As my regular readers will know, I am a big fan of President Thabo Mbeki and supported his bid to reclaim the ANC leadership at Polokwane. That does not detract from the fact that the delegates at Polokwane chose Jacob Zuma as ANC president, and members and supporters of the ANC have to accept that.
What is proving to be of grave concern are events post-Polokwane, and in particular the failure to clarify the Jackie Selebi issue, the arms-deal probe and the arrest of Scorpions boss Gerrie Nel.
These cannot, in my humble opinion, be considered to be unrelated to the ongoing faction war within the party and the decision to prosecute Zuma ; even if they were, the perception is that there are vested interests at work.
Unless a mechanism is found to deal with all of these issues, South Africans are going to start feeling the effects sooner rather than later.
Consider the crime statistics of the country, loss of investment and friction on the ground while this circus plays itself out. I’d like to know, for example, what percentage of our crime-fighting resources is being employed to keep this little game going? How much investment is being lost while interested parties wait for this abomination to sort itself out?
At present we have :
We also have a country that ranks among the most violent in the world with crime statistics that in themselves are criminal. What part of AfriForum’s decision to try to investigate the government’s failure to address crime properly owes itself to this political tit-for-tat I can’t say — but it just adds more fuel to the fire.
When this starts translating itself into violence on the ground, as it invariably will, people are going to be forced to start addressing the underlying cause of this friction. We have the perception that the government is using state machinery to force the hand of Zuma supporters — pursuant to this, arrests and charges are being brought as well as counter-charges in what we can only presume to be attempts at seeking retribution for the initial charges.
This has resulted, at the very least, in political unrest, a turf war between the police and Scorpions (please be reminded of our crime stats) and opposition parties claiming that the ANC is run by criminals (hope this wasn’t discovered in another one of their spying scandals) and that Zuma must step down while his case is ongoing.
In the case of Bantu Holomisa, I would draw to his attention the fact that a few short weeks ago at Polokwane, the ANC delegates voted overwhelmingly in favour of Zuma — to suggest that he step down because of what is perceived to be a singling-out of the ANC president is not only unhelpful; it may well be inflammatory.
Try again.
Certain segments of the public are of the view that we must prosecute Zuma on principle — if we fail to do so, we are setting a precedent that Zuma is above the law. What then are their views on the parties to the arms deal as well as the Selebi and Nel issues?
Are these and the Zuma matter not being driven by political agendas and the turf war between the police and Scorpions that has flowed therefrom?
Are we as South Africans to accept that a large part of our criminal justice system is going to be allowed time off to play political wars while crime runs rampant, the economy is battered and people across the colour lines leave to improve their quality of life?
The criminal justice system and independent judiciary are made up of fine men and women who serve the public for relatively low income, horrendous hours and no little threat to them and their families. While it is all well and good to say Zuma and everyone else who is going to be arrested while this is allowed to continue will be given a fair trial, the question remains: Are they being tried because there is merit or because they are the latest targets in this political war? If you believe it is on merit, then best you start researching who is involved in which current scandal, and you may well feel that there are many, many more who merit the same.
What happens to the parties who sit on the bench, move the prosecution or police the events? Are their lives forfeit in the interests of justice? If it is justice and not politics in the first place.
Are you prepared to watch South Africa burn, based on principles that in themselves may be inappropriate because the starting point might well be that the prosecutions are grounded in politics, not crime? No question there are grounds to prosecute many of our politicians, and not only in the ANC — the problem is: Where does it end and what does it do to South Africa?
Put your ear to the ground — you’ll hear the sabre-rattling is getting louder and ordinary South Africans more concerned about how this is going to affect them.
The time has come to draw a line in the sand. Like the ending of apartheid, which nobody believed possible, and the amnesties that released thousands of prisoners to create space, a one-off political, criminal amnesty needs to be applied — immediately.
It does not create a precedent because people cannot rely on a further amnesty nor claim relief unless it applies to them.
Yes, it will have thousands of critics who slam it as surrendering to corruption and crime, giving in to political blackmail and making us look backward to the outside world.
We will be drowned in paper and bullshit, rather than bullets.
Pundits will rage on until something more interesting comes along — South Africans, without this threat, will be able to sit back and claim how disgusted they are with politics while the economy will be released from the strain of uncertainty.
The ANC members can tell each other how lucky they are to still be out of jail while the fences begin to mend and memories return of how they brought down apartheid as comrades-in-arms, not rivals in a dead-end political feud.
The ANC can get on with the business at hand and prepare for the transfer of power in the ordinary course. The president and the ANC president working together to build on transformation.
The independent criminal justice system and judiciary will be getting the credit they deserve for dealing with crime and not being used as a political ping-pong ball. If you really want to use the money designated for these trials, start paying prosecutors, police officers and correctional services better money.
If inter alia Zuma, Selebi and Nel, regardless of your feelings towards any of them, are to be given a clean slate in order to get back to business, then let’s get on with the business of rebuilding our country now. Remember, this would also ensure that the new government could not turn on the old government as it would be covered by the amnesty.
The price we will have to pay for ignoring the underlying problem is going to be enormous. We will then be forced to make concessions for peace that will make the above seem a mere pittance.
Let’s skip the destruction part and move to the table now.
George A Isaacs says we should just pardon all criminals. Not a bad idea. But then again JZ didn’t pay his taxes and if we let everyone get away with that there would be no money for all the good things, like official cars. (BMW has some great new models coming up in 2009!) Better if parliament passes a law the that grants complete freedom from ever being prosecuted to those who are simply better than us, such as, the Shaik family, the deployed comrades and of course anyone on the NEC. It’s been done before with great success. Saddam’s control of Iraq, for example, was much more peacefully than what’s happening there today.
The XhosaNostra and the ZuluClan are fighting it out for the Cookie jar. Seems to me the Zulus are ahead in the race.
XNM, I agree with your first point 100%. I am tired of this view that African countries, African society and African people (of which I consider myself one) somehow will always lowest standards for everything. Whatever other blunders Mbeki might have made, he played a very important part in setting the scene for an African Renaissance, for the reinstatement of African pride and for good governance across the continent. It won’t happen overnight – nothing ever does – but we should all demand nothing less, not always accept that whatever is African is always going to be inferior and second-best. It’s that kind of thinking that leads Trapido to believe that the inevitable outcome of a Zuma conviction will be blood on the streets. Why? Why can we not believe (and therefore support and work for) a peaceful response to such a scenario? I believe the ANC, for all its flaws, is capable of achieving that, I believe the country is capable of achieving that.
What is always surprising is how few comments/commentators see that SA is a monocracy, and that when someone sensibly draws attention to the fact and its consequences, as Dumisani Mkhize does, how few take up the point.
It would seem to be a example of what Foucault proposed is a ‘discourse’ – the sense in any given society of what it is proper or acceptable to say on a particular subject. The discourse establishes the framework within which a subject is discussed, even the vocabulary, such as ‘SA is a democracy’.
In this way reality is defined by our own patterns of thinking – and of course the discourse is an element in the maintaining and exercise of power.
michael please contact your uncle jack in australiavia email.
michael remember piet retief & party in the zulu kraal.that is as far one can trust zuma.the judiacary in south africa will be led to the kraal.
(Read Parliament)there they will be slaughtered on the alter of expediancy.
UNCLE JACK in australia
The socialists ought to consider whether they REALLY want a leader who is for sale to big business. And what better place to find out than a court of law, where all is transparent and played out in the theater of the world.
Sir, your opinions are noted, and will be defended by many in our indirect democracy. However, your TRC idea won’t fly, unfortunately. Suppose we pardon some, and then, as a favour to the people, that’s you and me, we ask them to give back the lovely money they accepted? Do you think they’ll hand back that lovely lolly? I don’t think so. There are other reasons why your TRC hangover won’t fly, but I won’t list them. It’ll sound like I’m complaining, or trying to impress people with words. I also have a problem with soothsayers; people who claim the future will be violent because of the post-Polokwane effect. Sir, you don’t know what the future holds. I invite you to stand your ground and face the winds that will blow then. I will.
Your article basically states that because those who are in power may wield it incorrectly, lets ‘strategically’ pacify them and give them amnesty for all wrongs they may have done. You seem to insist that this is how our contry was forged. An amnesty for apartheid activists, an amnesty for PAC/APLA warriors, and of course, for ANC factionalsists (Quattro Camps).
But is this how our country was forged? Did we sacrice principle for expedience? Did we?
I quote your article: “These cannot, in my humble opinion, be considered to be unrelated to the ongoing faction war within the party and the decision to prosecute Zuma ; even if they were, the perception is that there are vested interests at work.”
The operative words are ‘even if they were’. It means to me that you are unsure, therefore you cannot be moving on the basis of principle, no matter how much your polemic tries to insist they you are!
But let us apply ourselves to these cases, with Thabo Mbeki as our constant or the experimental control. Did Thabo Mbeki remove Jacob Zuma as Deputy President of the country based on perception, although he was popularly implicated in the arms deal case and the investigation into Scahbir Shaik? If we are factual, then we shall recognise that Mbeki did not flinch, no matter how much ‘evidence’ existed in the ‘court of public opinion’ (read the media) he refused to remove or speak against Zuma. He only acted when an official organ/institution had an official opinion, namely the judgement of the case against Schabir Shaik. Mbeki was not swayed by popular opinion but by evidence formulated and accepted by an institution of state. He recognised that in terms of the separations of power doctrine that the SA Constitution subscribes to that by not releasing Zuma, the exeuctive could be construed of interfering with the judiciary or forcing the judiciary to interfere in the executive. Similarly, if he released Zuma based on only an investigation then the judiciary could be interfering in the executive. The law must take its course. Zuma could only be released from his position if he had a case to answer from an official organ of state, the Shaik case revealed so.
In the Selebi matter, Mbeki’s conduct was exactly the same. He could not release or suspend Selebi without a credible reason. An investigation does not suffice. There is a separation between investigative powers and prosecution powers. That is the crux of the debate on the NPA and the Police. The NPA with the Scorpions have special investigation powers. These overlap with the Police’s investigation powers. If the NPA with their special investigation powers are to act against the head of the Police, they need to provide to the Executive the credibility of their actions before acting. In other words, to allow the Executive to act on the head of police so as to not hamper the NPA’s case. Mbeki acted once the NPA provided the sense and sensibility that they have to act against the head of Police. Prior to that he did not need to. Like he could not prior to the Shaik judgement.
On the Gerrie Nel case, the executive was not required, therefore Mbeki was not required to act.
To put the point succintly across, you reveal how much perception governs your strategic thinking and analysis! You state in the same article: “the perception is that there are vested interests at work.” The idea that percpetion that must govern your actions is what results in making the fallacious conlusion that this is what governed Mbeki on Zuma and Selebi and therefore it should be what governs SA. Perception is crass populism that panders to the lowest common denominator as political holy truth. If as leaders, which you are, if you are scared to counter perception even if you beleive the perception to be incorrect then you are a crass populist who agrees today and disagrees on the same matter tomorrow just because the pereception says so.
Nick, in his response rounds the matter of consistently, he says, “And will we ever again be able to prosecute corrupt officials without being accused of inconsistency? Or do we just have to accept that corruption will become a necessary part of our country?Nick on January 10th, 2008 at 7:48 pm”
Let the law take its cause, there is no link with these cases. Selebi will answer his case on his own without the police. Zuma has to answer his case without the ANC, COSATU and the SACP, although his supporters would want to force otherwise. Gerrie Nel will have to answer his without the Scorpions. That is a constitutional democracy based on a rule of law.
Two final points.
To remind you that in one of the previous ANC Conferences, Bantu Holomisa was the highest-polling ANC nominee winning a seat in the NEC. Popularity can be short-lived if not managed consistently.
And finally, to Sizwe Nkosi, regarding Mbeki’s ex-officio status, that does not mean he is a member of the NEC. If Mbeki attends NECs without just reason, because he is required to provide the NEC with relevant information that the officials have requested, he could be accused of attempting to subvert the democratic outcome of Polokwane by placing undue pressure on the NEC by his presence. It would be expected that the officials or officials (read the President of the ANC)deployed by the top six would meet with him prior to the NEC to get his views. He did not snub the NEC he accepted the authority of the NEC.
In the case of Bantu Holomisa, I would draw to his attention the fact that a few short weeks ago at Polokwane, the ANC delegates voted overwhelmingly in favour of Zuma — to suggest that he step down because of what is perceived to be a singling-out of the ANC president is not only unhelpful; it may well be inflammatory.
Maurice, are you blind? “Setting the scene for an African Renaissance, for the reinstatement of African pride and for good governance across the continent?” Thabo is repeatedly referred to as having a huge intellect, but I’ve seen no evidence of either that or any ethics – unless it suits him to get rid of some corrupt prick in his administration.
Start seeing things as they are, not as you’d like them to be.
I am astounded that an attorney can express such sloppy logic and moral relativism.
That charges against JZ may be part of turf wars or political infighting does not address the question of whether there is evidence of crimes being committed. And claims that others may have committed similar or greater crimes is not an argument that these should be ignored. No, the others should be investigated as well.
And if excessive resources have now been spent in investigating, should valid evidence be thrown away?
The question is not whether the primary motive is political or not – it is whether there is merit in the claims of criminal activity. Having reached this point, only a court of law can decide this.
Must we stop prosecutions because of political concerns, or fears of social unrest – this would then be an open invitation for future accused figures to engage in tactics that mimioc these concerns. We would be opening a Pandora’s box of manipulation that would create an effective warlord system, with no rule of law.
The arms deal in itself was wrong. There was absolutely no valid reason for us to spend billions on arms. Which of our neighbours was going to attack us? And if not our neighbours which country in the rest of Africa was going to attack us? None. On the other hand our country was in desperate need of all sorts of development for which the billions spent on arms would have really come in useful.
In my view it was because the decision makers were offered bribes, which they took, that the arms deal went ahead. The bribes were of course built into the arms suppliers’ prices so that Joe public not only paid for the arms, which were not needed but actually replaced needed development, but they also paid for this misuse of public money through the bribes. Therefore I think that the people who took bribes must definitely stand trial. They misused public money.
I see that the toyi-toying, black-clad bodyguard strutting and shirt-burning has worked on the writer as well. Seems like we’re all to meekly roll over in the presence of the new playground bully for fear of being stepped on. Hardly seems like a recipe for a winning country. Bullies 1, the rest 0.