OPINION & ANALYSIS
Is Ramaphosa’s ‘new dawn’
in danger of being derailed?
S
ince replacing former president Jacob
Zuma as head of state, President Cyril
Ramaphosa has made it his business
to clean up South African politics. But he
has been handicapped by factional battles
in the governing ANC, with a section of
the party remaining loyal to Zuma.
Testifying at the judicial commission
of inquiry into allegations of state
capture, chaired by Deputy Chief Justice
Raymond Zondo, Zuma named several
“apartheid-era spies” (including former
Cabinet ministers Siphiwe Nyanda and
Ngoako Ramatlhodi), all enemies of his,
and has threatened to reveal more.
These names could shake the ANC
as a political party, and government, to
their foundations. At the very least, it will
derail Ramaphosa’s ‘new dawn’ project,
discredit important people, and deepen
the distrust and factionalism in the ANC.
The latter could result in the party
becoming even more dysfunctional
as those with struggle credentials
lose their ability to be trusted.Importantly, as head of intelligence of the
outlawed ANC under apartheid, Zuma
was privy to sensitive information, which
he has threatened to use against former
comrades in the liberation struggle.
After the inquiry adjourned following
his first week of testimony, Zuma made
a rousing speech to several hundred
supporters in Johannesburg, saying
that spies had infiltrated the ANC and
that he was ready to expose them.
By being unwilling to co-operate and
engaging in legal technicalities, Zuma
had undermined the integrity of the
inquiry, said Ralph Mathekga, the author
of books on both Zuma and Ramaphosa.From Zuma’s first day at the inquiry,
his lawyers have tried to prevent him
from facing rigorous questioning.
Zuma threatened to pull out of the
inquiry before his demand for a more
lenient line of questioning was granted
by the commission, which he has in
the past accused of being biased and
lacking the “requisite impartiality”.THE SECOND FRONT
The second front against Ramaphosa comes
in the form of Public Protector Busisiwe
Mkhwebane, who found in a report that
Ramaphosa had “deliberately misled”
Parliament about a R500 000 donation he
had received for his campaign to become
leader of the ANC in 2017. Mkhwebane
said Ramaphosa had violated the executive
ethics code and referred the matter to the
Speaker of Parliament. She also instructed
the National Prosecuting Authority to
investigate whether money had been
laundered in the way donations had been
handled in Ramaphosa’s campaign.
The Presidency said it was unfortunate
that Mkhwebane seemed to have not taken
into account Ramaphosa’s response to her
preliminary findings, which he described
as “deficient both factually and in law”.
His supporters say that Mkhwebane
is not impartial in her investigations,
and accuse her of acting as a proxy for
Zuma’s faction. She has denied this.
While analysts are not predicting that
Ramaphosa will be removed from office,
the report provides ammunition to his
enemies with which to attack him.
“This report will add to the Zuma
faction’s plans to neutralise and remove
Ramaphosa, as they are threatened by his
anti-corruption campaign,” said Darias
Jonker, Africa director at Eurasia Group.
In fact, Zuma said nothing in his
testimony that points to his innocence;
it was all about casting shadows and
doubts on the Ramaphosa faction. The
biggest arrow in that quiver might yet
be the report of the Public Protector.ZUMA’S TESTIMONY
AT THE ZONDO
COMMISSION COULD
SHAKE GOVERNMENT
POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE
BY DR JAN VENTERDr Jan Venter is a political analyst
at Aginfo. Email him at
[email protected].12 farmer’sweekly 2 AUGUST 2019