Peter Bruce is blind to the facts that undermine his Ramaphosa fairytale

In his piece last week, “Overheard in a pub”, Peter Bruce misses the point so spectacularly you have to wonder if that was the objective. After congratulating himself for the reader numbers achieved by his previous article, Bruce cannot contain his Ramaphoria.

To him, President Cyril Ramaphosa is the answer to SA’s problems. Mysteriously, the ANC is seen to be a separate entity whose many crimes against the people of our country can be forgiven because Ramaphosa and a small band of merry men and women will fix things.

It is almost as if Bruce awoke from a long sleep on February 15, the day Ramaphosa became president. His fixation on Ramaphosa’s “New Dawn” leaves me wondering where he was during the nightmarish Jacob Zuma years, during which Ramaphosa served loyally as deputy president.

What did Ramaphosa say or do when the country was being captured, looted and treated as one man’s personal fiefdom? Inconsequential semantics for Bruce, I suppose.

Bruce then takes aim at the DA and the multiparty government in the City of Johannesburg, alleging that these coalition arrangements succeed because of access to tenders. He labels me as complicit in these “deals”, suggesting that I either use tenders as a bargaining chip or that I was “of course unaware”.

I find both suggestions insulting.

Bruce bases these allegations on coincidence and the suppositions in the original amaBhungane article. It is worth noting that I have laid a complaint against this article with the press ombud.

Bruce, of course, presents these allegations as facts. Not that that should matter. As with Ramaphosa’s enabling role during the Zuma years, he prefers to ignore reality.

When the amaBhungane article was published, I communicated extensively on its claims, which are patently wrong. On the other elements, I publicly committed to investigate and be judged on our response to the findings.

Had Bruce bothered to ask, I would have told him the original tender was cancelled as a result of a probity investigation that indicated the tender process was fatally flawed. An investigation was initiated prior to the release of the amaBhungane article, and senior officials were disciplined. Unaware? Not quite.

Bruce misses that the probity report specifically cited companies quoting on different specs, rendering the financial adjudication worthless. Instead he quotes the costing of the various bidders for the tender as a way of imputing irrationality on the city’s part.

Equally, the Afrirent award was a regulation 32 process, not the original tender, followed in terms of the Municipal Finance Management Act. It took place because, with the tender having been set aside, the city faced a situation where the entire fleet would have been off the road within days. Contemplate a Johannesburg without metro police vehicles, ambulances and so on. That is why this regulation exists, to allow a municipality to make an award that ensures services continue.

None of this mattered to Bruce, because the truth shouldn’t get in the way of bad political analysis.

The multiparty city government remains united in its efforts to root out fraud and corruption. With more than 4,000 cases involving more than R24bn under investigation, its achievements stand out above any other city’s.

In leading these efforts, I have received nothing but unconditional support from our coalition partners and the EFF. We debate a collective approach to dealing with the legacy of ANC government in Johannesburg, not tenders.

The fact that nearly all of these cases originate from ANC governments in Johannesburg doesn’t seem to pose a problem for Bruce. After all, that’s the ANC — but Ramaphosa is different, right?

Well, Mr Bruce, when I wrote to President Ramaphosa about the cases of fraud and corruption in the city being stalled and dropped by law-enforcement agencies and the National Prosecuting Authority, no action was taken. Not even a word.

And when his leadership in Johannesburg in the form of the former mayor and MMC of finance were implicated in an obscene corruption scandal, no action was taken. Again, not even a word. This is what Bruce misses at point-blank range.

You don’t put your faith in a “leader” who sits on the fence when tough action is needed. You don’t place your trust in someone who was in the second-most powerful seat in the country and sat idly by when the Zuma years wreaked havoc. Expediency and party loyalty came first, the people of our country came second.

Is this the kind of “leadership” that Bruce admires? If it is, he can keep it, along with his vote. In Johannesburg, the multiparty government will continue to pursue the corrupt without fear or favour.