President Jacob Zuma refused to answer a single question posed to him by former Public Protector Thuli Madonsela, she says in her final report on state capture which suggests that he must have known about his family and appointees’ dealings with the Gupta family but broke the law by doing nothing about it.
The 355-page document, titled “State of Capture” and released by order of the Pretoria High Court on Wednesday, directs Zuma to appoint a judicial inquiry, headed by a judge to be named by Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng, within 30 days to use her report as a starting point to probe in depth all allegations of abuse of the State to benefit the Gupta business empire.
The inquiry has to be completed within six months, she directed, while flagging instances where Zuma may have flouted the law and calling on the National Prosecuting Authority and the police to investigate possible cause for criminal charges contained in the report.
Her report lands body blows on Eskom and its CEO Brian Molefe for arguably advancing the Guptas’s business interests, a week after it was confirmed that the power utility will become the lead agency for the nuclear procurement programme.
And it advises that further investigation was needed into Mineral Resources Minister Mosebenzi Zwane, whose dealings with the family’s businesses may place him in breach of the Constitution and the Executive Ethics Code.
She noted that a trip he took to Switzerland, during which he is alleged to have helped the Gupta-owned Tegeta negotiate the purchase of the Optimum coal mine, with an unscheduled stopover in Dubai, appeared to have been “irregular” and in breach of the Public Finance Management Act.
Regarding her attempts to interview Zuma, Madonsela describes how he ignored letters and questions from her in the early stages of the investigation. He finally met with her on October 6, but declined to answer questions. Another meeting was set for October 10, but he made “somewhat of an about turn” by insisting that he be allowed to question other witnesses and see transcripts of her evidence as a pre-condition for giving any statement.
“The presidency accordingly declined to provide answers to my written questions and cancelled the meeting for 10 October.”
Madonsela also noted that their meeting on October 6 was largely taken up by stone-walling from Zuma’s lawyer.
“The President’s legal advisor argued emphatically that the matter should be deferred to the incoming Public Protector for conclusion. There was a lengthy discussion with the President and his advisor on this matter.”
The report lists several instances where Zuma may have violated the Executive Members Ethics Act, including in as far as he may have allowed the Gupta family and his son to be involved in the appointment of board members of state-owned entities.
The same applies, she said, as he “possibly violated” a duty to act upon persistent allegations that there was a “cosy relationship” between Eskom chief executive Molefe and the Gupta family.
“In this case it is worth noting that such allegations are backed by evidence and a source of concern that nothing seems to have been done regardless of the duty imposed by section 195 of the Constitution on relevant State functionaries,” she added in a paragraph that suggests Public Enterprises Minister Lynne Brown could also be faulted for inaction.
Madonsela added that further inquiry should consider whether Zuma had violated the ethics code by turning a blind eye after Deputy Finance Minister Mcebisi Jonas’s shocking revelation that the Gupta family proposed to make him the country’s next finance minister, provided he fire top officials at National Treasury who were unsympathetic to their interests, including the respected director general Lungisa Fuzile.
“There seems to be no evidence showing that Mr Jonas’s allegations that he was offered money and a ministerial post were ever investigated by the executive.”
Similarly, she noted, Zuma has a duty to appoint his ministers in compliance with the requirements of the Executive Ethics Act and again it may have been breached. It was “worrying” that the Gupta family knew that Nhlanhla Nene would be fired six weeks before it happened, and moreover that Zuma’s first choice to succeed him, Des van Rooyen, was in Saxonwold where the family lives, seven times, including on the day before the axing.
Madonsela said that she was unable to investigate the allegations raised in full, in part because she received too little funding too late.
“The investigation has been hamstrung by the late release which caused the investigation to commence later than planned. The situation was compounded by the inadequacy of the allocated funds (R1.5 million).”
Madonsela had requested R3 million.
The Pretoria High Court ordered the release of the report after Zuma on Wednesday withdrew an application for an interdict preventing its publication.
South Africa Today – South Africa News
