So Many Questions

In response to revelations that the Gupta family offered cabinet posts to members of the ANC, the party announced an internal investigation. Chris Barron asked the Banking Association of South Africa’s MD, Cas Coovadia . . .

Do you think the rot may have gone too far for an internal investigation?

What is positive is that the ANC national executive committee have acknowledged that there is a problem, and that they need to do something about it. If they want to use the secretary-general’s office to encourage people who have anything to say about this to come and say it so that they can investigate it, that can’t be bad. I think that’s good. But that should not stop people from publicly exposing whatever they need to expose. I think that’s the critical point.

Is it likely to reassure the investment community and ratings agencies?

I don’t think that in itself will reassure the investment community and ratings agencies.

What would it take to do that?

I think what would reassure investors and so on is for the ANC to say: “We believe we need to do this but we will not see this as discouragement of people, including our members, to actually publicly express what they need to express.” The other call is for a judicial commission of inquiry, but I’m not in favour of that.

Why not?

Because I think recent experiences of judicial commissions of inquiry have not been great. These things drag on. A judicial commission of inquiry appointed by the president could take two years to come to a conclusion.

But that’s not the only alternative to an internal inquiry, is it?

No.

Surely the only people likely to come forward are those who resisted the Guptas. Will an internal investigation uncover those who did not resist them?

No.

So this internal investigation is not going to expose the extent of state capture, is it?

No, it’s not. My understanding is that they want to encourage people to come to the secretary-general’s office and reveal any relationships they’ve had with the Guptas or anybody else who has tried to capture the state.

Are people going to come forward without a guarantee of confidentiality?

That remains to be seen, but it is highly unlikely.

Can there be any such guarantee unless the investigation is fully independent?

No. Ideally, we need a fully independent investigation.

Are people likely to come forward with information that may incriminate the very people to whom they’re expected to present

the information?

No. In my personal view this thing has gone too far for any organisation or individual that has any links to what happened to investigate it. There has got to be a competent, credible, independent investigation.

So valuable time is being wasted on an investigation that is not going to reassure investors, ratings agencies or markets? And that’s what is needed, isn’t it?

Yes. But I’m not sure that the NEC’s motivation is necessarily to give confidence to investors and ratings agencies. I think the NEC’s decision to do this is to say, “This has been reported to us and this is the way we want to deal with it. Internally.”

So do you think this is just about damage control?

I’m not privy to their discussions so I don’t know that. All I can say is that this thing has gone so far that you do need a credible, independent process.

Should the business community insist on this?

I think the business community should say this is what we need. I don’t think the business community is in a position to insist on it. But the business community has made it very clear that the critical issue is to get investment in and to get growth going. For that we need credible institutions, we need credible processes to address any issues that are inhibiting growth. And this is undoubtedly an issue that is inhibiting investment. And so we need credible processes to deal with it.

Do you support Johann Rupert’s call for President Jacob Zuma to resign?

That’s a call for the ANC to make.

Isn’t it important for business leaders to make their view clear?

I’ve been on record as saying that for investment, for confidence in this country, we need credible institutions, including the executive. That’s all I’m prepared to say.

Can the executive have credibility while Zuma remains in charge of it?

You’re trying to push me into saying more than I am saying. This is all that I am saying at this point in time.

Do you think investors and ratings agencies are likely to accept anything less than his resignation?

I don’t know.

You talk to them all the time. What is your sense?

There are processes in place, there is a bigger picture here. We’ve got to make things work. At the end of the day we’ve got to put national interests on the agenda. It’s not a question of Zuma or no Zuma. The strength of this country has always been the strength and credibility of our institutions. We need to assure people that whatever erosion has occurred will be stopped.