‘This country has always been captured, from day one’
Ramaphosa is the worst thing to have happened to SA. There is nothing that has come right since he came to power
The Jacob Zuma Foundation has been at the forefront of defending the former president in the face of his duel with the courts and his ultimate imprisonment. Mike Siluma spoke virtually to Mzwanele Manyi, mouthpiece of the foundation, on his and the organisation’s perspectives on the political situation in SA MIKE SILUMA: What was the role of the foundation in the current turbulent political environment?
MZWANELE MANYI: What the foundation seeks to do more than anything else is to ensure that the voice of president [Jacob] Zuma is heard [on] all the things that are said about him that over the years he had chosen not to respond to. The foundation has taken it upon itself to say enough is enough, his side of the story must be told, his voice must come up to the public.
Why did Zuma choose you as his, and the foundation’s, mouthpiece?
I feel quite honoured. I can’t claim to have met president Zuma in the struggle days. I met him probably as recently as 2007, towards the Polokwane conference.
What is the political relationship between you and Zuma?
President Zuma is a father figure. There is absolutely nothing under the sun that you don’t talk to him about. He will guide you on a whole range of things. He is a very wise man with serious experience. He’s always there to give good advice. He is a very genuine and honest person, not one of these people that are always having calculated responses.
Why do you, as a leader of the African Transformation Movement (ATM), represent Zuma, an ANC member?
The foundation, which I’m contracted to, is not a political party. It’s also not a branch of the ANC. I’m ATM politically, but my contract with him is not to give him political advice. It is to assist him on the work of the foundation. When I wear my professional cap, I forget that I’m ATM. I just focus on the professional aspect of what needs to be said and done.
Did Zuma discuss with you his decision to turn himself in?
There was constant communication between [Zuma] and the foundation. When it was [becoming] clear that we were not succeeding with the court processes, he advised the foundation that he was going to hand himself over. He didn’t want turmoil, any drop of blood in his name, he is a very peaceful man.
Why, then, prior to that, did he address supporters at Nkandla, vowing not to surrender and warning of trouble if he was arrested?
I was actually near the stage, and I heard him speak — beginning to finish. I didn’t hear him at all saying anything like that … I don’t remember him saying that at all. No, no, no, no. The nub of the issue was that all he ever wanted was a neutral chairperson [of the state capture commission]. Now he is being characterised as this person that’s running away from the commission.
Why did Zuma refuse to return to the state capture commission?
Even in this case it is [Zuma] that’s characterised as a delinquent, again. The question is never asked as to what is it that judge [Raymond] Zondo could have done differently.
In order for us in SA to deal with this matter fairly, let’s not assume that the one person is a delinquent. Let’s be objective and say: “What could each of the parties have done differently?”
What was Zuma’s strategy in dealing with the courts? Sometimes participating in processes, other times denouncing the judiciary?
His posture is that judges are not God. Judges are not infallible. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. He does not see judges as people above the constitution. If you have a [Constitutional Court] judgment that says going through a lower court and appeal courts is going to be too protracted … [the question is] what are they rushing, why are they rushing? That is a clear sign that you are dealing with angry people that just want to deal with this guy once and for all. What is your, and the foundation’s, view of President Cyril Ramaphosa?
President Zuma is clear not to be critical of the current administration. These are the views of ATM.
For us as ATM we think Ramaphosa is the worst thing to have happened to SA. There is absolutely nothing that has come right since he came to power. The only thing that is propping him up is you guys in the media. You find it very difficult to critique Ramaphosa.
What about state capture during Zuma’s tenure?
I hold the view that there was never a time in this country where there was no state capture. The only issue we can deal with is who is capturing at which point. SA has always been captured, from day one. This notion that it’s just been captured now under Zuma is a misguided notion. The difference is we can argue who captured it then and now.
If true, does that make it right?
It doesn’t make it right, but when you are dealing with it you must deal with it properly. As an example, if you look at those evergreen contracts of Eskom, that is a problem, but nobody is doing anything about it because it’s white monopoly capital that is creaming it. As long as it’s them that are capturing the state, nobody, including the media, is doing anything about it.
What’s the view of the Jacob Zuma Foundation on the recent unrest? Why did it not condemn the violence and loss of life?
There was an attempt to ambush the foundation, to centre the foundation as the leader of the chaos that happened. [At some point] I had three TV stations, one after the other, asking one question, [about condemning] the violence. It was a setup because if the foundation had condemned the violence and then there was quiet and tranquillity the next day, the foundation would have been the face of the destruction. The foundation would have been centred as if it is the chief commander of the forces of destruction. If the foundation had condemned and the violence did not stop … the headline from the Sunday Times would have been “Zuma has lost control of the situation on the ground”. What the foundation chose to do is not to incite violence, we did not encourage anybody to do anything. We just didn’t comment on it. What did you mean by “righteous anger” when talking about the unrest?
I think this was spontaneous. A lot of people that were involved are actually disciples of president [Nelson] Mandela [who] is on record as saying if the ANC government does to you what the apartheid government did to you, you must do to the ANC government what you did to the apartheid government. What did the apartheid government do? They did detention without trial, which is exactly what the ANC government has done [with Zuma]. I think people were revolting in line with how president Mandela guided them.
What would you say to the families who lost loved ones and people who lost their businesses in the riots?
I think it’s an unfair question, a very unfair question to ask. Again, this is a onesided question. This a question that should first of all have been asked [of] the Constitutional Court. When you insist on incarcerating a man approaching 80 years of age, while the rescission process is in place, what do you think are going to be the implications of that decision?
What has happened is definitely not desirable. Nobody can condone what has happened, but in getting to why it happened there should be no holy cows. Why was it necessary to arrest a person, even against the wishes of some of the justices? We hope that people can recover from whatever situation. But others have lost lives. That you can’t recover from. But when you look at that question, it is totally unfair to ask the foundation “What do you say about this?”, as if it is the fault of the foundation, as if it is the fault of president Zuma.