Parliament’s ethics committee has quietly turned the screws on Deputy President Jacob Zuma to account for allegedly undeclared gifts.
The focus of the battle between the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and the deputy president this week shifted to the Hefer Commission of Inquiry in Bloemfontein, where NPA head Bulelani Ngcuka faces spying and abuse-of-power claims. But developments in Parliament show that Zuma himself is far from off the hook.
It appears the ethics charges being examined against the deputy president go well beyond allegations already made public. These have centered on his relationship with Schabir Shaik and French arms company Thales, the latter of whom he allegedly asked for a R500 000 annual bribe.
The NPA is pressing charges against Shaik, but not against Zuma, even though Ngcuka has claimed there is a “prima facie” corruption case against the deputy president.
Two related investigations, however, are expected to increase the pressure on Zuma. The first is that of Parliament’s Joint Committee on Ethics and Members’ Interests. It is looking at whether Zuma has complied with his obligation as an MP to declare commercial interests, assets and gifts.
The committee generally operates behind closed doors — and seems to have decided specifically not to comment on the Zuma investigation — but it is understood that Zuma is back on the committee’s agenda when it meets on Monday.
Neither Zuma’s office nor ethics committee officials would confirm that Zuma has been asked to submit answers to specific questions by Monday. Zuma’s spokesperson, Lakela Kaunda, said, however, that “there has been communication between the deputy president and the ethics committee over the past few weeks”.
An investigation by the public protector, which dovetails with that by the ethics committee, has already been finalised and forwarded to President Thabo Mbeki, who has to submit it to Parliament. The report is likely to be made public when Parliament comes out of recess early next month.
The public protector’s report looked at whether Zuma had made declarations in his capacity as a member of the executive arm of government. Such members are subject to stricter rules than ordinary parliamentarians and greater disclosure is required.
Both investigations rely on a dossier handed to Parliament by the NPA after its controversial decision in August that Shaik, but not Zuma, would be prosecuted.
The NPA dossier contains information made public in the draft charge sheet against Shaik, including that Shaik made transfers of almost R1,2-million to or on behalf of Zuma between 1995 and 2002. The NPA alleges these were corrupt payments. Zuma is understood to argue they were no more than “loans”.
But the NPA dossier goes beyond that: it includes other matters that Scorpions investigators stumbled on during their probe of Zuma’s affairs, but which were not included in the Shaik charge sheet as it was unrelated to alleged wrongdoing by Shaik. Public Protector Lawrence Mushwana acknowledged as much this week. He told the Mail & Guardian that his investigation had excluded looking at allegations “that are too closely related to the Shaik charge sheet”; these were regarded as sub judice because the Shaik trial is pending. But the NPA dossier, he said, contained “more … We did manage to make findings on some matters”.
It is understood that the “more” relates, among other things, to “gifts” Zuma is alleged to have received from third parties.
Ethics committee chairperson Luwellyn Landers this week refused to give details of the committee’s probe, save to say: “[The committee] is still in the investigating stage; the registrar [of members’ interests, Fazela Mahomed] is conducting the investigation. She will report to the committee when she is ready.”
Landers denied suggestions that Zuma had been asked to reply to specific questions by Monday, saying: “The issue … can only be resolved once the investigation by the registrar has been completed and her report in that regard has been considered by the committee.”
If either of the parliamentary or public protector’s probes finds that Zuma accepted gifts or payments without declaring them, or did not declare other assets such as properties or shares, the question remains whether that will lead to more than a slap on the wrist.
After the M&G exposed Minister of Defence Mosiuoa Lekota’s non-declaration of interest in wine and petroleum businesses earlier this year, he was sanctioned and fined by Parliament, but his political career was not seriously affected.
This was due, perhaps, to the public protector’s finding that there was no conflict of interest with Lekota’s official duties even though it accepted he was guilty of non-disclosure. If Zuma is found guilty of non-disclosure, much will depend on whether he is seen to have contravened the rules technically or whether he was beholden to his alleged benefactors.