Are you happy with the terms?
They could have been better.
Too broad?
Too narrow. Broad insofar as they cover all forms of corruption within the state. Narrow insofar as they don't use the public protector's report as a starting point as ordered by both the report and the judge. They go back to the original allegations and cherry-pick.
Why is that a problem?
The fact that they have decided to go for the detail. For example, it confines itself to: did the president know that [Mcebisi] Jonas was offered employment? The issue is not only that he was offered employment, the issue is the removal and replacement of the minister of finance. Was the minister of finance removed with the influence of the Guptas? Was the minister of finance replaced with the influence of the Guptas?
Things like that.
Is it a problem that the terms have been broadened?
It is a problem, but a problem the judge could deal with by initially focusing on what he was supposed to investigate and then using whatever time is left to investigate the rest. It's impossible for the judge to investigate all corruption. The way it's framed, any corruption that involved a minister or public official could potentially be brought to the commission.
This would flood the commission with all manner of things and tie it up with matters it should not be tied up with.
Wasn't Ramaphosa very clear that the commission would focus on your report?
It certainly does not comply with that requirement.
So what's going on?
I don't know. But the mistake people should not make is to take this matter to court and request a review of the terms of reference.
Because that would just cause further delay?
Exactly.
There's a provision that allows the president to vary the terms of reference. Could he use that to stymie the commission?
I don't think so. It means that once the judge is operational he can look at his mandate in terms of the court order and apply his mind on whether or not these terms of reference are going to assist him to comply with that mandate. If not, he can approach the president with a request to vary the terms of reference.
Do we need this commission when we have the evidence of the Guptaleaks?
We do because we need a document that will make findings based on President Zuma having answered for himself. A lot of the findings the commission has to make are going to be about whether or not the ethical requirements expected of the president and others were met.
That would not be dealt with in criminal proceedings.
Will it be up to the Hawks and NPA to bring those implicated in the findings to court?
Not necessarily. If the commission does its investigation, it should bring evidence that is ready for prosecution. It's a question of verifying some of the information from the Guptaleaks.
There'd be no point in the commission if it is only going to come up with evidence that is of the nature of allegations that then still need to be tested by the NPA.
