No amount of champagne, cakes or booze-fuelled parties can mask the reality of the what the ANC has become.
President Cyril Ramaphosa. Photo: GCIS
Multimedia · User Galleries · News in Pictures
Send us your pictures · Send us your stories
The judicial review of the Public Protector's report will be significant for our democracy. If Ramaphosa is to be held accountable for not declaring campaign funding, a long line of others must be held to the same standard, writes Sipho Pityana.
President Cyril Ramaphosa has done the
right thing by opting for a judicial review of the Public Protector's report on
funding of his "CR17" campaign.
There are just too many errors,
omissions and misinterpretations to allow the Public Protector's report to pass
unchallenged. And they relate not only to the president – they have profound
implications for our democracy, too.
Many of the "problems" with
the report have already been ventilated. Some are concerning – such as the fact
that the Public Protector, having invited the president's response to her draft report, does not seem to have taken the president's detailed submission
into consideration at all. Others suggest a less than honest approach – for
example, the Public Protector claimed to have tried to engage with Absa over
the nature of some payments, whereas Absa denies that there was any contact at
There are the "missing millions".
And the question of whether the president – who is not, after all, a Member of
Parliament – can, as the Public Protector recommends, be subjected to parliamentary
disciplinary processes because he was a Member of Parliament at the time this
happened. And then there is the nagging over-arching question, which is that if
Ramaphosa is going to be held accountable for not declaring election campaign
funding, there must surely be a very, very long line of others, including the
complainants against him, who must be held to the same standard. Why have they
not been touched, too?
These "problems" are many,
and fundamental, and suggest a Public Protector who is not prepared to let the
facts get in the way of "a good report"; a Public Protector who does
not seem to understand the law, who has earned a reputation of developing
reports that consistently get thrown out of court, and who – if the truth be
told – is really not suited for the job.
Curiously, it is the party that
vehemently argues that she lacks both credibility and competence that is now
trying to persuade us to place reliance on her report.
But, as Ramaphosa suggested in his
press conference last night, this may not be the time to debate whether or not
we have an incompetent Public Protector. That time will surely come. No, now it
is important to test the facts, assumptions and remedial action that lie at the
heart of her latest report. They have profound implications for our democracy,
and we must be satisfied that they are legally, morally and constitutionally
correct as they will be binding unless overturned.
Transparency in party funding not sufficient
Of course, at the heart of the current
public debate over funding of the CR17 campaign are two core questions which
will inform how we, as a society, deal with transparency around political party
funding, and around ethical "no strings attached" leadership.
Firstly: do we have sufficient
transparency, in law and in practice, around political party funding (whether
for elections or inter-party campaigns)?
Here, the very short answer is: No.
Civil society, business and other formations have long argued that we need far
greater transparency over who funds political parties – and what they may get
in return – to safeguard our democracy. It has been the political parties themselves
that have been opposed to this.
Until now, the dominant view has
largely been that this should apply to how political parties, as entities,
raise funds. But the CR17 campaign has made it clear that we also need greater
transparency inside political parties around how they fund their internal power
Ramaphosa is not the only party leader
to have fought an internal election campaign, and we may all be better off if
we knew who his funders were, who funded Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma's
counter-campaign, who bankrolled Mmusi Maimane's rise to leadership within the
DA, who funded Terror Lekota's internecine battles with Mbhazima Shilowa, and
At the heart of it all must be
safeguarding our democracy from being bought and sold by buying powerful political
parties. After all, that's what the Zondo commission is about, at least in
Did Ramaphosa commit ethical fraud?
Secondly: is the Public Protector
correct to assert that Ramaphosa should have known who donated funds to his
campaign, and in doing so committed an ethical fault?
Although the president has been quite
adroit at dealing with specific questions on where funding came from (and how
much), he made it very clear in his Sunday night press conference that his
campaign team specifically ensured he did not know where the funding was coming
If we are to give him the benefit of
the doubt on this, it suggests it was done precisely to ensure that he was not
obliged to return any favours to funders if he won the campaign. In other
words, this was done to ensure there were no strings attached to the funding.
What this means is that there was a
deliberately-built Chinese wall to prevent any perceptions of undue influence
and avoid any compromised relationships as a result of such funding.
Shouldn't we be welcoming this rather
than condemning it? Yes, we should, but I certainly would have preferred that
he insisted to know, in light of the toxic relationship between money and
politics at the time.
Some may argue that where a leader is
in the know about the details of all her or his funders, a campaign slush-fund
is created and the leader feels some sort of moral obligation to "pay it
back". Scratch my back and I'll scratch yours…
This begs another question: if
Ramaphosa didn't know who was funding his campaign, how was he expected to
declare it? So if he didn't know, and couldn't declare, how can he be in
ethical breach for non-declaration?
But we'll have to let the courts work
that out, along with some of the Public Protector's other leaps of "logic".
It may sound like splitting hairs, but
these are fundamental questions for a country that has been ruined by years of
cloak-and-dagger deals, backhanders and rampant corruption. Particularly when
it is no secret that many of those with their hand in the till were actively
involved in funding some of the ANC's internal battles, and still seem to have
a hand in them today.
The judicial review of the Public
Protector's report is going to be of real significance for our democracy. It
will obviously test the current incumbent's ability to protect the public
interest, and to provide reports and findings which can stand judicial rigour.
That, in itself, is important – particularly given the Public Protector's track
record to date.
But beyond that, this entire saga will
hopefully enable the courts to pronounce on some crucial issues relating to
transparency in political party funding, ethical leadership, accountability and
how to avoid the toxic nexus that can develop between wealthy private funders
and people in public or political office.
- Sipho Pityana is a businessman. He writes in his personal capacity.
Disclaimer: News24 encourages freedom of speech and the expression of diverse views. The views of columnists published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24.
The couple will leave the family in March.
The collaboration celebrates Black History Month in the U.S.
This is fuelling dangerous drug resistance in children.
All courtesy of the International Public Art Festival.
They are now engaged.
Some packages have increased, others not.
It seems that children affected by the virus are in the minority. Why is that?
DurbanvilleZaPOP Media (Pty) LtdR1 000.00 Per Month
Atlantic SeaboardShimansky Jewellers
Cape TownO'Dwyer Personnel
R 2 150 000
Apartments / Flats
R 3 000 000
R 2 260 000
We subscribe to the Press Code.
You choose what you want
News24 on Android
Get the latest from News24 on your Android device.
Terms and Conditions
24.com Terms and Conditions - Updated April 2012
Creating your profile will enable you to submit photos and stories to get published on News24.
This username must be unique, cannot be edited and will be used in the URL to your profile page across the entire 24.com network.