Widen ‘capture’ inquiry
THE objection by opposition parties to the suggested widening of state capture terms of reference announced by President Zuma, seems irrational and defies simple logic.
It’s like asking police to search only one room in a house suspected of harbouring thieves. Ms Madonsela investigated what was brought to her and that involves the Gupta-Zuma affair, it is true. However, in the course of all investigations, new evidence always crops up [and] those point to more illegality and new culprits. The judicial inquiry is no exception.
The judge conducting the inquiry should not be asked to look the other way. If he finds suspicious activity by others in the course of his investigation, he should be allowed to follow the evidence to whoever it leads to.
Additionally, the opposition seeks to politicise the judicial inquiry by controlling who may be investigated and who gets a pass. It is arrogant for them to assume that they are the only ones who are custodians of the true facts in such a complicated inquiry.
Besides, their attempts to shield others from the inquiry defeats the very attempt by Madonsela to depoliticise the judicial inquiry by having the judiciary – not the executive – appoint the presiding judge.
Simply hiding behind restrictive terms of inquiry and leaving other evidence of state capture uninvestigated, is inherently biased against the accused. We cannot afford a tainted judiciary.
There is reasonable suspicion that state capture is more widely entrenched in our society, both in the private sector and government.
The first rule in getting rid of it in government and the corporate world is exposed.
The culprits, all the culprits, have to be identified and forced to face the consequences of their actions to deter others.
Our opposition should not be in the business of shielding anyone from prosecution on such flimsy technical grounds as terms of reference.
The greater good of society is hardly served by selective prosecution and selective accountability the opposition parties are suggesting. Be it Deloitte or the Guptas and be it Zuma or De Lille, all should be called to account.
The appointment of the commission is a victory for us all. We have heard the accusations over the years. We lacked leadership that should have established a judicial inquiry until now. But now, concrete evidence of the violation of law may finally be revealed. But that too may not be the end.
Whatever evidence is collected by the inquiry, it will have to be tested in courts of law where the issue of guilt or innocence can finally be pronounced.
The judicial inquiry will also help us understand the underbelly of corruption in our society and hopefully aid us in countering it timely and decisively.
Why did it go for so long presumably undetected and why was the country held hostage by one official from establishing the judicial inquiry?
These are lessons for us as society to learn as well. We now have a credible commission of inquiry. Let us use it to clean the whole house.
Killing one cockroach at a time as the opposition would have us do, will not give us the peace of mind we deserve as a people. We will instead be establishing new commissions of inquiries until the sun sets. — Wongaletu Vanda, via e-mail