On Saturday, 22 October, just one day before President Cyril Ramaphosa was due to address the nation about his response to the findings of the Zondo Commission, Jacob Zuma gave a public address in Sandton.

The former president’s “national address” was first scheduled for earlier in the week, then for Friday afternoon. It finally took place on Saturday. No explanation for the delays was given and it suggests that he, and the people around him, are not competent enough to keep to their own deadlines.

In his delayed address, Zuma presented his own interpretations of reality that raise a large number of issues that could have an impact on various legal processes.

His claims expose a huge lack of consistency on issues relating to Chief Justice Raymond Zondo, the State Capture Commission, as well as to his own “medical condition”. The nature of his public appearance on its own may raise questions about the competence of the people around him. 

In short, this “national address” may have negative repercussions for him. And, the fact that he is speaking publicly may be an indication of weakness, indicating that he felt he needed to do something to influence certain processes.

If he had maintained his silence, Zuma may have been able to create some kind of mystique, an illusion of power. Each time he speaks in public, or answers questions, that mirage is dramatically weakened.

To many a citizen, his grievance-filled tirade did not imply the dignity that the status of “former president” confers. Instead, it presented just another politician making a statement based on a dubious interpretation of well-known facts. 

Zuma’s statement, when it was made, was startling for many reasons, including his public attack on current ANC leader, Cyril Ramaphosa. Zuma claimed, with reference to the Phala Phala scandal, that “your President has committed treason. No President should conduct private business while in office. Our country’s problems are too big for a President who is busy hustling on the side.”

He also claimed that the media had ignored the Phala Phala scandal and contrasted its treatment with the coverage of the Nkandla scandal when he was president.

It is simply not true that the media has ignored Phala Phala. It has been a lead story in this publication, and most others, many, many times. There has been strong criticism of Ramaphosa’s conduct in this matter, particularly of his refusal to answer public questions about the US dollars stolen from his home.

But Zuma’s comments also appear to completely ignore his own track record in office. He has still not adequately explained why he fired Nhlanhla Nene as finance minister in 2015, or why Nene was never appointed to the Brics Bank, as he had promised.

He has also never answered questions on the record about his relationship with the Guptas, or how it came to be that they were able to steal so much from the government while he was in office.

If it is the case that Ramaphosa has committed “treason” for having a side hustle, how would one define the deliberate sabotage that Zuma committed at the SA Revenue Service, along with consultancy Bain & Company?

Also, Zuma claims that Ramaphosa is wrong to have another source of income. But what about, for example, the money he received from a security company when he was president in 2009? 

Zuma used his speech to attack Zondo from multiple angles, claiming that “Justice Zondo should know the constitutional requirements for the establishment of a commission of inquiry. This too was ignored, and I now know why he ignored a serious charge to the unlawfulness of his appointment as the chair of the commission of inquiry.”

Zuma appears to be saying that Zondo should not have accepted the appointment as chair of the commission.

Visit Daily Maverick’s home page for more news, analysis and investigations

But Zuma is the very person who appointed him.

Was he suggesting that Zondo should not have accepted the appointment that he, Zuma himself, made? 

While Zuma lamented Zondo’s supposed bias, he still did not explain why he first decided to testify at the commission, only to withdraw from it just as questions were about to get tough.

Nor did he explain why, despite his sharp criticism of Zondo, he has appealed to the court Zondo leads to try — once again — to have Billy Downer removed as the lead prosecutor against him.

Slightly oddly, Zuma decided to discuss Eskom, claiming that he had made sure there would be no load shedding through his appointment of Brian Molefe and Matshela Koko.

Again, there is a complete ignorance of the facts.

The Zondo Commission made findings against both Molefe and Koko, and said they should face investigations for their role in the looting of the state-owned enterprise.

Eskom: Zuma, Molefe, Koko and Singh branded key players in State Capture 

Zuma also claimed that he wanted to introduce nuclear energy into the mix as a viable and sustainable way to ensure a reliable energy supply. He also claimed that foreign interests are controlling his enemies.

This appears to ignore that the nuclear deal he wanted to sign was with Russia, and may have given a single foreign country much power over our electricity system.

It also appears that Zuma may have contradicted himself at this same public event. In his prepared statement, he declared: “My medical situation remains a concern to me and requires constant monitoring. I have, however, resolved that I will live the remaining years of my life confidently and courageously.”

Later, a journalist asked Zuma about making himself available to be chair of the ANC, “given your advanced age and your health matter…”

Zuma interrupted the question, teasing the journalist by asking if they were a doctor, or whether they had just become an instant doctor. Then he said: “The ANC has no age my brother. Don’t even ask me. There’s no age. If you are a member and the members say, ‘Perform’, there is no age.”

The journalist tried again: “What about your health?”

Zuma replied, in a joking tone: “What’s wrong with my health? What’s wrong with the health, looking at me? Am I in a bed, lying in a hospital? I’m just checking. We are asking a very funny question. Why about my health? Very unusual question.”

This answer may have legal ramifications.

Zuma has instituted a private prosecution against both Downer and the legal journalist Karyn Maughan. At the centre of his claim is that Downer is responsible for passing information about his health condition to Maughan, in contravention of the NPA Act. But their lawyers may now want the court to first establish if there is indeed a medical condition to disclose in the first place.

Certainly, Zuma’s answer suggests that there is no “medical condition” that imminently endangers his life. No matter what the truth is, he is certainly trying to have his cake and eat it.

This may also have ramifications for his medical parole appeal. It is possible that his answer will be used by those who believe it was illegally granted to him by former Correctional Services Commission head Arthur Fraser.

It is also possible that Zuma’s comment that Ramaphosa is guilty of “treason” could lead to further action from the ANC. Julius Malema was once suspended from ANC activities for saying: “We have seen, under President Zuma, democracy being replaced with dictatorship.”

Certainly, Zuma’s comments about Ramaphosa appear to be of similar gravity. The ANC may itself have to discipline Zuma for this comment.

Zuma was perhaps not the only person at his event who is guilty of inconsistency. Sitting next to him while he was speaking was the advocate representing him, Dali Mpofu.

While Zuma spoke of foreign forces who wanted him removed, some on Twitter noted a strange irony. Mpofu himself, speaking as chair of the EFF at the time, told the SABC in the hours before Zuma resigned in 2018, that: “There is no South African who is sane upstairs who wants to listen to Zuma delivering the State Of the Nation Address when it’s clear he is going. The question is when is he going to go.” He had said previously that Zuma must go.

Although Zuma’s supporters will no doubt cling to every word he uttered this weekend, and his critics will simply write off the performance as another incidence of Zuma not giving truthful, or substantive, answers to questions, the real issue is whether Zuma moved the needle with this address.

So far the evidence is that he did not.

For most of his political career, Zuma’s political power base has been the ANC in KwaZulu-Natal. After his speech, the ANC in that province published a statement. Referring to all of the public comments by former presidents over the weekend (Kgalema Motlanthe and Thabo Mbeki also made critical comments about the government on Saturday), the province said: “We respectfully request our leaders to exercise restraint.”

Then, addressing Zuma’s comments directly, it said: “No court of law has ever found President Jacob Zuma corrupt for his involvement in the arms deal. Equally, no court of law has ever found President Cyril Ramaphosa corrupt in Phala Phala.”

This appears to be a very careful, but direct, rebuke of Zuma’s statement. And may be the most important sign that Zuma’s address and comments did nothing to advance his cause.

It appears his attempt to increase his political support — either to head off the possible consequences of the Zondo Commission findings, the corruption charges he faces, or to again occupy a position in the ANC — has simply failed.

If it is the case that this event was another signal that Zuma is fast losing political power, there may now be indications that his slide into apparent political insignificance is going to be long, slow and humiliating. DM