Publication: The Witness Issued: Date: 2005-06-10 Reporter: Duncan du Bois Reporter:

What Will Mbeki Do About Jacob Zuma?

 

Publication 

The Witness
Date 2005-06-10

Reporter

 Duncan du Bois

Web Link

www.witness.co.za

 

Barring the question of an appeal, Schabir Shaik's trial is over. But for the collective futures of Thabo Mbeki, Jacob Zuma, the ANC, South Africa and Nepad a trial of credibility has begun.

This would not have arisen if, in the first place, Zuma had been tried with Shaik. Former Prosecutions Director Bulelani Ngcuka, after all, claimed he had prima facie evidence against Zuma. But political pressure was what prevented Ngcuka from pressing ahead and arraigning Zuma. Now that Judge Hilary Squires has found "overwhelming" proof of a generally corrupt relationship between Shaik and Zuma, high noon has arrived for Zuma, the ANC and, in particular, for Mbeki.

In terms of section 91 of the Constitution, the president has the power to appoint the deputy president and to dismiss him. In comments published on June 7, Mbeki stated that his government accepted the outcome of the trial and that there may be an appeal to higher courts. How Mbeki handles the fate of his deputy is set to become one of the defining moments of his presidency and his legacy.

The decision should be straightforward. Last week it was reported (Mercury, May 31) that the national executive committee of the ANC had "agreed to act with firmness and resolve against any corruption within the organisation and against any members found guilty of misdemeanours". ANC secretary-general Kgalema Motlanthe has already announced that its MPs implicated in the travel voucher scam will be axed. Given Squires's findings on the nature of the relationship of Shaik with the deputy president, it should be obvious what Zuma's fate should be, despite his childish protest that it was Shaik's trial, not his.

But the ANC has a record of tardiness when it comes to prosecuting its own for crimes and misdemeanours. Winnie Madikizela-Mandela, Tony Yengeni and Alan Boesak continued to live high on the hog before they were eventually brought to book. And Boesak, despite his hypocrisy in defrauding the poor, has since been pardoned.

The line between populism and accountability has tended to lack definition within the ANC. The shrill support of the SACP, ANC Youth League and Cosatu for Zuma affirms that. Of course, it should not be allowed to mask the application of the slogan that appears on the front page of the Constitution: "one law, one nation". Nor should historical references to liberation struggle contributions be prioritised over the universal application of the law. The deputy president must honour his title. The title is not there to honour Zuma.

If the popular opinion of the ANC's rank and file is to determine the course of events, then this country is in serious trouble. Populism is no substitute for due process and accountability.

Doing nothing and waiting for a possible appeal to be heard on Shaik's trial is not an option for Mbeki. Like Watergate, that would only fuel speculation and erode credibility. Failure to act will not clear Zuma's name, which, in any event, is damaged, sullied beyond redemption. But failure to act will send out the worst possible signal, namely, that the name of the game is selective morality and double standards.

For Mbeki, therefore, the prospect of holding on to Zuma is a no-brainer. As the chief proponent of Nepad with its emphasis on good governance, accountability and peer review mechansim, it is out of the question for Mbeki to be seen to be wavering on such issues where his deputy is concerned. He has to lead by example. As the "point man in Africa", as George W. Bush has termed him, Mbeki has an opportunity to give substance to the the things Nepad stands for. Historically and in terms of statesmanship Mbeki stands to earn accolades if he resolves to dispose of Zuma.

If Nepad's principles are worth more than the paper on which they are written, South Africa needs to be spared the likes of Jacob Zuma holding public office at any level. The evidence of his inability to manage his own personal finances alone attests to that.

A brief review of the data confirms this. In October 1997, Standard Bank brought legal action against him for R443 618 in mortgages owed. In May 1998 Zuma's debt of R66 500 to Nedbank was a matter of concern. At the same time he was in arrears to Wesbank on payments for the purchase of a car for R291 000. His personal overdraft to Standard Bank was R105 717 in September 1998. Despite his financial shambles, in 2000 he authorised the construction of a R1,34 million traditional home at Nkandla.

For someone who has shown since January 1995, when his financial difficulties first surfaced, that he was unable to fund his lifestyle, the concept of governance is apparently not a part of his mindset.

With Mbeki now serving out his final term of office, he needs to give attention to the legacy he will leave. Already it is soiled by his HIV/Aids denial and his support for the tyranny of Robert Mugabe. But by doing the right thing and removing Zuma as his heir apparent, he has the chance to make amends. Life is about choices. History is shaped by them. Epitaphs reflect them.

Will Mbeki seize the moment ?

Duncan du Bois is a DA Durban Metro ward councillor. He writes in his private capacity.

With acknowledgements to Duncan du Bois and The Witness.