When Jacob Zuma was canvassing for support to oust Thabo Mbeki as ANC
president, he assured followers he would protect
state institutions from political meddling.
He was trusted by party apparatchiks. And he triumphed after he cast himself
as a victim of political meddling in institutions such as the National
Prosecuting Authority.
In the run-up to the general election, Zuma reiterated the message. Convinced
that a man who almost lost his political life due to alleged meddling in
independent state institutions would clean out any hint of such
abhorrent practices, the public believed
him too.
In his initial speeches after he was confirmed president, he repeated what was
indeed a welcome message. We reciprocated with our trust in him - however
cautious.
A few months later we are in a strong position to categorically state that
we were duped *1. Nothing illustrates this
more clearly than Zuma's less than presidential decision to appoint Menzi
Simelane as attorney-general.
Simelane was rebuked by Frene Ginwala, former parliamentary Speaker, for being
an unreliable witness during the proceedings she chaired to determine whether
Vusi Pikoli, the former national director of public prosecutions, was fit for
office.
Zuma's inconsistency is extraordinary.
When he beat up the drum of political manipulation of state institutions, many
had in mind Mbeki's interference in the NPA to block the arrest and prosecution
of police chief Jackie Selebi.
The NPA's decision to prosecute Selebi is what triggered Mbeki to interfere with
its work, suspend Pikoli and launch the Ginwala probe into Pikoli's fitness for
office.
While he was director-general in the Department of Justice and Constitutional
Development, Simelane was a pawn par excellence of Brigitte Mabandla, Mbeki's
minister who, disturbingly, wanted a say in Selebi's prosecution.
It is disgusting irony, for lack of a
better phrase, that Zuma seems to have bought into Mbeki's thinking by endorsing
Simelane - the man widely seen to have been instrumental in the meddling
practices that Zuma so vehemently opposed. Or so we were meant to believe until,
of course, it became evident this week that we were duped.
Zuma's fight against political interference in state institutions was not
principled. At best, it was self-serving *2.
Mbeki, his immediate successor, Kgalema Motlanthe, and now Zuma himself, thought
that Pikoli was not fit for office because he was not "sensitive" to state
security matters. It should boggle the national psyche that while Pikoli was
axed on contentious grounds - Ginwala declared him to be fit - Simelane, whose
unreliability in the witness stand was there for all to see, is viewed as fit
and proper. Given that Simelane defended his behaviour during the Ginwala
inquiry, it can only be reasonable to believe he considers such kinds of
interference to be proper. Hardly the stuff of a proper prosecutions boss.
To Zuma we can only say: Mr President, this was a
despicable decision *3.