieces in a war game; and position the country internationally for political gain of the elite - and to the detriment of the citizens – while cloaking the deceit behind the nebulous refrain “national interest” (such as withdrawing from the International Criminal Court)[369] [370] [371].
And, as for the elective conference in December 2017, they would have to take total control of the ANC’s National Executive Committee (NEC), as well as the provinces through premiership appointments.
But grabbing hold of Treasury was always the first major step, because it gives them access to hundreds of billions of rands (that is the people’s money, meant for social grants, education, health, policing and so on). This affords them enormous corruptible power, which they will use to lord over members of the ANC, especially when it comes to the December 2017 elective conference, as well as ANC members in Parliament. The ANC and the people of SA will be at the Zupta’s mercy.
With the executive captured, together with Parliament and the majority party, the only arm of government that would be left to wrestle with despotism would be the Judiciary. And, so, it too has to be weakened and ultimately captured.
With all that said, it should be kept in mind that for the Zuptas to arrive at their despotic destination intact, they have to accomplish all of the above, something which they have tried and failed to do for nearly a decade.
Moreover, those opposed to Zuma have numbers in their favour. There are an estimated 900 000 ANC members (not all of whom have succumbed to the Zupta’s poison) and they are up against 55 million South Africans.
Just before Zuma went ahead and pulled the trigger for a full-on Cabinet reshuffle, he was said (according to unconfirmed reports) to have considered offering to step down as SA president 12 months before his term officially ends in 2019 (when fresh national government elections are meant to be held). But he would only do so on condition that Gordhan relinquished his treasured position immediately[372].
Although Zuma’s supposed proposal came to nought, as he went for broke with a Cabinet reshuffle, it did reveal that the Zuptas not only needed Gordhan gone pronto, but that they require just over a year to ensure their State capture plans are irreversible and their position unassailable. This would include Zuma remaining ANC and SA president during the party’s upcoming policy conference in June and going into the party’s elective conference in December. This ensures Zuma retains enormous sway over the ANC’s policy direction and leadership selection.
It also guarantees that Zuma can use his executive powers to fend off any court action, with the help of his rogue security cluster.
TALK-SHOP OF HORRORS
In the ANC’s policy discussion document on economic transformation, Zuma’s drive for radical land expropriation without compensation was rejected [373] [374].
(Zuma failed to deliver on his promises through the years to create millions of new jobs [375] [376], thus he has now resorted to promising the parcelling out of land without compensation. If ever there was a sign of a failed politician - and the typical modus operandi of a con man - it is to promise the people something for nothing. If you believe something is for nothing, it just means you’ve failed to count the true cost.)
— None are so blind as those without a vision. The ANC’s meltdown is not just because of abysmal leadership; it is a total systems failure
However, the ANC is willing to consider concentrating even greater power to the Presidency in government, making the Office the “strategic centre of power” [377] [378]. This is consistent with Zuma’s drive for absolute power.
But as a Bloomberg editorial wrote, “SA doesn’t need a stronger president. It needs to safeguard the integrity and effectiveness of its institutions — Parliament, the judiciary, and the South African Reserve Bank. It needs to dismantle the patronage networks that sap its economic strength. It needs to tackle a dysfunctional educational system that puts unqualified teachers ahead of struggling students. It needs to reform labour regulations that make it harder to hire workers, and that privileges well-connected unions. It needs to maintain its free press and nourish a vibrant civil society that holds politicians to account.”[379]
Even so, the party itself may be enticed by the idea of centralised power, arguing that strong leadership will be needed in order to resuscitate the ANC beyond Zuma’s death spiral legacy. But in their desperation to save the party by any means necessary, they may be overlooking the possibility that Zuma – or another despot - could in the meantime claim those extraordinary powers for themselves, to the detriment of the party.
None are so blind as those without a vision. The ANC’s meltdown is not just because of abysmal leadership; it is a total systems failure.
HISTORY IS CRUEL
The ANC as a political party defines its key objective as, “the creation of a united, non-racial, non-sexist and democratic society. This means the liberation of Africans in particular and black people in general from political and economic bondage. It means uplifting the quality of life of all South Africans, especially the poor.”[380]
We [in the ANC] are fractured to the core. We are divided in the NEC, PEC, RECs. We are busy scoring spectacular own goals … We have become corrupt to the core. All we are concerned about is to accumulate wealth as if there is no tomorrow
— Jackson Mthembu
Now, how can the ANC reconcile that mission statement, which underpins its reason for existing as an organisation, while retaining a leader who has: jeopardised the very survival of 17 million of society’s most vulnerable, the majority of whom are black Africans[381] [382]; permitted the misspending of over R342 billion over a 6 year period (including R215 million on his own homestead[383]); saw the massacre of 34 mine workers at the hands of the State police; whose executive office was found twice by the Highest Court in the Land to have violated the Constitution, the core tenet of the country’s democracy; and, has placed the country’s entire economy in grave peril on two separate occasions in less than 16 months, with the suspect appointment of two benefactor-linked finance ministers; amongst their leader’s other dastardly deeds and inactions.
“We [in the ANC] are fractured to the core. We are divided in the NEC, PEC, RECs. We are busy scoring spectacular own goals… We have become corrupt to the core. All we are concerned about is to accumulate wealth as if there is no tomorrow,” stated ANC’s parliamentary Chief Whip Jackson Mthembu at the funeral of a fallen ANC stalwart[384].
In the final analysis, the ANC is dead as a liberation movement.
The only question now is whether the party can resurrect itself as a fully-fledged, modern-day, professional political party that upholds, defends and respects South Africa’s Constitutional democracy. And that can only start by first ridding itself of Zuma.
Or, if it will act merely as an empty (pirate) vessel to rape and pillage the country with impunity - under the black, green and gold flag - before sinking into the abyss of history.
“The position of President is one that at all times must unite this country behind a vision and programme that seeks to make tomorrow a better day than today. It is a position that requires the respect of all South Africans, which of course must be earned at all times,” wrote the late ANC Struggle icon Ahmed Kathrada, in an open letter to Zuma, imploring him to resign. Zuma never responded[385] [386].
We, as South Africans, need to all come together, to walk the talk and the tweets, and put a face to facebook. For, either we all peacefully rise to the occasion against Zuma, or we will all sink into the depths together.
“I am unashamedly encouraging mass mobilisation,” said Pravin Gordhan, at the memorial service of Ahmed Kathrada[387].
SUPPORT DEMOCRACY
As stated in previous articles, show your support for SA’s Constitution defenders, where ever they may be found, whether within the ANC, ANC alliance partners, labour unions, or by opposition parties, civil society, religious organisations, civil servants, the free press, the Judiciary, 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:
Earthlife Africa Johannesburg (ELA-J)
Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (Outa)
South African Institute for Security Studies (ISS)
Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (SAFCEI)
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.)
TODAY’S FREEDOM IS NOT A DESTINATION, IT IS A LONG WALK.
Get up, stand up, stand up for your rights! Get up, stand up, don't give up the fight! – Bob Marley
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.