Public protector must probe Guptas
THE decision by the ANC to conduct an internal investigation into allegations that President Jacob Zuma’s family friends, the Guptas, offer cabinet posts to politicians in return for favours should be welcomed.
It is a refreshing break from the approach, often adopted by the party, of simply denying a problem in the hope that the controversy around it will die down on its own.
Of course the ANC, like any other organisation, has every right to seek first-hand information from its own members about the alleged abuse of proximity to power by the Guptas and by any other business interest group. The party cannot simply rely on newspaper headlines, even though most of them are proving to have been accurate.
According to Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa, party members are already “streaming into” the office of ANC secretarygeneral Gwede Mantashe. This is encouraging news, because it suggests that a growing number of party members have the courage to speak out, as did Deputy Finance Minister Mcebisi Jonas, former MP Vytjie Mentor and ex-cabinet spokesman Themba Maseko.
But the ANC process — however noble — is, unfortunately, not enough.
The allegations being made are too serious to be treated as only an internal issue. They relate to the very sovereignty of our state and the use and abuse of our collective resources — ranging from mineral wealth to control over parastatals.
Besides, a political party-driven process runs the risk of being manipulated to suit the interests of whichever faction is dominant within the party at the time.
As it is, there are growing indications that the Gupta debacle is rapidly becoming a campaign issue as various sets of ANC leaders position themselves for next year’s national conference, at which elections will be held for top posts in the party — including that of president.
For the investigation into the Guptas and their relationship to Zuma and his ministers to be effective and credible, it has to be conducted by an independent party.
Some have suggested that the matter be handled by a judicial commission of inquiry. But seeing that such a commission, and its terms of reference, would be set up and determined by the president — the very man at the centre of the storm — that option is less than ideal.
A parliamentary investigation would have been appropriate, but given the behaviour of our MPs over Nkandla — when they sought to protect the president instead of holding him to account — only a tiny minority of South Africans would have confidence in such a probe.
Then there is the public protector’s office. The incumbent, Thuli Madonsela, finishes her seven-year term later this year. That should not mean, however, that she cannot initiate an investigation before she steps down.
After all, the admirable work the institution has been doing since Madonsela took over cannot be credited to one individual alone. She has worked with a highly talented and dedicated team of investigators, many of whom will stay on when she leaves.
Her successor must provide them with the same kind of support and protection that Madonsela did. And if the ruling party is really committed to getting to the root of Guptagate, it will heed Madonsela’s plea for additional funding to help the office do its job thoroughly.