The African National Congress leadership rallied behind Deputy President Jacob Zuma this week, forcing National Director of Public Prosecutions Bulelani Ngcuka to admit that the Scorpions may have been too aggressive in their approach to investigations.
After weeks of grandstanding, finger-pointing and denials between the Zuma’s office and the National Directorate of Public Prosecutions, under which the Scorpions fall, it became clear that the ANC top brass would not leave their second-in-command out to hang.
One by one, ANC leaders were trotted out to repeat the line that, through their dramatic raids, the Scorpions had made a habit of trying people by media. Zuma, it was insinuated, had fallen victim to this tactic.
Ngcuka’s unit is investigating allegations that Zuma solicited a R500 000 bribe from one of the bidders in the multibillion-rand arms tender.
The deputy president denied the allegations and added angrily that he only got to know through the media that he was under investigation, because the Scorpions had refused to confirm the fact.
Hostility between the two offices was heightened when 35 questions that the Scorpions have sent to Zuma were leaked to the media and both offices refused to take responsibility for the leak.
Called a ”previously unknown MP” by one of his critics, Ngcuka this week found himself under pressure, faced not only with Zuma but several ANC heavyweights including secretary general Kgalema Motlanthe and Minister in the Presidency Essop Pahad.
Responding to allegations that they were out to silence Ngcuka, ANC heavies have been at pains to point out that they were not interfering with his independence but were merely questioning how he operates.
Uncharacteristically, Motlanthe labelled the investigation ”part of a dirty tricks campaign” and charged that it appeared to be ”driven by sinister motives”.
Criticism of the Scorpions started with President Thabo Mbeki telling a press conference last week that he was sometimes puzzled by the work done by the unit. He suggested that, while the unit would not be disbanded, the issue of its location — under Ngcuka’s department or shifted to the South African Police Service — needed to be discussed.
But Mbeki added that he did not believe the Scorpions would investigate Zuma unless they believed they had a case against him.
After Motlanthe, Pahad came on board to criticise the Scorpions for dramatising their operations by inviting TV cameras to film the arrest of suspects, thereby invading their privacy before they had even appeared in court.
”I have always found it distasteful. When you arrest people you should not reduce their dignity because they have families and friends. It was wrong then and it is wrong now,” Pahad told SAfm listeners.
He added that Zuma had denied wrongdoing three times and, if there was any, evidence should be produced in court.
On Monday Minister of Public Service and Administration Geraldine Fraser-Moleketi said the government was reviewing the role and location of the Scorpions, which the Democratic Alliance described as nothing less than a veiled threat to intimidate the unit.
The same day, in a television interview, Ngcuka admitted that the Scorpions might have alienated a lot of people by their aggressive style.
So, was Ngcuka intentionally coerced and did he buckle under the pressure? Senior ANC members canvassed by the Mail & Guardian said there was never deliberate political pressure on Ngcuka. They reiterated that Zuma had to answer the 35 questions sent to him by the Scorpions as soon as possible.
”There is no conspiracy or third force out to get Zuma. Anyone who says the investigation is linked to a succession race in the ANC is way off the mark. The questions are there and he must just answer them unless he wants the Scorpions to be a sweetheart police force. He must prove his innocence. The president has said this matter must be closed and Zuma’s office cannot issue an arrogant statement that they will answer when they see fit. We can’t even announce an election date because of this issue,” said one.
But the same leader felt Ngcuka was not in the clear either. ”Bulelani knew the issue would damage the ANC and he should have consulted broadly within the ANC before starting.
”We all get deployed by the organisation and there are written and unwritten rules. One of the unwritten rules is to check with comrades before taking an action against the deputy president of the ANC.”
Other ANC members felt the Zuma inquiry presented the ANC with an opportunity to show the world that it was transparent and committed to tackling any suspicion of corruption.
”If other comrades had problems with the way he [Ngcuka] operates, why are they only raising it now, when he is investigating the deputy president? Why is his style not a problem when he investigates other ordinary people? It is in our interest to publicise the unit’s work and show that it is working. We must send a message that we will dig deep no matter who is involved,” said another senior ANC member.
To accusations that Motlanthe had departed from the standard ANC procedure of not commenting on a legal matter until its conclusion, as it did in the Tony Yengeni and Winnie Madikizela-Mandela trials, one ANC insider said: ”It was important to distinguish between the actual content and conduct of an investigation. The [secretary general] was not speaking on the merits of the case but was making a point about trial by the media.”