The controversy surrounding Jacob Zuma has put the reputations of the deputy president, the government and the country at stake, according to Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development Penuell Maduna.
Speaking to the Mail & Guardian after addressing a reparations conference in Johannesburg this week, Maduna said the government had hoped that the National Prosecuting Authority would exonerate Zuma rather than find that there is a prima facie case against him.
”That is why I said it is a sad pity. I was personally hoping for a different conclusion,” said Maduna, referring to a statement he made at the weekend.
Maduna also defended the decision not to prosecute, saying the state could not prosecute ”for the sake of prosecuting – you have to make sure you are not wasting scarce resources on a mere allegation”.
Speaking as an African National Congress leader he said: ”If you are dealing with a different matter where, for instance Minister Lekota said I accept I was in the wrong [it would be easier to deal with]. Or in the other instance in the Yengeni matter – the matter was easier to handle. But here the deputy president has not had the opportunity to appear before court because a decision has been made to not prosecute.
”It is not a unique decision – there is a procedure called nolle prosequi [I won’t prosecute]. It is a decision taken not by investigators, not by any junior person, but by a sufficiently senior level, notwithstanding what you are having before you. It is a known procedure in South Africa to take a decision not to prosecute.”
Maduna was speaking as calls for Zuma’s resignation mounted both within and outside the ANC, and conspiracy theories about the motive for the investigation abounded.
Although none would be drawn on the heart of the conspiracy, many ANC leaders stated that there were other agendas behind the investigation. ”There is a definite political agenda [behind National Director of Public Prosecutions Bulelani Ngcuka’s actions]. And the agenda will become clearer as the days go by,” said a senior member of the national executive committee.
Even the South African Communist Party hinted at a conspiracy. The party expressed concern that the allegations against Zuma had been ”left inconclusive, such that only the media and the opposition are left as the sole arbiters”.
Said SACP spokesperson Mazibuko Jara: ”There appear to have been very serious flaws in how the investigation of the arms deal and the allegations against the deputy president were conducted.”
A straw poll of ANC members this week suggested a groundswell in favour of Zuma’s resignation – despite the party’s official support for him.
The ANC leadership this week rejected calls for Zuma to step down or be suspended, following the publication of the charge sheet in the Schabir Shaik fraud and corruption case.
Top government spokesperson Joel Netshitenzhe wrote in The Star that ”we lay-persons” could only conclude ”that there is no serious evidence, and the deputy president should not be unduly prejudiced in public discourse.
”Trust … for an individual in the deputy president’s position should guide us to take him at his word,” Netshitenzhe said.
Other ANC members argued that the ANC’s name had been damaged by the Zuma/Shaik affair and that it would be ”suicidal” to put him forward as a presidential candidate.
”The damage is done. I don’t think he will still be held in high esteem within the organisation,” said a senior party communicator.
An ANC provincial leader said: ”If I was Zuma, I would resign and fight this issue from the outside. If he stays in power, he will spend the rest of
his time defending and explaining himself.”
But some ANC members remain convinced that Zuma is the victim of a conspiracy by his political enemies, and have been irked by Ngcuka’s pronouncement that despite a ”prima facie” case against him, the National Prosecuting Authority lacks sufficient evidence to secure a conviction.
On Wednesday Maduna said: ”I would want the court to distil the case from the evidence that has been led against those who have been charged [Shaik], so I would not want to be in any kind of hurry.
”The court [adjudicating on the Shaik matter] could say there is a big problem or there is no problem.”
He explained that the Cabinet had not discussed the Zuma issue, as ”parts of it, including the evidence you might want to rely on to inform yourself, is the subject of litigation”.
Meanwhile, Parliament’s ethics committee will confront Zuma’s alleged non-disclosure of gifts and benefits only in the second half of next month, because of parliamentary referral procedures.
According to a parliamentary spokesperson, the Scorpion’s report on Zuma was submitted to the Office of the Speaker late on Wednesday.
It will be referred to the registrar of members’ interests at the earliest on Monday, as Speaker Frene Ginwala only returns from a conference in Kenya this weekend. Zuma will then be informed and given 10 days to respond before the joint ethics committee convenes.
According to Parliament’s code of conduct, MPs, including ministers, have to declare benefits, gifts and sponsorships valued at R350 or more.
In Zuma’s case this means the joint ethics committee is limited to scrutinising benefits from 1999, when he became a member of the National Assembly and deputy president.
The ANC in Parliament has acknowledged ethics proceedings against Zuma may prove politically difficult. Much would depend on his response to the joint ethics committee.
The committee can make a determination on whether the code has been breached, but its recommended penalties must be adopted by a resolution of the National Assembly before they can be carried out.
As Zuma is also a member of the executive committee, the public protector may also investigate him for breaching the executive ethics code.
The Democratic Alliance has laid a complaint over Zuma’s failure to disclose benefits from Shaik. – Jaspreet Kindra, Marianne Merten & Rapule Tabane
