A revolutionary reformer or a middle-of-the-road mumbler?
How can we characterise President Cyril Ramaphosa’s inaugural appearance before the state capture commission of inquiry chaired by deputy chief justice Raymond Zondo?
An early assessment tends towards the latter.
There was a hesitance, a vacillation, in Ramaphosa’s responses before the commission which could be attributed either to nerves, or a strategic approach to shield the ANC from its undeniable complicity in state capture, or to evidence leader Paul Pretorius’s poor phrasing of questions
Though his mere appearance speaks volumes — and it is immensely significant to put a clean break between his leadership and that of his predecessor Jacob Zuma — it is not enough to merely show up, as he did on Wednesday.
Ramaphosa delivered a lengthy opening statement, which struck all the right notes.
“I appear before the commission not to make excuses or to defend the indefensible,” he began.
“The position of the ANC on leaders and members who have been complicit in acts of corruption or other crimes is clear.
“Their actions are a direct violation, not only of the laws of the Republic, but also of the ANC constitution, its values and principles, and the resolutions and decisions of the ANC’s constitutional structures.
“Such members must face the full legal consequences of their actions.”
These members “cannot rely on the ANC for support or protection, nor may they appeal to the principle of collective responsibility”.
Ramaphosa further conceded: “State capture took place under our watch as the governing party.
“We all acknowledge that the organisation could and should have done more to prevent the abuse of power and the misappropriation of resources that defined the era of state capture.”
But this is nothing new. Since launching his presidential bid in early 2017, on an anti-corruption ticket, Ramaphosa has been singularly honest about the extent of the problem of corruption and state capture in the party.
It was during the question and answer session that Ramaphosa shut off to an extent, resulting in Zondo attempting to draw him back out.
Though Ramaphosa defended the ANC’s deployment policies, he acknowledged weaknesses in deploying its members into the public service.
During the height of the state capture era, Ramaphosa was the head of the ANC’s deployment committee.
Yet when asked about whether Zuma’s administration had bypassed the deployment committee on key appointments, Ramaphosa did not respond directly but cited an example from his own term as president, where he bypassed the deployment committee.
He said he had raised the fact that the committee had been bypassed with Zuma, during his tenure as chair, but the former president simply offered a mea culpa.
Ramaphosa did not go into detail over which appointments he had confronted Zuma.
Maybe this was because Pretorious had posed a question about appointments in at least five state-owned companies, an in law enforcement agencies, making specifics rather difficult.
But Zondo did not let go of the appointment issue — rightly so as it cuts to the heart of state capture.
“When one looks at what happened in various SOEs; Eskom, Transnet, SAA, Prasa, Denel over a certain period; how is it possible that all these boards do not [go through] A,B,C,D [in terms of oversight and governance]," he asked.
“It raises questions about how they were appointed.
“How could SOEs be where they are now when they had boards? Who was making appointments here? What was going on?”
Ramaphosa said this was the reason for the commission’s existence, but conceded: “There was a massive system failure... certain people were put in positions to advance certain agendas.
“But some of it was so hidden, so masked.”
He also detailed what was now being done to avoid a repeat of the dodgy appointments made during the Zuma era.
Still, Zondo was not satisfied: “I think I want to know with regard to SOEs, what did the executive do? Because the situation was deteriorating?
Again, Ramaphosa wasn’t specific in his response — saying the government had worked in “silos” in the past, but his administration was working to change this.
Pretorius then — finally — cut to the chase and asked whether the improper appointments had gone through the deployment committee.
If so, he said, the ANC needed to account for them.
Again, without going into specifics, Ramaphosa acknowledged that things went “horribly wrong”, but added he was at the commission to “correct that”.
There was a sense of mounting frustration, as Zondo wanted Ramaphosa to detail specific instances where things went wrong.
Instead, the president asked if he could do that as he closed his evidence.
Interestingly, while Ramaphosa was in the witness box at the commission, his reform agenda was more starkly on display outside.
There, former ANC North West leader Supra Mahumapelo was found “guilty of sowing divisions in the ANC” by the party, and his membership was suspended for four years.
This means that Mahumapelo — who remains a key ally of Zuma and aligned to secretary-general Ace Magashule — could lose his seat in parliament.
Magashule, too, is on the ropes as the 30-day period for him to step down to face his corruption charges concludes on Friday.
And, in another development, the Special Investigating Unit said it would probe a firm allegedly linked to ANC spokesperson Pule Mabe, another Magashule ally.
Marrian is deputy editor of the Financial Mail