Confused message sent on Yengeni

The ANC leadership has sent a strong signal to the public that it cannot differentiate between right and wrong.

Early reports of leaders arriving at the Yengeni home last week were not an immediate cause for concern. It was to be expected that the organisation provide support to Tony Yengeni and his family in their time of need.

Many of us know the difficulty of having a friend or a colleague who has fallen foul of the law. Such times test true friendships.

But the cavalcade and public demonstration of support last Thursday outside Pollsmoor Prison has sent a confused message.

What are the leaders saying to the led? Are some who the courts convict less guilty than others? Are they, by example, advising the people to accompany their erring friends and relatives to prison every day? Will the traffic department beef up their presence on the Tokai road that leads to the local prison in anticipation of this new South African ritual?

Personal loyalty is one thing. But this cannot supersede allegiance to ethical principles and values at the core of a humane, caring society. There has to be a distinction between right and wrong.

It is particularly disturbing at a time when President Thabo Mbeki's recent speech expressed deep concern about corruption and greed that are antithetical to every higher value espoused by the liberation struggle over many decades. Many have died or suffered immeasurably in pursuit of values, now so beautifully expressed in our constitution.

Did members of the local leadership or national executive committee of the ANC not read that speech? Did the president not know that members of his cabinet would be present at an event that stood in stark contrast to the values he has been espousing? Was he seriously raising these issues or was it all just academic?

What is the South African public supposed to make of all this?

Yengeni has been convicted of fraud. He was convicted in terms of laws governed by a constitution which he himself fought for. In March 2003, he concluded a plea bargain with the state.

He pleaded guilty to a charge of defrauding parliament for lying about a discount of 47% or R167 387 he was given on a Mercedes-Benz ML320 4x4 he had bought in 1998. In his written plea of guilt handed in to the Commercial Crimes Court in Pretoria, he made the following additional submissions as reported in the Sunday Times:

Backdating the 4x4 sale agreement and falsely inflating the price he paid to R230 052 to try to cover up getting an "improper benefit" when he had actually paid only R182 563.

Lying about the 4x4 being "used" when he bought it.

Lying about paying a R50 000 deposit.

Lying in full-page advertisements (costing R250 000 each) he placed in national newspapers, where he "falsely attempted to give out that there was nothing improper about the benefit (discount)" he received.

The court sentenced him to four years' imprisonment under a special article in the Criminal Procedure Act that allows prison authorities to release him under correctional supervision after serving one-sixth of his sentence - in this case, eight months.

Cape Times reporter Estelle Ellis reported that his case was remarkable in two respects. First, it was the first in South Africa recognising that parliament could be defrauded, although parliament did not incur material loss. Second, Yengeni was sentenced to time behind bars although the fraud committed could not be measured in monetary terms.

He prepared to enter prison not long after both the leader of his organisation and South Africa's most famous religious leader had spoken out eloquently about the values and leadership attributes that drive South Africa today. It is perhaps useful to examine some of their insights as we try to make sense of the disturbing events of last week. These two speeches represent a body of knowledge that should be compulsory reading for anyone committed to upholding common decency in South Africa.

Delivering the Nelson Mandela Memorial Lecture at Wits University recently, Mbeki said that the new order in South Africa had inherited a well-entrenched value system that placed individual acquisition of wealth at the centre of the value system of our society.

"In practice this meant that, provided this did not threaten overt social disorder, society assumed a tolerant or permissive attitude towards such crimes as theft and corruption, especially if these related to public property," he said.

Is what we saw on Thursday part of the trend to entrench this permissiveness towards convicted public representatives and their illegal conduct?

No one of us can say that we will not err. The point is when we do err, surely it should be expected that we take personal responsibility for our transgressions.

Yengeni was chairman of the Defence Committee of Parliament at the time when an arms company offered him a discounted vehicle. He must have known that he was accepting a gift. He was accepting a gift from a party who had an interest in the outcome of the proceedings on his committee.

This is not a confused ethical matter. This is a straightforward issue of right and wrong. We all know that judges have to recuse themselves when a matter comes before them in which they have some personal stake or interest. If Yengeni knew that his committee was discussing the arms deal, surely he had to politely say to those offering the gift that this would not be appropriate and would constitute a bribe.

As a leader, one would have expected him to lead and uphold the highest ethical standards of leadership. In delivering the Harold Wolpe Memorial Lecture last Wednesday, Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu said the leader is there for the led. Drawing on the Christian Gospels, he said that Jesus Christ had called the apostles to Him and said: "… whoever desires to be great among you must be your servant. And whoever wishes to be most important and first in rank among you must be slave of all."

Yengeni's selflessness during the years of struggle suggested that he understood this very important attribute of a real leader. In contrast, his present actions show that he expects the led to be there for the leader.

It is strange that he did not consider the harm it would do his organisation to display support for him in a way that bore little semblance of dignity.

An individual with a history of struggle does not have the right to be treated any differently from any other citizen. In fact, such an individual has earned a trust that places an additional onus on him or her to behave with integrity.

There was no integrity on display in the streets when he was hoisted shoulder-high and paraded towards Pollsmoor Prison.

It was not the act of going to prison that diminished him. It was that he could not see beyond his personal interest, and in so doing lost his right to be considered a true leader.

Most sadly, there was no one to lead him, no one to guide him towards exemplary conduct in his hour of need.

No one who could distinguish between right and wrong.

Jaffer is a freelance journalist and former parliamentary editor of Independent Newspapers.

With acknowledgement to Zubeida Jaffer and Cape Times.