The Guptas may be heading for the dock, but there are others like them lying in wait

The once-mighty Gupta family are struggling to save themselves. After years of pillaging billions of public money, their state capture network is under attack on various fronts.

President Jacob Zuma and the other Gupta “friends” are about to learn that their Saxonwold benefactors care less about them than Donald Trump cares about the hillbillies he duped into voting for him.

The Guptas feted them for as long as they were politically useful and while these “friends” could give them access to state resources.

The Guptas were banking on the election of Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma to keep their wheel of fortune turning and retain the protection racket that shielded them from the law.

Now they face investigations of state capture, including in parliament and in a judicial commission of inquiry, which they must navigate without political cover.

Many South Africans wait expectantly to see the Guptas and their cohorts in the dock.

It is a matter of time before this happens as a team of NPA investigators and prosecutors are ready to present a number of high-profile cases to court.

Once Shaun Abrahams has been reassigned to tend the pot plants at the NPA, a credible national director of public prosecutions can make the decisions to prosecute.

We should celebrate the Guptas being brought to justice, but not be oblivious to those taking their place.

The corrupting influence of business interests on South African politics did not start with the Guptas, and it will not end with them.

Many business people are celebrating the election of Cyril Ramaphosa as ANC president, not because they have confidence in his leadership but because they believe they have leverage with him.

Ramaphosa’s presidential campaign had the backing of big business, and the Gupta propaganda machinery used this to brand him a stooge of “white monopoly capital”.

Ramaphosa has built a rapport with business leaders and is well placed to promote a better working relationship between them and the government. The atmosphere of distrust and occasional hostility has not been healthy.

But because Ramaphosa is more amenable to business people, some of them believe they now have a hotline to the presidency.

Others who were hedging their bets are now trying to cosy up to the new elite.

Ramaphosa was the best bet among the seven ANC presidential contenders to break Zuma’s grip on power and tackle the state capture network.

Zuma’s term in office has been disastrous for the economy, reflected through successive ratings downgrades, growing unemployment, deepening poverty and greater social instability.

But the interests of business in booting Zuma out of office are not only about the good of the country.

Zuma has been bad for business and profit margins and remains a source of instability.

Ramaphosa’s election is already pacifying the markets and the investor community.

It is in the national interest to have a leader who can settle jitters about the country’s future and who is not prone to midnight cabinet reshuffles and interference with independent institutions.

But this does not mean Ramaphosa is immune to influence — both overt and subliminal.

Even before he was elected, Ramaphosa was inundated with advice about what his priorities ought to be, how to deal with the moribund stateowned enterprises, who should be fired from the cabinet, how he should tackle state capture and who he needed to appoint. He cannot stroll on a beach without someone telling him what to do with Zuma.

Ramaphosa has solicited advice from experts and strategists on these issues. It is good that he is willing to consult broadly and consider issues from different perspectives.

It is when those with political and financial interests use their proximity to him and other ANC officials to influence decisions for their own benefit that the Gupta tendencies take root.

The Guptas captured the state by roping in a number of individuals and companies in South Africa and other parts of the world to participate in grand corruption. Had the network and activities not been exposed, the project would have continued with all these willing participants growing increasingly wealthy.

Just as we would never buy into the narrative that Zuma, his ministers and state officials were innocent victims of that crooked family, we should not believe that the Guptas compelled business people to collude with them.

Everyone who is implicated in the state capture network knew that they were engaged in illicit activities for financial gain.

But many of them did not think they would get caught.

Business is naturally cut-throat and there is rarely a high premium on scruples in the chase for profits.

The state capture project was, however, corruption on a spectacular scale that compromised the state and our sovereignty.

There is no guarantee that others might not try to do the same — and succeed.