Dying horse’s last kicks can still do harm

The ANC’s slow catchup with the rest of society is excruciating. It is now clear, as an ANC insider succinctly put it, that President Jacob Zuma is an inoperable tumour on the brain of the party.

He refuses to resign and he and his backers are kicking against a possible recall. But his power is spent. He is no longer the president of the ANC. And his opponents have their man in the pound seats.

Zuma can’t reshuffle the Cabinet again without consequences. What he does not realise is that even the little executive authority he has left is quickly becoming irrelevant.

The recognition that Zuma must go is intensifying in the ANC, even among his former backers — barring a few who are too invested to fall off the looting wagon.

People on the fence will pick a side and those who backed him to secure their positions will quickly realise that deployment is no longer in his hands. It is, after all, the politics of the stomach.

The longer the ANC waits to get rid of Zuma, the more difficult it makes its task — this is an incontrovertible fact, even as Zuma loyalists try to show that he remains popular.

Their dire warnings this week that the ANC will split if he is removed or that the party should not be vindictive by removing Zuma are the last kicks of a dying horse. Is it vindictive to remove a constitutional delinquent who has eroded faith in his party to lead society? One who has thrown his comrades and ministers under the bus on numerous occasions? One who continues to humiliate ministers he appointed?

Finance Minister Malusi Gigaba’s South African Revenue Service inquiry has gone nowhere, probably because Zuma is unwilling to sacrifice Tom Moyane, who is doing a sterling job protecting him from his tax responsibilities.

But the ANC is again tiptoeing around Zuma, afraid even under a new leadership to do what has long been a no-brainer.

Zuma’s appointment of a commission of inquiry into state capture has been widely hailed, but it is no more than political dribbling. Without abandoning his appeal against the high court ruling that has ordered the enforcement of the previous public protector’s remedies, his announcement is mist on the water.

The work of the commission can be nullified and watered down by an appeal and by the broadening of its terms of reference — mentioned by Zuma in his announcement of the inquiry and supported by his lackey, Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane.

Zuma is playing politics with key resolutions adopted by the ANC at its national conference in December, that state capture as investigated and recommended by former public protector Thuli Madonsela should be probed at a judicial commission of inquiry.

The outcomes of recent commissions of inquiry have proved to be dismal in ironing out issues. The Marikana inquiry is a classic case — lives were lost tragically but all there is to show are squabbles over state reparations. There has been no justice.

Zuma’s appointment of the state-capture commission is nothing but his last kicks — an appeal for pity at best. At worst, it is a middle finger to delegates who called for the commission at the ANC conference. They were clear that the matter had to be resolved.

By all means extend the terms of reference to include capture in all spheres of government, but do so after the complaint lodged with the former public protector giving rise to her investigation has been forwarded to prosecuting authorities for the law to take its course. Madonsela received three complaints in connection with the alleged improper and unethical conduct relating to the appointments of cabinet ministers. These emanated from former deputy finance minister Mcebisi Jonas’s public statement that the Guptas had offered him the post of finance minister ahead of Nhlanhla Nene’s axing in December 2015.

The complaint was lodged by a Catholic priest, followed by one from DA leader Mmusi Maimane and a third unnamed complainant. Their complaints should be resolved first.

The Sunday Times report that a special prosecution process for state capture would be announced by newly elected ANC president Cyril Ramaphosa in his January 8 statement is key to understanding Zuma’s shift in stance.

A process outside his control — in which he does not set the terms of reference — is something to fear. His move to appoint a commission of inquiry was an attempt to ensure that a process out of his control was not instituted.

Once again, the ANC would have been duped by Zuma’s political dribbling.

This manoeuvring has not convinced the electorate in Umlazi, Metsimaholo, Nquthu, Johannesburg, Tshwane and Nelson Mandela Bay.

The ANC should ask itself whether this political dribbling will result in a decisive win for it in the 2019 national election.

THE WORK OF THE COMMISSION CAN BE NULLIFIED AND WATERED DOWN BY AN APPEAL AND BY THE BROADENING OF ITS TERMS OF REFERENCE