Does ruling party have the grit to ditch president?

PRESIDENT Jacob Zuma went to Parliament this week to account to the people, as constitutionally a president must. The key issue was the role his political benefactors, the Gupta clan, allegedly play in ministerial appointments.

A nation agog over a series of revelations from within ANC ranks hoped for an unambiguous refutal from Zuma. They were disappointed.

Protected by a partisan speaker and facing a naive opposition – the EFF boycotted the sitting, while the DA leader, dutifully trailed by his MPs, was soon ejected from the chamber by Baleka Mbete on the flimsiest of procedural pretexts – the accounting was perfunctory. Only he, insisted Zuma, appointed and fired ministers.

Despite looking drawn and plagued with the occasional return of his falsetto nervous giggle, Zuma was in aggressive form.

He savaged suggestions axed finance minister Nhlanhla Nene enjoyed cross-party support, saying the rand was already in decline when he fired Nene and that the DA’s annual report on ministerial performance, had scored Nene poorly.

Zuma, who will face questions on the Gupta issue at this weekend’s ANC national executive meeting, gave notice to his comrades of what to expect. He will not go gently into political oblivion.

In law, the precept of the “reasonable person” is often applied. It’s a rough-and-ready assessment of how a hypothetical ordinary citizen, with average abilities, would act. Despite Zuma’s blustering parliamentary performance, he fails abysmally the reasonable person test, which is unfortunate for a man whose fate is more likely to be determined by legal process, or the threat of it, than by parliamentary sanction.

For years there has been a growing tide of rumours that the Guptas demand commercial concessions from ministers, subvert government policy to their own ends and determine ministerial appointments. The rumours have now become specific claims.

Former ANC MP Vytjie Mentor said the Guptas offered her the job of minister of public enterprises on the proviso she ceded the national airline’s India route to them. Zuma was allegedly in the room next door while this happened and when she went to tell him she had refused the deal, he supposedly said, “I understand, ntombazana (girl).”

Zuma’s immediate reaction to Mentor was simply he had “no recollection” of who she was. Since then Mentor has produced a detailed list of direct interactions with Zuma and said she had reported the illegal Gupta offer to her ANC colleagues.

In Parliament on Thursday, there was no further word from Zuma on the matter. Would a “reasonable person” avoid entirely addressing allegations by a former ANC MP and chair of the ANC parliamentary caucus that – on the most benign interpretation – highlight a presidential memory problem either highly unlikely or medically worrisome?

Then there is Deputy Minister of Finance Mcebisi Jonas, who for weeks had refused to comment on speculation, including in the influential Financial Times, that the Guptas had offered him Nene’s job. This week Jonas released an explosive statement, saying this was true but he had rejected the Guptas on the grounds this was a violation of South Africa’s democracy.

This from a man respected by his ANC colleagues. Trade and Industries Minister Rob Davies has defended Jonas as a man of “integrity and honesty”‚ who “acts in the best interests of the country”, and Jonas has had similar support from Tourism Minister Derek Hanekom, from Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan, from ANC secretary-general Gwede Mantashe and other ANC leaders.

This is political dynamite. If it is not true, Jonas is guilty of grievous character assassination and faces defamation claims. If it is true, “state capture” is more than a trendy catchphrase, it is an imminent threat to the nation.

If it were true and taking place with the knowledge of the president, the Guptas would face jail time for corruption and Zuma, at the least, would face impeachment.

If it were true, the only way off the hook for Zuma was if it happened without his knowledge.

So one would then expect the “reasonable person”, never mind a president well versed in political realities and having sworn an oath to protect the constitution, to act decisively.

The reasonable president would surely announce that the matter would be investigated at the highest level by law enforcement agencies, perhaps also a cross-party inquiry, or even a judicial inquiry.

The best Zuma could come up with was, frankly, pathetic: “If he (Jonas) says he was offered (the ministry) by the Guptas, I think you’ll be well-placed to ask Jonas or the Guptas. Don’t ask me. I have no business with that, absolutely no business.”

SA has reached a critical juncture, perhaps a tipping point. The ANC has the ammunition needed to “recall” Zuma or edge him out of the top job, but does the party have the guts?

● Follow WSM on Twitter @TheJaundicedEye