Showing posts with label Jacob Zuma. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jacob Zuma. Show all posts

Sunday, December 22, 2013

Our Unity Is As Fake As.....

Thamsanqa “Bompi” Jantjie, the fake sign language interpreter, is us and we are him.
He is a perfect metaphor for what our country and society is, like a mirror reflecting back on us, and we don’t like what we see.
Many will ask indignantly: why defile the memory of the great Nelson Mandela with this staggering incompetence? Why procure the services of a man suffering from schizophrenia who clearly has no grasp of the task at hand? Many have already noted how Bompi has turned our nation into a global laughing stock. But we must return to the mirror.
There is now consensus that Jantjie’s interpretation for the duration of the memorial service was meaningless. He also broke all protocols and ethics sign language practitioners are expected to observe. But this was not his first gig; he had been there before and believes himself to be a “champion of sign language”.
Jantjie appears to be delusional, with an amazing capacity to delude others too.
This is, after all, South Africa, a country that seems to be built on a fairy tale – an enduring lie in which all believe.
Jantjie’s fong-kong signing tells us something about the fake ideals we hold dear as a people. We are a nation that believes in the dignity and equality of all, and this is enshrined in our Constitution. However, in reality, South Africa is the number one country in the world when it comes to inequality.
Millions of South Africans live in shockingly squalid conditions without hope of escaping from the indignity of poverty. To keep them alive, we throw grants at them. We proclaim to be one thing, but in reality we are another.
We are a country which, like Jantjie’s self-declared skills, takes pride in being champions of the world when it comes to social cohesion and working through conflict. The model that ostensibly ended apartheid, that of dialogue and compromise, has been exported globally. The truth is that the only social cohesion we experience is at big rugby matches when blacks are allowed to pretend that we are one nation united in all important matters.
After the game, we all return to our respective segregated lives marked by racialised differences, poverty for blacks on the one hand and wealth for whites on the other. Our unity is as fake as “Bompi’s” signing.
Jantjie says he heard voices and saw angels. This brings to mind a tender consortium at work. If you are lucky enough to be among the group of blacks working to apply for a tender, you could think you were hearing voices and communicating with the other world. The determination to win the tender defies any rational consideration.
Faces suggest a trance, as though voices are imploring them insistently to “go on, go on, there is a whole Eldorado waiting for you at the end of the rainbow”.
Perhaps the biggest lesson here is the belief that we are a democracy, and therefore governed by the Athenian adage that democracy is “the rule of the people for the people by the people”.
This idea suggests that every five years when we vote we are exercising this right of self-rule through delegation of our powers as citizens. Like Jantjie’s spirited, albeit meaningless, flapping of hands, the truth is simply that our democracy is not about people’s power but about surrendering power to 400 parliamentarians who are permitted, by laws they have made, not to listen to about 50 million of us.
That’s what makes such reprehensible laws as the e-tolls possible. Basically, democracy is meaningless; it’s a mere empty performance.
“Bompi” is a self-declared schizophrenic; the memorial service itself displayed many schizophrenic moments. A few years ago we booed Thabo Mbeki in Polokwane and cheered Jacob Zuma – now we are cheering Mbeki and booing Zuma. Ironically, the last president of apartheid and a man accused of atrocities and war crimes, FW de Klerk, gets an approving applause from those who still suffer from the legacy of apartheid.
That we have lost all coordinates was demonstrated in the cheering of the imperialist Barack “Mr Drones” Obama, and with equal approval, we cheer the anti-imperialist, Robert Mugabe. Confusion reigns.
We are a deluded nation, believing ourselves to be that which we are not. We wallow in deep incompetence and the state can be said to be on autopilot, with the head of state being a man at sea about the affairs and interests of his nation.
We watch with disbelief the scurrying around the president by ministers of the security cluster as they explain Nkandlagate. Like our mirror, Thamsanqa Jantjie, we are “alone in a dangerous situation”, seeing visions and hearing voices.
We need to extricate ourselves from this cloud of delusion and save ourselves and the country.
Like Jantjie, we need help – and urgently.

Friday, December 13, 2013

Zuma Asked To Resign From Public Office

The letter, published on the Transformation Christian Network website, also states 

that toxic and amoral environment (in SA) "must surely have something to do with the 

manner in which you assumed office, by trampling down on all semblance of the rule 

of law, and corrupting agencies of state".

In a remarkable letter from one of the stalwarts of the anti-apartheid struggle SA 

president Jacob Zuma has been asked to resign. The letter by Revd Canon Barney 

Pityana says SA is "in shambles, and the quality of life of millions of ordinary South 

Africans is deteriorating".

Dear Mr Zuma

AN OPEN LETTER ON THE STATE OF THE NATIONANC

I write this letter with a simple request: that you resign from all public office, especially that of President and Head of State of the Republic of South Africa.

I am, of course, aware that you have been re-elected President of the African National Congress, the majority party in our National Assembly. I am also aware that, in terms of our electoral system, that allows the ANC to present you as a candidate to the National Assembly and use their majority therein to put you in office, without much ado. It would also appear that by its recent vote the African National Congress has expressed confidence in your leadership. You can then understand that I am taking an extraordinary step, and I can assure you one that has been carefully considered, in asking for your resignation.

Our country is in shambles, and the quality of life of millions of ordinary South Africans is deteriorating. Confidence in our country, and its economic and political system, is at an all-time low. There is reason to believe that ordinary South Africans have no trust in your integrity as a leader, or in your ability to lead and guide a modern constitutional democracy that we aspire to become. That, notwithstanding the fact that our Constitution puts very minimal requirements for qualification as a public representative including the highly esteemed office of President and Head of State, and Head of the Executive. 

What is clear, at the very least, is that the President must have the means and the inclination to promote and defend the Constitution, and uphold the well being of all South Africans. I have reason to believe that, notwithstanding the confidence that your party has placed on you, you have demonstrated that you no longer qualify for this high office on any of the counts stated above.

As President and Head of State you should take responsibility for the lamentable state in which our society finds itself. This prevailing toxic and amoral environment must surely have something to do with the manner in which you assumed office, by trampling down on all semblance of the rule of law, and corrupting agencies of state. 

We are constantly reminded of the truth of Shakespeare's words: "Some rise by sin, and some by virtue fall" (Measure for Measure II.2) The result is that we are in a Macbethian world where there is absence from the moral landscape of this dear land of ours any sense of positive good, any sense of personal involvement in virtue, loyalty, restraint. As a result we are in the morass of paralysis of moral power as a society. I believe that we are justified in exclaiming with Marcellus in Hamlet 1.iv "something is rotten in the state of Denmark." And so we say "All is not well."

As citizens we need not ask of our President and Head of State any more than the practice of virtue. To live a virtuous life is to express the goodness of and the possibilities for good in human living. These have at times been expressed as the cardinal virtues: temperance, courage, prudence and justice. For that the leader must lead by example, be a person of common wisdom, and understand the environment of her/his operations enough to serve the people and be driven by a desire to govern well.

There is no place in this for exploiting the high office for personal gain or benefit, or using state resources to buy loyalty, or to elevate party or family above the public good. 

Without this radical prescription of service our democracy is hollow, becomes a dictatorship of the Party, until the next elections when the voters once again get coaxed to vote for The Party! 

The personal attributes of a leader are an important assurance that our democracy is in good hands: excellence in virtue, truth, trust, wisdom, insight, discernment, and sound judgment.

That cesspit of a-morality is to be found in the prevalence of rape in all its brutal forms, in the disregard for loyalty – how does one explain that a close friend of Anene Booysen 's brother in Bredasdorp is one of the suspects of her murder. You yourself know only too well that a daughter of a close friend and comrade of yours accused you of rape! Though, happily, you were acquitted of the charge, the stench of disloyalty and taking advantage of unequal relations remains. 

South Africans live in fear, they are angry; they are poor (and getting poorer) and burdened by debt. What could be alleviating poverty, like social grants and social housing, is failing in practice because the poor have what is due to them pocketed by corrupt officials, and instead suffer the indignity of living life as beggars in their own land. 

Whether it be from marauding criminal gangs, or crime syndicates that appear to operate with some impunity, or the elderly terrified of their own grandchildren, or neighbours who cannot be trusted, or girl schoolchildren who are at the mercy of their teachers who may rape or abuse them, or corruption and theft from public resources by government ministers and public servants, or failure to meet the basic requirements of schooling most notably school textbooks not being delivered on time, or citizens who die in our hospitals because there are no doctors , or no medicines, or the thousands who dies on our roads, or protesters like Andries Tatane in Ficksburg, or the Marikana 46, or those murdered by the Cato Manor police death squad in extra-judicial murder, South Africans live in fear. Are we effectively in a police state? This situation is the direct result of the failure of public policy.

Besides the social and moral breakdown that engulfs our society, the economic woes for ordinary South Africans are not abating. Social inequality has widened since the end of apartheid – and that is something to be ashamed of. The extent of escalating unemployment in our country is surely nothing to be proud of, and poverty that has become endemic, almost irreversible, that haunts our every being cannot be gainsaid. The gaping disparities between rich and poor is a sad indictment on a party that has been in government since the onset of our constitutional democracy. The inadequacy of policy is attested to by the succession of downgrades by rating agencies, and the despair of the poor expresses itself in incessant demonstrations throughout the length and breadth of our country.

South Africans are angry, and they have every reason to be so. There is evidence that your party and government no longer have the intelligence, ideas or initiative to take bold, radical and necessary steps to arrest this slide into oblivion. Besides just being without the intelligence to change the course of history, evidently your Party and government do not even have the inclination preoccupied as it is by a relentless programme of self-enrichment. 

Not even the otherwise promising National Planning Commission Report will solve the challenges we face because it is too little too late, lacks specificity and is without urgency or determination. Yes, we also have the promise of a multi-billion rand infrastructure development spend that is bound to end up in failure no less than the ignoble defence procurement debacle, based on the prevailing rector of corruption in government. Why, because there are already signs that this initiative has become the target of looters and thieves, many of whom with the full knowledge of the political elite in your party and government. 

This failure of government is also to be seen in the lamentable e.toll saga, in the handling of the farmworkers demands and essential decision-making in the highest office in the land: the appointments of the Chief Justice, of the Head of the NPA, in government by demands rather than by policy and principle, 

The picture that emerges is one of lack of leadership that is courageous about things that matter. Yes, we see it in the majority of appointments you make that, with notable exceptions, are lackluster and mediocre. These include appointments to cabinet, Provincial Premiers, and even political appointments to diplomatic service, and a gradual erosion of the independence of significant institutions like the judiciary by blatant political interference. These are nothing but an insult to the intelligence of South Africans.

Notwithstanding all this, there is a sense that this country is without an imaginative, transformative chief executive. Instead, where serious matters, as in the outrageous use of state resources to build extensions to your private home amounting to some R206m (if we accept Minister Thiulas Nxesi's assurances, which no reasonable South African should!), you indulge us in the art of equivocation. Is it true that every room in the Nkandla Zuma Estate has been paid for by the Zuma family? Or is it that every room now occupied by the member of your family has been so paid for? You and your ministers so often address us with this double sense of the absurd, and obscured meaning to cover the truth. 

There is widespread use of state resources as a piggy-bank to meet the demands of your office or for electioneering or other forms of state patronage. Ministers like Tina Joemat-Peterson seem to labour under the belief that it is the responsibility of their office to make the resources of their offices to be available to the President at his beck and call. 

What about the Guptas, citizens of India who have managed to ingratiate themselves and wormed themselves into the very heart of this nation. The benefits are obvious: they get to summon ministers to their compound and issue instructions; they manipulate the cricket governing council with disastrous results; and the paper they publish has access to large resources from state agencies for which no other newspaper was ever invited to tender. 

Yes, we are in the midst of a new Infogate Scandal! It can only be in a 'banana republic' where foreign elements can succeed so easily. I wonder where else is that happening, and what about the security of the state? That would definitely never happen in India.

At the centre of this is a President who lacks the basic intelligence (I do not mean school knowledge or certificates), who is without the means to inspire South Africans to feats of passion for their country and to appeal to their best humanity. I mean being smart and imaginative, and being endowed with ideas and principles on which quality leadership is based. 

Our problem as a country begins by our having as head of state someone devoid of "the king-becoming graces' to establish "virtuous rule". It therefore sounds very hollow when you protest that as President you deserve respect. I wholeheartedly agree that the office of Head of State must be held with respect. But I submit that you are the author of your own misfortune. There is hardly any evidence that you are treating your high office with the due respect you expect of others; to bestow on the highest office in the land dignitas and gravitas is your duty. 

No wonder that there was a time that international observers were overly concerned about the unfinished business of criminal investigations against you, and of course, that little matter you are so proud of, your many wives and innumerable progeny – as one with potency to sow his wild oats with gay abandon. In your language this is about your culture. 

Besides there are far too many occasions of gratuitous disregard for the law and the constitution, and unflattering mention in cartoon media, and often your name features in associations with activities that suggest corruption. South Africans have very little reason to hold their President in awe or respect. On top of that the President makes promises he never keeps, and does not even think he owes anybody an explanation. What happened to the gentleman's ethic, "my word is my bond"! Truth, while never absolute, must be the badge of good leadership.

My counsel to your friends and comrades who seek to protect your reputation by marching onto the Gallery and intimidate the owner of the gallery and the artist of The Spear, or those who are offended on your behalf by the Lady justice cartoon by Zapiro, or the Secretary General of the ANC who summons the Chairman of Nedbank, or the Chief Executive of First Rand for a telling off about the re-branding campaign of the FNB; or the offence caused to some by the decision by AmPlats to restructure its business operations and the threats it was subjected to; or the threats by the General Secretary of the Communist Party and his Stalinist Taliban to legislate respect for the President – none of that would be necessary if you yourself held your high office with a modicum of respect.

Besides these social ills we remain a divided society. We are not just divided by class and wealth (although that is true), or by race, or by gender as the pandemic of violence and brutality against women is the signature tune of our country to our shame; but most alarmingly, the ugly spectre of ethnicity and tribalism that has been accentuated during your Presidency needs to be nipped in the bud. 

Clearly, you are not the President to campaign against this malady, nor are you interested in operating above the tribal fray as other Presidents have done. Social cohesion clearly is not on your agenda. I do not mean just occasionally dressing down some opposition politician, or pointing fingers at "clever blacks", or outrage at some indecent racist incidents. I do not even mean a badly organized Social Cohesion Conference or the discredited Moral Regeneration Movement. I mean a coordinated programme of government utilizing the instruments of state and institutions supporting democracy, like the Human Rights Commission, to drive a national strategy of social cohesion. Even universities, once the bastions of civilized life as WEB du Bois puts it, producing an intellectual corps for society that is critical, and independent, are now fast becoming reduced to apologists of failed government policies.

As a critical observer of government and the African National Congress under your leadership, I note that the tenor of government and party is fast drifting towards the conservative, authoritarian, reactionary organization, presiding over a kleptocratic state; and that is intolerant of South Africans expressing themselves. 

When leaders and governments know that they no longer rule with the consent of the ruled, and without their participation in their democracy they get to be afraid of even their shadows. It often takes on the persona of a playground bullyboy whenever it is unable to answer some pretty sharp critical questions about the conduct of government, and about the prevalence of crime and corruption in South Africa, or about false promises. 

The ANC is getting to take on a semblance of a mafia organization, a Big Brother that syndicates hard dealings against others, isolates and silences critical voices, and uses state patronage to neutralize and marginalize others. One can observe the makings of a totalitarian, fascist regime.

I am reminded proudly that it was not always like that. There has been much over time that South Africans can be very proud of. I can think of Josiah Gumede challenging John Dube for the leadership of the NNC in the 1920s where, as Peter Limb puts it in his magisterial study of THE ANC'S EARLY YEARS, the ANC had become miserable and "getting lost in mist and sea of selfishness" (does that not sound familiar?). Dube, it was judged, had become conservative, and associated with ethnic nationalism. What we miss today is that radical urgency that Josiah Gumede introduced into NNC politics, that uncompromising commitment to shape the destiny of the oppressed. 

Instead we get a party and President preoccupied with ethnic culturalism, and that has no idea about turning the tide of the economic life of the people of this country. There have been other examples as well which led to the ascendancy of Chief Albert Luthuli, and the removal of the likes of AB Xuma and James Moroka. Nowadays a conservative, reactionary tribal leadership is celebrated and lionised but never censured as it continues to keep a Machiavellian stranglehold and power over the organisation. 

The ANC is being held captive by reactionary, corrupt forces. The ANC is in danger of being reduced to a tribal club with hangers-on who seek patronage and a hand in the politics of theft.

It is exactly such a tribalist sentiment that has caused the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development to drive relentlessly a piece of legislation like the Traditional Courts Bill whose constitutionality is suspect, but which more importantly, clearly undermines the advances this nation has made with regard to the rights of women, and it threatens to introduce a layer of criminal justice that parallels that established by the law of the land. In a land where some 50% of the population is made up of young people and women a leadership is required that trusts the instincts of young people and that radically eschews all forms of sexism and disregard for women. A not dissimilar sentiment especially in the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development must explain the abortive Secrecy Bill, and the secret revival of the National Keypoints Act is surely part of this culture of secrecy.

Besides, our country needs a President who understands democracy, especially that a constitutional democracy functions with checks and balances; that power is always exercised under check, and never in an arbitrary manner. The Head of State must be comfortable with the powers of the Constitutional Court and never to threaten at every turn to subject them to review, and to know that good governance flourishes with the oversight of parliament, and of independent organs of state, and that opposition parties are loyal opposition and patriotic and mandated by voters to champion particular positions in the public sphere. Opposition is of no mere nuisance value. It is the lifeblood of democracy. Some of your utterances suggest that you just do not get it.

I am raising my voice comprehensively now after having promised in 2009 that I shall hold my peace, and give your government a fair chance to perform. I had warned that much of your "victories" in the run-up to Polokwane and thereafter were merely pyrrhic victories. They would yet come to haunt you, I reasoned. Indeed, they have. But now any political analyst will warn that we are on a drift to a totalitarian state, twisted by a security machinery into silence and worse. Those of us who still have voice are obliged to warn against the prevailing trend. 

One way of addressing this confidence deficit would be for the President and all public representatives to be subjected to a probity test, to declare for public scrutiny their tax affairs, and all matters of conflict of interest. It is also not asking too much to expect that all public officers, including civil servants must express confidence in the system they preside over by sending their children to state schools, and to utilize public health facilities. 

This must surely include all public sector unions like NEHAWU and SADTU. Leadership matters. Leadership must be accountable and must be exemplary, and must be inspirational. That is where you fail.

Please spare us another five years under your leadership. Spare yourself any further embarrassment of ineffectual leadership. You will be judged harshly by future generations. I ask you solemnly, resign.

Yours sincerely

BP

Who is Barney Pityana?

Zuma asked to resign from public office

He was in Uitenhage in the Eastern Cape and attended the University of Fort Hare near Alice, also in the Eastern Cape. He was one of the founding members of the South African Students' Organisation of the Black Consciousness Movement with Steve Biko and a member of the African National Congress Youth League (long before the days of idiots like Malema – Ed.)
He was suspended from university for challenging the authority of the Afrikaans teachers and the apartheid principles of the then "Bantu education". He did eceive a degree from the University of South Africa in 1976 but was barred from practicing law in Port Elizabeth by the apartheid government who also banned him from public activity.
In 1978 he went into exile, studying theology at King's College London and training for the ministry Ripon College Cuddesdon in Oxford. Thereafter he served as an Anglican curate in Milton Keynes and as a vicar in Birmingham. From 1988 to 1992 he was Director of the Programme to Combat Racism at the World Council of Churches in Geneva.
Pityana returned to South Africa in 1993, following the end of apartheid. He continued working in theology and human rights, completing a PhD in Religious Studies at the University of Cape Town in 1995. He was appointed a member of the South African Human Rights Commission in 1995, and served as chairman of the commission from 1995 to 2001. He also served on the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights at the Organisation of African Unity in 1997. Professor Pityana became Vice-Chancellor and Principal for the University of South Africa in 2001 and held the position for nine years.

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Mandela V Zuma


Tainted: President Jacob Zuma is the embodiment of how the African National Congress, the oldest liberation movement in the world, has rotted from within 

By 

STEPHEN ROBINSON


Yesterday, I telephoned an old friend in Johannesburg to commiserate with her about the death of Nelson Mandela. What depressed her, she said, was not so much the passing of her 95-year-old political hero, but having to watch his successor announce it to the world.

‘To see Jacob Zuma standing there in front of the TV cameras made me feel sick,’ she said. ‘He is the absolute opposite of everything Mandela believed in and lived for.’



 As the world watches the Mandela obsequies being played out, a preening President Zuma will be the awful spectre at the wake, escorting presidents, prime ministers and princes around the ceremonies.

He is the embodiment of how the African National Congress, the oldest liberation movement in the world, has rotted from within and abandoned its founding principles as the defender of the poor and powerless black majority. 
Tainted: President Jacob Zuma is the embodiment 
of how the African National Congress, 
the oldest liberation movement in the 
world, has rotted from within.

On the very day that Mandela died, a crisis was approaching in a long-running scandal about £14.5 million of state money used to upgrade Zuma’s private home in a dirt-poor part of rural Zululand.





 Nkandla - before.



 Nkandla - after.


After colluding with Zuma in keeping an official report into the project secret, the ANC this week gave in to pressure and said South Africans do indeed have the right to know how their money was spent.

It is likely that the opposition in Parliament will make token efforts to impeach Zuma, but equally certain that because the public is so inured to corruption, he will be re-elected president in next year’s elections.

Not that Zuma is alone in funnelling state money for his own benefit. Today in South Africa, no road is built, no hole dug, no airport terminal extended without the payment of kickbacks to the politically well-connected.

In life, Mandela — who, as a foreign correspondent, I watched walk free from prison near Cape Town on February 11, 1990 — held his nation together. 

Today the country faces uncertainty. 

As Archbishop Desmond Tutu said this week: ‘What is going to happen to us now our father has died?’

True, Mandela was scarcely well for the past five years or so, but that did not matter, for his very presence — weak as he was — served as a restraining force against those who might push too far against the ideals of the transition to democracy.

When he lived, he was a symbol of hope, and a warning of what might have been had the last white President F.W. de Klerk not had the courage to free him, and had Mandela lacked the grace to reciprocate with peace and reconciliation.

In a conscious disavowal of Mandela’s pleas for non-violence and non-racialism, Zuma peppers political rallies with performances of an old ANC guerrilla song, Bring Me My Machine Gun. 

This is a man who was acquitted on rape charges after explaining to the judge that the alleged victim was wearing a short skirt: ‘In Zulu culture, you cannot leave a woman if she is ready.’
When it was pointed out that the woman was known to be HIV positive and that Zuma had not used a condom, he famously explained that he had taken the precaution of showering after the act.

Since Mandela retired as president in 1999, South Africa has plunged down the international rankings of good governance. 


A recent survey found that very nearly half the South Africans who required a service from a government official in the past year had been required to pay a bribe. If township dwellers want a water pipe extended to their home, they have to grease palms. 

In the Johannesburg suburbs, the police set up road blocks next to cashpoint machines so motorists can readily get money for the bribes to avoid having to waste hours at the police station on trumped-up driving charges.

These hazards may seem relatively trivial. We are talking about Africa, after all, not some immaculately democratic Swiss canton. 

And, for sure, most South Africans still feel an overpowering sense of relief that their just departed leader steered the ship of state away from racial warfare when he was released from prison nearly 24 years ago. 


Yet still, the downward trajectory is disturbing. And the great fear, now that Mandela is no longer there, is that South Africa could spiral ever more rapidly  into decline. 

We in Europe must take our share of blame for the country’s embedded corruption. Much of it was established as far back as 1998, when our defence companies offered tens of millions of pounds in bribes to secure contracts as the South African government under Mandela sought to upgrade its weapons capacity.

The foreign arms companies polluted the South African political well, and ever since it has been getting more and more toxic. The result of this rampant corruption is that South Africans — especially the young — are increasingly rejecting the political process. 
Matters are not helped by the fact that there are no jobs for millions of young South Africans who complain the ANC now entrenches for the black elite what apartheid did for whites. It is true that the old apartheid state was corrupt. Sanctions, and the secrecy they impose on all manner of trading deals, are always a great boon to the corrupt officials looking for a backhander.

It was also, as we know, brutally repressive. I lived in South Africa for much of the Eighties, and I’ll never forget the police commander who was asked by a foreign journalist whether it was strictly necessary for his men to fire live rounds at  protesting school children who were hurling bricks.

‘When they throw rubber rocks at us, my men will fire rubber bullets at them,’ the commander replied, as though the journalist was just a little bit dim.

What is so depressing today is how much of that abhorrent apartheid mind-set has survived the transition to black majority rule. The South African police always used to be brutal in apartheid days. 

Today, they are not only brutal — they are corrupt from top to bottom.

Compelling evidence is now emerging that 34 striking miners killed last year at the Marikana platinum mine in the north of the country were actually the victims of a pre-planned police ambush. 

In the worst traditions of South Africa in the apartheid era, this grotesque police massacre was obscured from public view as long as possible by the authorities. 

According to a recent survey, the two least respected groups in South Africa are the police and the judiciary. 

When criminals are caught and charged, the wealthy can find a way to bribe the police and prosecutors to ensure they never go to court.

For years, South Africans have fretted about their country after Mandela, and worried what the future will bring. 

When Mandela walked free from jail, white South Africans worried the country could be convulsed by mayhem. They thought, or at least they claimed to think, that black South Africans would indulge themselves in an orgy of tribal violence, pitching tribes such as the Zulu and Xhosa against each other.

It did not happen then, and will not happen now. South Africa will not descend into total chaos; it will not ‘collapse’. 

But even under a man with the skill, charm, and steel of Mandela, the country came perilously close to disaster. 

And it is impossible to see how it can do anything but become more dangerous, more corrupt, and more impoverished under the shabby leadership of a ‘100 per cent Zulu boy’.

Monday, December 2, 2013

Is Zuma Becoming a Liability for the ANC?

The 2013 future fact survey's most recent findings show a massive slide in trust and confidence in President Zuma to a score of 37 from a high 257 five years ago.  

There is a threefold increase in the no confidence scores among those who say they are wavering in their support for the ANC (their ‘no confidence' rating moves from 12% five years ago to 31% now).

This is in marked contrast to Trevor Manuel, Pravin Gordhan and even Cyril Ramaphosa whose trust and confidence scores are dramatically higher than the President's at 227, 193 and 118. 

Confidence in the President has been strongly eroded within the working classes and those who live in informal settlements, as well as among the middle and upper middle classes, many of whom could find a new political home in one of the newer parties.  The erosion of confidence in the President has also resulted in an increase from 73% to 87% among those who want the country's President to be chosen by the people not the party.  Interestingly the same levels are reflected even among currently strong supporters of the ANC. 

This disaffection with the President is likely to have rubbed off on the ruling party, even though the party's popularity hasn't dropped to anything like the same extent as the President's.  

Confidence scores for the ANC have declined from 146 to 110 over the last year.  It is clear the people are asking for a strong leader to emerge to restore order and discipline, based on their disillusionment on a variety of issues, from attitudes to corruption and crime and aspects such as accountability in government. 

There is an upside  - our faith in the democratic process.  Despite the fact that so many have lost confidence in the President and to a lesser extent in the ANC, two thirds of those surveyed (up from 60% in 2011) believe our democracy is strong and will endure. 

futurefact has been surveying the attitudes and beliefs of South Africans since 1998.  The findings presented above are from futurefact 2013 which is based on a probability sample of 3,025 adults aged 15 years and over, living in communities of more than 500 people throughout South Africa representing 21.6 million adults.

http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71654?oid=469991&sn=Detail&pid=71616

Friday, November 29, 2013

Nkandla Timeline





May 1, 2009

Security assessment

A security assessment of Zuma’s Nkandla residence is done by state security. State security personnel recommend improvements of around R27.9m

June 1, 2010

Funds redirected

R77m from other programmes is directed to Nkandla security upgrades. These programmes include city regeneration. Approval was for R38.9m in 2010/11 and R38.1m in 2011/12, the M&G reports.

September 1, 2010

Nkandla deadline

Geoff Doidge is still Public Works minister at this stage. He visits a project “on a deadline by the principal [Zuma] to have the site operational by December”.

November 1, 2010

Project on track

Geoff Doidge is fired in a cabinet reshuffle and is replaced by Gwen Mahlangu-Nkabinde. She writes to Zuma and says the project is still on track

December 1, 2010

Phase 1

99% of Phase 1 is complete and the department starts planning Phase II

October 1, 2011

Completion date missed

Phase II’s completion date is missed. A major contractor Bonelena misses deadlines.

April 1, 2012

Contract cancelled

The department cancels its contract with Bonelena. Phase II is 95% complete.

August 1, 2012

Liquidation

Bonelena goes into liquidation after a settlement is reached out of court.

October 7, 2012

Public Protector

Public Protector Thuli Madonsela opens an investigation into publicly funded construction at Nkandla.

November 1, 2012

National Key Point

Jacob Zuma addresses Parliament and says costs of Nkandla upgrades are due to the National Key Points act.

November 1, 2012

Investigation promised

Thulas Nxesi, Public Works minister, promises an investigation.

November 15, 2012

'Family paid'

Jacob Zuma says he feels aggrieved by reports around his house in Nkandla and tells MPs: "It has not been built by government."
"All the buildings and every room we use in that residence was built by ourselves as family, and not by government," he said, responding to a question in the National Assembly.

June 1, 2013

'Top Secret'

The department’s investigation is classified as ‘Top Secret’.

November 8, 2013

Protector costs paid

The state agrees to pay Public Protector Thuli Madonsela's costs following its bid to prevent her from releasing a draft report into Nkandla.

November 14, 2013

Bid abandoned

Security ministers abandon a bid to stop Public Protector Thuli Madonsela from releasing her draft report on Nkandla upgrade.

November 15, 2013

Pay costs

The state has agrees to pay Public Protector Thuli Madonsela's costs following its bid to prevent her from releasing a draft report into the upgrade at President Jacob Zuma's Nkandla homestead, reports say.

November 20, 2013

Images prohibited

Ministers in the security cluster say South Africans should desist from publishing and distributing images of Nkandla

November 20, 2013

Update

Public Protector Thuli Madonsela gives an update on her investigation into the upgrades at Nkandla

November 22, 2013

Viral

National newspapers publish photographs of Nkandla homestead , despite a warning that it is illegal to do so.

November 29, 2013

Provisional report

The M&G publishes details from Thuli Madonsela’s provisional report into Nkandla. The reports states President Jacob Zuma received substantial personal benefits from the multi-million rand upgrade to Nkandla.


Nkandla report: Payback time, Zuma

0



Public protector directs Zuma to repay the state and explain himself to Parliament

President Jacob Zuma has derived “substantial” personal benefit from works that exceeded security needs at his Nkandla homestead and must repay the state, public protector Thuli Madonsela has provisionally found.
Cabinet members have justified the tax millions splurged on Nkandla, saying it was essential in providing Zuma with appropriate security.
But a swimming pool, visitors’ centre, amphitheatre, cattle kraal, marquee area, extensive paving and new houses for relocated relatives were all improperly included in the security upgrade at “enormous cost” to the taxpayer, Madonsela found.
AmaBhungane calculates that cost at nearly R20-million.
And, what may be Zuma’s greatest embarrassment since taking office, Madonsela’s provisional report recommends that Parliament must call him to account for violating the executive ethics code on two counts: failing to protect state resources, and misleading Parliament for suggesting he and his family had paid for all structures unrelated to security.
Zuma told Parliament last Novem­ber: “All the buildings and every room we use in that residence was built by ourselves as family and not by government.”
Madonsela’s report is provisional as she has yet to give the interested and affected parties, including Zuma, a chance to comment, which may affect her findings. Its working title is Opulence on a Grand Scale – apparently from a complaint made by a member of the public. Her findings include that the upgrade constitutes exactly that.
The release of the report has been delayed by the security cluster and public works ministers’ attempt earlier this month to interdict her from releasing it pending the resolution of their “security” concerns. This has raised fears that Madonsela may be prevented from reporting her full findings.
AmaBhungane has learnt key features of the report from sources with direct access to it but who cannot be named due to sensitivity over leaks. Her findings are corroborated by over 12 000 pages of evidence amaBhungane obtained through access-to-information litigation from the department of public works, which implemented the upgrade.
Key allegations in the report include:
  • Costs escalated from an initial R27-million to R215-million, with a further R31-million in works outstanding;
  • There was “uncontrolled creep” of the project’s scope after Zuma’s private architect, at Zuma’s behest, assumed a second hat as the public works department’s “principal agent”. This meant he was conflicted, serving two masters with divergent needs;
  • Another four firms that Zuma had privately engaged for his own work were taken on by the department without following tender procedures.
AmaBhungane estimates that the Zuma appointees were paid more than R90-million by the state;
  • There were unsuccessful attempts by the department to apportion non-security costs to Zuma. Madonsela could not determine whether a document apportioning the costs reached Zuma;
  • The Nkandla upgrade was “acutely” more expensive than public works expenditure at previous presidents’ private homes, by far the most expensive of which was Nelson Mandela’s at R32-million (see graphic); and
  • Even genuine security measures, such as 20 houses for police protectors, a clinic and two helipads were excessive and could have been placed at the nearby town to benefit the broader community.

Security assessment
Madonsela does not share concerns about the R100 000 cap the Ministerial Handbook places on security upgrades at the private residences of members of the executive. She finds that its prescripts do not apply to the president and his deputy, whose needs are regulated by a 2003 Cabinet policy, among other measures.
A police security assessment in May 2009, after Zuma’s swearing in, and her own inspection in August this year confirmed a genuine need for a security upgrade.
Following the initial police assessment, the public works department estimated the upgrade at about R27-million.
But two factors intervened, both in August 2009: Zuma started building three new houses, necessitating further security, and his private architect was introduced to the department to become its principal agent for the entire upgrade.
Madonsela finds the latter resulted from Zuma’s “political interference”.
Zuma’s team
Her report quotes public works officials as saying they were told Zuma wanted the architect, quantity surveyor, engineers and building contractor he had engaged for his private work appointed by the department for the security upgrade.
Zuma, according to a statement from the architect, attended when his service providers were introduced to the department. Like all other contractors and consultants on the upgrade, the department engaged them without tender.
AmaBhungane calculates, based in part on the documentation it obtained, that the state paid Zuma’s team more than R90-million, including R16.6-million for the architect, R13.8-million for the quantity surveyor and R56.3-million for the builder. This is more than 40% of the total cost.
Madonsela places much blame for the eightfold cost escalation to R215-million on the architect, Minenhle Makhanya, who precipitated “uncontrolled creep” of the scope of the upgrade. He declined to comment for this article.
Makhanya was conflicted, Madon­sela finds. As the department’s prin­cipal agent, he was supposed to ensure legitimate security works were implemented cost-effectively but, as Zuma’s private architect, he was supposed to satisfy the latter’s needs.
He allegedly remained directly in contact with the president, discussing designs with him.
Aggravating the conflict, Madonsela says, is that Makhanya’s fees were calculated as a percentage of project spend – an incentive to expand the scope of the works.
Wagging the dog
In the end, Makhanya became the tail that wagged the state dog. The police security experts made some proposals but the design was largely left to Makhanya, who was no security expert.
Madonsela cites the underground security bunkering and sheltered walkways as an example. The original cost estimate – admittedly before there were three more houses – was R500 000. After Makhanya’s introduction, this increased to about R8-million. Eventually R19.6-million was spent.
Madonsela says that Makhanya struggled to explain to her why the security upgrade needed to include elements she ultimately found improperly benefited Zuma – the swimming pool, visitors’ lounge, amphitheatre, kraal, paving and the relocation of some of the presidents’ relatives.
The relatives who had humble rondavels near Zuma’s homes, were apparently because Makhanya felt the security fence should not meander around them. R7.9-million was spent building the two affected families a collection of new rondavels beyond the perimeter fence.
A public works progress report from June 2010, among the documents amaBhungane obtained, places responsibility at Zuma’s door, saying that “it is understood that the owner/owner’s representative negotiated with the families” and agreed to provide each with four rondavels, palisade fencing, an access road, paving, water and electricity connections and a cattle kraal.
The report’s author expressed uncertainty whether this should accrue to the state or Zuma, and sought guidance.
Madonsela finds that the relocations did not fulfil a true security need, was “unlawful” and improperly benefited the presidential family.
Excessive
Other items she found exceeded security needs and unduly added value to the president’s private property are, as costed by amaBhungane:
l The swimming pool, which aerial photographs show as a large, oblong-shaped feature at the centre of an extensive paved area covering basement garages.
The public works documentation amaBhungane obtained refers to it as a “fire pool” on the pretext that it doubles up as a water reservoir for fire-fighting purposes, although photo­graphs show a large water reservoir higher up the hill.
The minutes of a progress meeting in June 2011 show that Makhanya was to “meet with the principal [Zuma] and present the fire pool”.
An early estimate costed the pool at about R550 000 but it and the basement parking ultimately came to R2.8-million;
  • The visitors’ centre, which shares a building with a control room. An earlier estimate for the “visitors’ centre and lounge” came in at about R5.4-million but the “visitors’ centre and control room” ultimately came in at R6.7-million;
  •  The amphitheatre – a large stepped area overlooking an open space for performances. It appears not to have been costed separately and forms part of R68-million in “general site works”;
  •  The cattle kraal, including a chicken coop. The department’s original cost estimate provided for an existing kraal in the residential complex to be “revamped”.
But later pictures show an entirely new, much larger kraal, complete with a reinforced culvert going under the perimeter fence. AmaBhungane could find no separate costing for the kraal, but a March 2011 estimate put the culvert at R1.2-million; and
  • Extensive paving and a marquee area, which appear not to have been costed separately.
Repayment
The figures above, starting with the R7.9-million for relocations, approach R20-million.
Madonsela does not attempt a similar costing exercise but finds that the value of Zuma’s private property was unduly increased and that he must repay a “reasonable” amount to the state, based on the cost of non-security items.
She does not resolve why attempts by officials to allocate some of the costs to Zuma came to naught.
The documents obtained by ama­Bhungane show that the department’s own professional team complained in December 2010 about the runaway costs, with one official writing about estimates having “almost doubled” and the need for a budget to be “established and confirmed”.
The same official also writes: “Any grey areas in terms of apportionment of costs must be identified, discussed and resolved. Items which are essential and items which are ‘nice to haves’ and therefore not necessarily required for this project, must be discussed.”
Allocations
As of January 2011, there were several iterations of cost allocations, initially apportioning R7.9-million to Zuma. Two months later, in March, the department’s Durban regional manager brought the results of a third allocation exercise to the attention of his minister and her deputy: R10.7-million to Zuma.
The manager sought authority from them to proceed with these works, “as it falls outside the scope of security measures”, and suggested discussing it with Zuma.
Incidentally, Madonsela finds that the professional team was sidelined that same month, supposedly on head office instructions.
The next month, June, a fourth cost allocation exercise reduced Zuma’s portion to R3-million, ama­Bhungane’s documents show.
Madonsela says that the then deputy minister, Hendrietta Bogopane-Zulu, was also sidelined after asking questions about costs and apportionment. Zuma shifted her to become deputy minister of women, children and persons with disabilities in October that year.
Madonsela finds there is inconclusive evidence for whether the apportionment calculations reached Zuma. However, implicit in her conclusions is that, by the time she completed her provisional report, Zuma had not repaid a cent.
His office has never responded to detailed questions about the upgrade, including apportionment, and had again not done so at the time of going to press. – Reporting by Stefaans Brümmer and Lionel Faull

Zuma's say-so sent millions to his annointed Nkandla contractor

President Jacob Zuma's intervention halfway through the security upgrade at Nkandla channelled an extra R20-million to two contractors, one of whom had been his own private builder before government work began.
Although Zuma allegedly justified himself on the basis that he did not want different contractors on his premises for a new phase of construction, the bulk of this work was to accommodate a sizeable police VIP protection contingent on government property removed from his homestead.
This flies in the face of the distinction that the parliamentary joint standing committee on intelligence tried to make this month between the upgrade on Zuma's private land and construction on adjacent land belonging to the public works department, and where the additional R20-million was spent.
"Neither these buildings nor any of the security features to be found on the state-owned property belong to the president," said the committee's report to Parliament earlier this month. "It should therefore be noted that over 52% of the costs of the security upgrades went to the state-owned property."
On the contrary, Zuma's documented request to retain the previous contractors led to their appointment by the state to take on the additional work – to build 20 new police houses at a staggering R1-million per house.
Building contractor Moneymine, which Zuma had previously commissioned as his private builder, got the lion's portion of this work.
Zuma made his demand through then-deputy public works minister Hendrietta Bogopane-Zulu in December 2010, when the department was considering how to undertake phase two of the upgrade.
On December 16, the project's quantity surveyor advised the department of two possible ways of dividing up the work for phase two. The surveyor suggested that Moneymine and co-contractor Bonelena could continue doing security work within the homestead while a new contractor built the police accommodation elsewhere.
The other option, the surveyor proposed, was for Moneymine and Bonelena to share the police accommodation contract between them, in addition to the work assigned to them on Zuma's property.
The surveyor recommended the latter option, although they also raised a concern that Bonelena had struggled to deliver during phase one.
The clincher, however, appears to have been Zuma's demand to keep new contractors out.
According to the project manager's procurement report that later justified the decisions made by the department: "A meeting was held with Deputy Minister Bogopane-Zulu … on December 21 in which she confirmed that the Principal [Zuma] indicated that he does not want other contractors on site in Phase II opposed to Phase I."
In January 2011, the department appointed Moneymine and Bonelena to do all the work on both the properties.