GUPTA LEAKS MESS
Zuma may have to set up commission against himself
HE Guptas might hold the reins on his administration, but it’s President Jacob Zuma who has the final say in appointing the commission that could lead to his downfall.
Across the nation this week, there have been calls for a commission of inquiry to investigate the release of hundreds of thousands of emails that suggest that the Guptas control Zuma’s administration.
The question is who is going to set it up? The responsibility lies with the man at the centre of the controversy: Zuma, according to Section 90 of the constitution.
Zuma, himself, has indicated he is not opposed to a commission of inquiry. But he has problems in the manner he was directed by former public protector Thuli Madonsela to do this. He first wants to challenge her “State of Capture” report in court.
But some analysts have pointed out that Zuma is regarded as being so deeply implicated in the current morass that the credibility of such a body would be severely compromised if he were involved in setting it up.
Constitutional law expert Pierre de Vos of the University of Cape Town said: “Section 90 (2) of the constitution states that if the president is unable to fulfil his duty of office then the deputy president can act in his stead.”
Because of the existing conflict of interest, where he is head of state but allegedly involved in private dealings with private individuals, Zuma would be able to step aside and allow his deputy, Cyril Ramaphosa, to set up the commission.
De Vos suggested Zuma had broken his oath of office. “There were various ways that he could be removed from his position,” he said. “The
Ttwo most obvious centre on a motion of no confidence or impeachment.” But neither is likely to succeed because of the ANC’s majority in Parliament.
De Vos was one of a number of legal and political analysts to warn of a looming constitutional crisis over the mounting claims of state capture following the publication of the emails. Even the ANC has expressed its concern. It called on the government to verify the claims, and for individuals whose names appear in the emails to explain themselves.
ANC spokesperson Zizi Kodwa said the party was seriously concerned about the allegations, which were published by various media houses this week. “It is causing great damage,” he said.
The emails have linked Zuma, through his son Duduzane and several cabinet ministers, with the Guptas in governance and state institutions, in which lucrative tenders worth billions of rand have been involved.
Kodwa said the ANC viewed the allegations in a serious light. “Such matters cannot be allowed to fester in the public domain. Accordingly, the ANC calls on government to urgently seek to establish the veracity of these claims and explanation from those implicated,” he said.
He said in line with the decision of the ANC national executive committee, it wants a an inquiry to be set up without delay.
One of the recommendations by Madonsela is that Zuma should ask Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng to appoint a judge to lead the inquiry.
Unisa political analyst Professor Somadoda Fikeni said a commission of inquiry could still be set by Zuma, but that its ter ms of reference must be drafted by either the chief justice, the Judicial Service Commission or another body.
Yesterday, Finance Minister Malusi Gigaba who is seen as the alleged proxy between the Guptas and the state, insisted he had done nothing wrong. “Nobody has given me these emails. Nobody has told me how these emails were obtained – whether through proper means or whether they (have been fabricated or not), I don’t know,” Gigaba told a media briefing in Pretoria.
One email leaked, which is addressed to Gigaba when he was still minister of home affairs, was an early naturalisation request for the Gupta’s brother mother Angoori Gupta.
The email highlights the social upliftment projects that the Gupta companies were involved in. “Your favourable consideration of our request for early naturalisation into South Africa will be highly appreciated – we have made this country our home already.” it read.
Ultimately it will come down to forensic investigators to prove whether the emails are genuine or have been altered. Cyber investigator Jacques van Heerden explained that a subpoena could produce the original emails or reveal that evidence had been tampered with. “You would subpoena the company’s server and they by law have to keep records for five years,” said Van Heerden.