There can be little doubt that most African National Congress (ANC) MPs would have preferred that the whole Jacob Zuma saga had never happened. But, once President Thabo Mbeki dismissed Zuma following the findings of the Schabir Shaik trial there can be little doubt that there was a massive, collective sigh of relief when Zuma also resigned his seat in the National Assembly.

This contradiction in response is because ANC MPs had walked the plank for Zuma and they were about to get their noses rubbed into it. Consider that when the amounts of money Zuma received from Shaik were first reported, a complaint was lodged with the registrar of members’ interests in Parliament by the Democratic Alliance (DA).

It was claimed that the more than R1m that changed hands was a gift and thus had to be declared to Parliament. It did not appear in Zuma’s declaration of interests and this placed him in conflict with the code of ethics for MPs, the DA argued. The registrar, Fazela Mohammed, investigated and it all ended up behind closed doors in the ethics committee.

The argument that Judge Hilary Squires rejected — that the payments to Zuma were interest-bearing loans — was offered to the committee amid howls of outrage from opposition parties that the so-called loan contracts appeared to have been drawn up after the fact to justify the failure to declare the sums as gifts. The ANC used its 70% muscle to let Zuma off the hook.

Had Zuma remained a member it would not have been too long before the ethics committee would have had to deal with a complaint about the so-called loans again. Then ANC MPs would have had to backtrack, and devise a punishment for Zuma. There would have been red faces. But not nearly as red as the face of Zuma himself. His resignation as an MP forestalled any action from the ethics committee because, as he was no longer a member, he could no longer be disciplined by the institution.

The critical issue was that he misled Parliament. The previous senior ANC member who lied to Parliament, Tony Yengeni, told the house that there was nothing untoward about the luxury car he was so proudly driving. He said he had bought it legitimately. Since then he has had to admit lying to the nation, has resigned his seat and is facing four years in prison for defrauding Parliament. Zuma certainly did not want a situation where he was castigated in open session of the National Assembly.

Neither would National Assembly speaker Baleka Mbete, who would have had to announce the results of any further probe into Zuma.

The ethics committee has found against people such as Yengeni, Winnie Madikizela-Mandela and Defence Minister Mosiuoa Lekota, but with deep reluctance. It has been unfortunate that the committee did not get an opportunity to set things right because, increasingly, the perception is that Parliament is deeply reluctant to act against those who break the rules.

Mbeki’s decision on Zuma, who has not been convicted, should have encouraged action on the Travelgate MPs who have pleaded guilty. The theory is they will walk off into the political wilderness while Parliament is in recess but if they had been fired it would have sent a powerful message to voters that bad guys will not be allowed to get away with it. While Travelgate is not really the turf of the ethics committee, it helps create the impression that the instincts are to protect rather than punish. If the committee, even at this stage, were to review its decision on Zuma and admit its error, it would go a long way to restoring some faith in itself.

With acknowledgements to Wyndham Hartley and the Business Day.