Kevin Costner’s character in Oliver Stone’s epic film JFK famously responded to the intense criticism he faced for bringing the only prosecution in the case of the assassination of President John F Kennedy. The criticism he faced was not because of the credibility of his case, but because he brought the case at a time when the entire nation preferred the bliss of ignorance over the discomfort of justice and truth. He responded using those famous words, “Let justice be done though the heavens fall.”
These words, and their origin in Latin, are a powerful principle reminding us to never let the inconvenience or instability that might arise from justice be a deterrent to pursuing it at all costs. And it seems it has become necessary to breathe life into this principle now in South Africa.
Many people have reacted with fear and trepidation at the idea of President Cyril Ramaphosa facing accountability over Phala Phala in the wake of the Constitutional Court’s decision forcing parliament’s impeachment committee to consider the section 89 report.
Much of the sentiment relating to this concern is about who may take Ramaphosa’s place if he resigns or is impeached. As an aside, in the week where unemployment reached the highest levels in our nation’s history at 43.7%, I am not convinced anyone should fear life beyond Ramaphosa and this government of national unity (GNU). At the heart of this fear is the belief that, for the good of the country, ActionSA and others should look the other way, should let it go, should let sleeping dogs lie. Our response? Never.
Let’s remind ourselves why justice for Phala Phala matters. It is a test of our young country’s justice system that prescribes that all South Africans must be equal before the law on the following facts. Our president had a minimum of R15m in foreign currency stuffed in his couch in a manner reminiscent of your favourite mafia movie. I say a minimum because, despite the president disclosing only R8m being stolen in the robbery, the NPA has proven more than R15m in financial transactions through just one of the five robbers.
Much of the sentiment relating to this concern is about who may take President Ramaphosa’s place if he resigns or is impeached.
The Presidential Protection Unit members operated illegally by falsifying documents and embarking upon an unlawful investigation, without opening a docket as required in law, including unauthorised cross-border operations into Namibia to detain and interrogate suspects. The president’s special envoy to Africa, Dr Bhejani Chauke, joined these missions over the border and, in so doing, proved this was more than the actions of rogue PPU members, but rather a conspiracy involving civilian officials in the Presidency that could not have acted alone. The Ipid investigation into these PPU members was classified unlawfully as “Top Secret” to keep it away from public scrutiny almost certainly because it made serious findings against the PPU members and Chauke.
Despite these findings it seems no consequence management has arisen from this report, which is often the case when people have acted with the implicit or explicit instructions of political principals that now are unable to act against those they have directed.
To say that the president should get a free pass in relation to his transgressions because the succession planning in the ANC is a terrifying prospect of compromised people is outrageous, when one considers the dimensions of just how compromised Ramaphosa is. To the contrary, if you have regard for the facts, I would venture Ramaphosa is more implicated than any other prospective candidate vying for president of the ANC, and that is saying a lot.
It is clear that those who argue that ActionSA should let Phala Phala go hold the view that Ramaphosa should be free from accountability for his various acts of wrongdoing to avoid a potentially even less desirable president. But how far does this logic go? Can Ramaphosa do anything without consequence? Can he rig a tender, rob a bank or murder someone? You can see how this logic starts to get away from those who do not treat justice as absolute.
At the nub of this debate is the flawed thinking that, as a country, we are simply limited to conceiving of the presidency of our country in terms of one implicated ANC president or another. What was once an unassailable ANC majority can no longer be conceived that way.
Its majority has collapsed; its decline has become exponential, and these upcoming local government elections look set to accelerate this collapse. It’s time to think about the leadership of our country in more expansive, and yes, more ambitious terms than South Africans seeking an alternative may have been able to in the past.
Justice must be absolute by its very nature because the moment it becomes selective or conditional it ceases to be justice and becomes preference disguised as principle. Society can only place trust in the law when its standards are applied to everyone equally.
If justice bends according to convenience, comfort or political interest then the concepts of innocence and guilt lose their meaning for everyone else. Put differently: to tolerate or advocate for partial justice is to legitimise injustice itself because the exception made for one becomes a precedent that weakens protection for all.
ActionSA will not cease until the Phala Phala matter has been fully ventilated, until every truth that has been withheld is revealed, and until the president is held fully accountable. Let justice be done though the heavens fall.
• Beaumont is the national chairperson of ActionSA
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.