In his book The Other Side of History, Frederik van Zyl Slabbert makes a sobering observation about the dangers involved when government deals selectively with corruption.

“As a leader you know your cabinet minister next to you has his or her finger in the till but you deliberately divert attention from this person by jumping on a minor official selling fake IDs in Mpumalanga to show that you are serious about corruption. The rule is simple: the bigger the fish you catch, the more seriously you will be taken as an angler. Corruption is corruption is corruption.”

Corruption in government specifically and in politics generally has been identified as one of the major threats to our nascent democracy in SA. Corruption and its debilitating effects on governance and the fabric of society have wreaked havoc in many developing countries on our continent and elsewhere in the world. Similarly, it has also on occasion engulfed established democracies whose institutions are more entrenched than ours.

Given the insidious nature of corruption in the public service in SA, government and the ruling party’s doublespeak does great harm because it often hinders the ability of law enforcement agencies to deal decisively with the issue. While government’s efforts to crack the whip on those who steal public money and abuse their positions should be commended, as long as there is one rule for government officials and politicians and a different one for the rest of society, genuine efforts will be viewed with suspicion.

One need only look at the attitude of the leadership of the African National Congress (ANC) when confronted with corruption in its own ranks. Sadly government has yet to adopt a zero-tolerance policy on corruption.

The leniency shown to errant public servants found guilty of siphoning off social grants into their personal bank accounts is a recent case in point. The fact that MPs and public officials almost always get away with only paying fines instead of serving any jail time, contrasts sharply with the harsh sentences handed down to the poor who commit a crime.

But it is the corruption trial of ANC deputy president Jacob Zuma that is really shining the spotlight on government’s commitment to root out malfeasance.

Zuma’s trial provides an opportune moment to reflect on just how the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) went about reeling in a “big fish” such as Zuma. It also raises questions about the credibility of our criminal justice system and the commitment of our law enforcement agencies to fight corruption no mater who is involved.

Back in January 2001, the then national director of public prosecutions, Bulelani Ngcuka, investigated Zuma, then still deputy president of SA, as well as former ANC chief whip Tony Yengeni, after allegations of abuse were made against them relating to SA’s multibillion-rand arms deal.

Yengeni was eventually found guilty of defrauding Parliament, but the case against Zuma was dropped, with Ngcuka making his now infamous statement in August 2003, that “there was prima facie evidence of corruption (against Zuma), but insufficient to win the case in court”.

Ngcuka’s utterance has come back to haunt us as it amounted to a political blunder of monumental proportions, seriously damaging the state’s subsequent efforts to try Zuma separately. Instead of using the opportunity to go for the “big fish”, Ngcuka played politics by making a statement that only dented Zuma politically.

Instead the NPA decided to charge Zuma’s former financial adviser, Schabir Shaik, alone. However, Zuma did not manage to escape the scrutiny of presiding judge Hillary Squires in Shaik’s case. When convicting Shaik, Squires ruled that Zuma and Shaik had shared a “generally corrupt” relationship. So while Ngcuka’s decision not to prosecute Zuma initially, no doubt, saved Mbeki’s government the embarrassment of having a sitting deputy president of the republic up on charges of corruption, it is not unreasonable to argue that it would perhaps have served the cause of justice better had Ngcuka gone ahead and indicted Zuma when he went after Shaik.

After Shaik’s conviction Mbeki axed Zuma from the cabinet last June. Six years down the line, Zuma has yet to face a final indictment and the state has again said it is not ready to try the case and has sought an adjournment.

With hindsight, Ngcuka’s blunder ended up both undermining the fight against corruption in government and denting the image and credibility of the criminal justice system in ways we have already come to regret. Far from disappearing from the political scene, Zuma is now leading a revolt against Mbeki inside the ANC and still considers himself a contender to take over the ANC leadership from Mbeki next year.

With acknowledgements to Karima Brown and Business Day.