The Mail & Guardian has tended to dismiss the Hefer commission of inquiry into the spy allegations against National Director of Public Prosecutions Bulelani Ngcuka as a sideshow. For us the real issue was whether Deputy President Jacob Zuma, his financial adviser Schabir Shaik and former transport minister Mac Maharaj are guilty of corruption. Now that Judge Joos Hefer has submitted his report, this remains our view.
However, a lot of good may come of the Hefer process. The claims that Ngcuka spied for apartheid were evidently circulated in a bid to discredit the Scorpions’ inquiries into Zuma, Maharaj and Shaik. The destruction of Ngcuka’s accusers as witnesses, and Hefer’s damning remarks about their testimony, have pretty much buried that ploy.
In a letter to Hefer, Zuma hinted he had incriminating evidence of his own. But his failure to testify, on the flimsy grounds that he was bound by African National Congress discipline, suggests he was bluffing. As ANC leader President Thabo Mbeki has pointed out, the commission was appointed by the country’s president with constitutional powers. In such a context, party loyalties should come second.
It is true that Hefer criticises media leaks by the Scorpions, particularly in regard to Maharaj. As strategic leaks are part of the police armoury in all democratic states, it is unclear why the good judge should be so outraged. But in any event, this is a side issue compared with the commission’s central purpose — to determine whether Ngcuka ‘spiedâ€. On this, Hefer is about as unequivocal as he can be. Besides ruling that the case is unproven, he found Maharaj’s evidence ‘implausibleâ€, Mona’s credibility ‘almost nilâ€, and Mo Shaik’s 1989 inquiry into Ngcuka ‘utterly unreliableâ€.
From the start of the corruption saga, Zuma has behaved as if he considers himself above the law. He decided, with godlike condescension, which of the 35 Scorpions’ questions he would answer and which not. He also indicated to Hefer that he might defy any subpoena to testify. Who the hell does he think he is? Maharaj, likewise, seems to consider the investigation of his financial affairs a form of lese majesty.
The hope is that the commission process, and the judge’s report, have reinforced the fundamental democratic principle that everyone — including the deputy president and all who have public responsibilities — is subject to the law. Hopefully it will make it more difficult to bandy about spy allegations as a diversionary tactic.
But most importantly, the hope must be that Hefer has given strength to the National Prosecuting Authority and other statutory institutions to continue working without fear or favour, and with the same commitment as in the past. Ngcuka’s first task, we suggest, should be to restore the investigative focus on his former accusers.
It is in the interest of his institution, those being probed and the nation as a whole that justice is done and seen to be done. His reluctance to either charge or clear Zuma last year was unfair to the deputy president.
If there is one lesson that Ngcuka should take away from the Hefer process it is that if you play with political fire, you can be burnt by political fire.
The rape of rape
A man pulls a woman from a dark street into a darker alley and brutally has sex with her against her will. He leaves her scarred, physically and emotionally and possibly HIV-positive. This is rape at its most scary (if one can assign degrees of horror to such a crime) and most stereotyped.
Trends suggest that in fact most rapes take place in the netherworld between ‘yes†and ‘noâ€; between ‘I’m thinking about it†and ‘I’m notâ€; and between people who know each other or are at least acquainted with each other.
The charge can be the plaything of the malicious, for when it sticks, it sticks fast. And often, the greedy see a quick buck in society’s censure of sexual harassment and rape.
The victims of rape are not all doe-eyed virgins and easily categorised ‘good girlsâ€. Often, they are women (and men) who get caught in that uncomfortable and confusing space between yes and no.
This is not a black-and-white issue, as the frenzied debate in South Africa has shown. But there is one certainty: all the various ways in which people are raped leave emotional and physical scars. Levelling the allegation spuriously also leaves scars, which may be invisible but just as damaging. Another certainty is this: no is always no, even after the kissing’s started. And an SMS at 3am is not a ‘booty-call†as some disingenuous DJs and callers to radio talk shows have christened the message allegedly bleeped to Judge Siraj Desai. This view seems disturbingly common.
That is why we have declared in this edition that our war against rape has been raped.
Just when we thought we had begun to make headway in the war against sexual assault, the incident in the Mumbai hotel room threw us many steps backwards and undid much work by government and NGOs.
The rather sickening conduct of Salome and Mark Isaacs emboldened all manner of chauvinist pigs and closet rapists to come forward to pollute our airwaves with their views on the nature of rape.