South Africans don’t need anyone to tell them about State Capture risks and vulnerabilities. The country has been there, bought the corruption shirt and dirtied it before the Zondo Commission of Inquiry into State Capture.
The ugliest thing about State Capture is how a series of individual corrupt transactions at senior government level brought the country to its knees.
President Cyril Ramaphosa submitted his response to Parliament as expected on Sunday, 23 October, despite being under siege throughout the day by three former presidents from his own political movement.
From the beginning of his address, the President acknowledged that State Capture was an act of subversion by a “network of criminal intent” — sadly made up of some of our leaders. The President also, and correctly, highlighted that corruption and State Capture were a betrayal of our democracy and a crime against the people of South Africa.
Having to deconstruct how his government was to respond to and implement recommendations from the 76-page report was never going to be easy, particularly with the commission’s report placing the ANC and/or some of its bigwigs at the centre of allegations of hollowing out state institutions.
That said, a view can be expressed that Ramaphosa had enough time to evaluate the Zondo commission’s findings and recommendations, and thus be expected to present to the National Assembly and the people of South Africa a plan with the commitment for actual implementation and a grid for subsequent enforcement of the recommended plans.
We all must remember that the commission presented the capture of the state as a systematic process of destruction, corruption, fraudulent activities, cronyism and bad-faith governance.
In Australia, for example, the implementation of the recommendations of the 1989 Fitzgerald commission of inquiry into allegations of illegal activity and police misconduct in Queensland was well thought out and methodically done. For instance, the Criminal Justice Commission was established to provide research and analysis to inform, among others, the debate and implementation of the changes recommended in the Fitzgerald report.
Further, the Criminal Justice Commission, which was recommended by the Fitzgerald commission, was established to undertake a raft of activities geared towards ensuring implementation, reporting on its activities to the parliamentary committee relating to the monitoring, reviewing, coordinating and initiating implementation of the Fitzgerald commission’s recommendations.
What is important to take as exemplary for South Africa is that there was definite commitment and political willingness to implement each recommendation.
Compared with the seriousness displayed by Australian authorities in implementing its commission’s recommendations, the South African government’s implementation plan on key Zondo commission reports is not clear and does not show the required level of seriousness.
So far, there has been no rapid implementation of much of the Zondo Commission Report, and the President’s submission is very superficial with regard to how fast the recommendations and reforms will be implemented.
South Africans, or at least those who care that State Capture and acts of corruption by the elite are human rights violations, still deserve a plan with an essential reporting and monitoring system and enforceable clear lines of responsibility and accountability throughout every arm of government.
The sluggish approach of the South African government to implementing the Zondo commission report is very concerning, and it is not far-fetched for many pessimists, and those who would like to see the report shredded, to say that it will never be substantively implemented.
I am less concerned about who gets put behind the bars, than about not bringing to life recommendations designed to prevent recurrent capture and putting up a firewall against attempts by “repeat” offenders to do it again.
Visit Daily Maverick's home page for more news, analysis and investigations
Protect whistle-blowers
The implementation of recommendations — such as the protection of whistle-blowers — must be fast-tracked. Some whistle-blowers have already lost their lives and another day without improved legislative protection is a day too many for whistle-blowers.
Also, the prevention of corruption in public procurement processes needs urgent attention. Procurement in South Africa continues to be a corruption high-risk area.
Generally, the address could have been impactful and cemented the President as a corruption buster had it been more transparent in terms of other interventions.
As a people, we must always remember that corruption is a usual consequence of governance characterised by a lack of transparency. More details with regard to the way forward could have hoisted the President’s address high. Some of the things said by the President are already known from his previous addresses.
The regeneration and strengthening of South Africa’s systems of integrity, accountability and anti-corruption are not things to postpone. Further delay in the implementation of some of the key recommendations of the report may further undermine the report that has taken a knock due to some comical errors experienced at the hands of the commission itself.
The lurking danger is that our government need not be reminded that states perceived to be highly corrupt tend to be those with poor human rights records.
In conclusion, what has struck me is Ramaphosa’s declaration that the findings and the recommendations of the commission do not bind the Presidency, and that his response may entail not implementing some of the recommendations where there is good cause.
While the President’s revelation is common knowledge and factually correct, it came out slightly offish when one has to second-guess which of the commission’s recommendations will be considered nonsensical and not justiciable to heed.
The way forward will be difficult for a President who agrees with the public that corruption is the bane of our society, which has eroded and corroded every fibre of our society. DM