‘A hero who put the nation first’
THE decision by ANC MP Mervyn Dirks to write to Mkhuleko Hlengwa, asking him to summon President Cyril Ramaphosa to appear before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (Scopa) to explain the content of the leaked audio clip, has landed him in hot water.
In the clip, Ramaphosa remarked in the national executive committee that public funds were used to campaign for top positions in the party.
Following this incident, the ANC’S Chief Whip, Pemmy Majodina, instructed Dirks to withdraw his letter to Hlengwa or face the consequences.
When the 9am deadline passed, the ANC instituted punitive action against Dirks. While this appears to be an internal ANC matter whereby the party is applying its rules against one of its members, there is more to it than it meets the eye.
A few questions arise: Was this stand-off necessary? Did Dirks break the law? Did he undermine the ANC’S policies and constitution? Importantly, did Dirks put national interests before those of the ANC? Last, should Dirks be seen as a hero or a villain?
These are critical questions. What Dirks did is not unprecedented. In the past, some ANC members “voted with their conscience”, not as per the mandate of the ANC.
During the discussion on the Protection of State Information Bill (Secrecy Bill), Ben Turok voted with his conscience. Some said he was putting national interests before those of the ANC, while others blamed him for being ill-disciplined.
Now, with Dirks asking that Ramaphosa should appear before Scopa, questions have been asked if he put national interests before those of his party.
Others expound this question and ask if Dirks is not playing in the factional gallery. While these speculations are ongoing, it is of paramount importance to look into this issue objectively and with a mind that is devoid of emotions. Not so long ago, when the issue of former president Jacob Zuma was a public subject, there was a general feeling that everyone is equal before the law. The argument was that Zuma, like everyone else, should be subjected to legal processes.
Ironically, when he was treated differently (harshly) compared to other witnesses who appeared before the Zondo Commission, only a handful of people invoked this phrase that Zuma should be treated fairly like everyone else.
Some may wonder why I draw these comparisons. The reason is simple: as a nation, we have to work on principle, not emotions and personalities. Therefore, the action by Dirks should be looked at objectively and be judged as such.
The reality is that the ANC is a party like all the other 14 that are represented in the National Assembly.
However, unlike its sister political parties, the ANC is the governing party. For this reason, what starts off as a party issue ends up being a national issue.
It is for the same reason that South Africans in general showed great interest in the ANC’S January 8 statement even though it was a party event. The reason was that this event is normally followed by an ANC lekgotla, which deliberates on the January 8 statement and discusses issues that eventually find expression in the State of the Nation Address (SONA).
Now, coming back to the action by Dirks, he did not initiate the discussion about Ramaphosa and Scopa. This matter was triggered by the leaked audio in which the president of the ANC was heard saying things that left a bitter taste in other South Africans’ mind.
The audio also raised some pertinent questions about the difference between the ANC as a political party and the ANC as the leader in government.
Drawing from this complex relationship, Dirks felt it was in the public interest for the president to appear before Scopa and explain some of the utterances he made in the audio – which have become a public source.
His actions could be looked at from different angles. Some may see him as an ANC member who wanted to do the right thing. Some may see him as a member of the ANC who wanted to advantage a particular faction.
Others may see him as a hero who put the nation first and the ANC second.
All these viewpoints are plausible. But what raises questions is the action by the ANC to punish him. Did it do so to protect the ANC’S constitution and policies?
Did it do so to instil discipline within the party? Did it do so to protect a faction within the ANC? Most importantly, did it do so to protect Ramaphosa? There is no single answer to these questions.
My view is that the ANC should have left the matter to Hlengwa to make a determination.
Dirks should not have been punished, as this has triggered many questions. Affording Ramaphosa the opportunity to explain himself looks ideal to me. The subject in question is of national importance.