From the moment President Cyril Ramaphosa won the presidency of the ANC at Nasrec in 2017, the knives were out for him in his bitterly factionalised party. One would therefore have expected him to take every precaution to deny his enemies the opportunity to bring an early end to his term as head of the party, and of the country.
Internal opposition to Ramaphosa stemmed mainly from his pledge to end corruption, which had become endemic during the reign of his predecessor, Jacob Zuma. His talk of closing the graft taps and bringing to book those who leeched off public resources, as exemplified by state capture, was a source of discomfort for too many powerful interests in the ANC.
Partly because of his stance on corruption, many people, within the ANC and outside it, were willing to give him a chance. This was a nation weary of the rapacious looting and general destruction of public institutions that took place under Zuma.
This week’s serious allegations against Ramaphosa by former State Security Agency head Arthur Fraser have therefore been met by consternation.
Fraser laid criminal charges against the president, accusing him of kidnapping, bribery, defeating the ends of justice and violation of anti-corruption laws — all arising from the theft two years ago of a large sum of money from the president’s Phala Phala farm in Limpopo.
Given the president’s own commitment to turn the tide of malfeasance, and the trust many have placed in him, he cannot avoid levelling with the nation about what really transpired. In its initial response to the allegations, the presidency said there was “no basis for the claims of criminal conduct” as alleged by Fraser. But it confirmed that “a robbery took place at the president’s farm in Limpopo … in which proceeds from the sale of game were stolen”.
The guarded statement said Ramaphosa “remains resolute in leading the fight against corruption, restoring the integrity and capability of public institutions and overcoming the legacy of state capture, and will not be deterred by disinformation campaigns”.
Still, many questions were left unanswered. Why was such a large amount of cash (if Fraser is to be believed) kept on the premises? And why was it in dollars?
As the face of the country’s campaign against graft, it is imperative that Ramaphosa responds comprehensively and honestly to the charges — notwithstanding that they have been brought by someone with as chequered a past as Fraser.
Even a cursory observer of politics will know that Fraser is not a neutral party in the fight between Ramaphosa and his adversaries
Even a cursory observer of politics will know that Fraser is not a neutral party in the fight between Ramaphosa and his adversaries, who are mainly sympathetic to Zuma and have coalesced under the so-called radical economic transformation banner.
Nor is he without blemish himself. Among other things, he was implicated in wrongdoing at the Zondo commission into state capture. He is the man who overruled the medical parole board and freed Zuma after the former president was jailed for contempt. That decision is still the subject of court proceedings.
Yet the fact that the allegations against the president are being made by Fraser does not, in itself, mean we can ignore them.
Of course, it would be naïve to overlook the political context in which all of this is happening — in six months, the ANC is due to elect new leadership. As has become common, we can expect the build-up to that election to be fraught with skulduggery, disinformation and whispering campaigns.
But if Fraser’s claims of wrongdoing against the president turn out to be true, they will deal a body blow both to Ramaphosa’s credibility as a corruption fighter and to the country’s broader efforts to rid itself of the scourge. At the same time, public and investor confidence in SA’s ability to extricate itself from the morass will be shaken.
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.