No wonder President Jacob Zuma is flouting the provisions of the Executive Members Act. He has gotten away with this kind of thing before. In 2003 Zuma was in serious trouble after it emerged that he had received millions of Rand from fraudster Schabir Shaik without declaring these benefits as required by the Code of Ethics promulgated in terms of the Executive Members Act.
In 2003, following weeks of correspondence with Zuma, the Ethics Committee of Parliament exonerated Zuma – who was then still the Deputy President and therefore a very powerful man. The Committee had accepted his explanation that the “loans” given to him by Shaik were not free, but bore interest: “As there is no evidence at hand that contradicts the authenticity of the loan agreements, it is recommended that the loan agreements submitted by the Deputy President be accepted as valid and correct,” the committee concluded.
The report tabled on 19 November 2003 said, “In this matter the Deputy President provided documents to the Committee which verified his response that there was no benefit received. It is on this basis that the Committee finds that there is no breach to the code of conduct.”
The problem is that the High Court, in finding that Shaik had paid Zuma a bribe, found that these documents submitted by Zuma to Parliament were concocted by the conspirators in order to hide the fact that the money was a benefit and not a loan.
The Shaik judgment thus provides proof “beyond reasonable doubt” that Zuma had in fact defrauded Parliament (much like Tony Yengeni, who was sentenced to three years imprisonment after his fraud came to light). Zuma, however, was never prosecuted for defrauding Parliament, despite the fact that the “loan agreements” he had submitted to Parliament were found to be fraudulently made.
In the judgment in which Schabir Shaik was convicted of bribing Zuma, the court found that the various “loan agreements” which Zuma had submitted to Parliament was nothing of the sort. As Judge Hillary Squires recounted the evidence, these various agreements were hastily drawn up in anticipation of the Code of Ethics kicking in: As Squires noted:
It is also clear from the evidence of Linda Makathini, the official legal adviser to the Deputy President, that the Executive Code of Ethics Act had been promulgated in October the previous year and the resultant Code was in the process of being drafted and actually came into existence in the following year. To show loans made without interest being payable under that Code, would amount to a benefit which would require a special declaration. If they carried interest, on the other hand, they were regarded as a liability and did not….
One only has to consider the financial position of the Nkobi Group as at the date of signature of this document [the loan agreement] to see how divorced from reality it was as a genuine business proposition….
We thought eventually the State’s contention about these documents was well founded. They are clearly not what they purport to be and were probably drawn up when this sort of information had to be disclosed by Members of Provincial Executive Councils and it would have been a suspicious circumstance if these payments had not been recorded as a loan. The evidence regarding the second such agreement, that is the agreement of loan of 16 May 1999, is hardly any better as a genuine statement of what it purports to be…
But then, even if these could be regarded as loans despite all the evidence to the contrary, the basis on which they were made would, in our view, unarguably amount to a “benefit” within the meaning of the word in the Corruption Act. [The Code also requires Cabinet Ministers to declare "benefits".]
Thus, although Zuma had contended to Parliament that the sums of money he had received from Shaik were loans and hence did not have to be declared, the court found that the money given to Zuma could not have been loans and even if they were, these “loans” were given on such beneficial terms that they would constitute a “benefit” for the purposes of the Corruption Act – let alone the Code of Ethics. Zuma was therefore misleading Parliament when he claimed otherwise. This may very well have constituted fraud for which Zuma may – if he was charged – very well have been convicted and sentenced to three years imprisonment.
When Zuma was fired as Deputy President by President Thabo Mbeki after the Shaik verdict, he also resigned as a member of Parliament despite the fact that Mbeki had made no effort to fire him from Parliament. There was a very good reason for his sudden resignation. If he had remained an MP, the Ethics Committee would have had to re-open the probe against him and would have had to accept the factual finding in the Shaik case that the “evidence” provided by Zuma that the money received from Shaik was a “loan” and not a “benefit” as defined by the Code, was fake.
Zuma would then probably have been found guilty by the Committee of breach of the Code of Ethics and could then also have been charged with fraud. He therefore had no other option but to give up his seat in the National Assembly and forfeit the salary that went with it. His very freedom depended on it.
Given Zuma’s narrow escape around the fraudulent “loan agreements”, it is no wonder that President Zuma is trying to avoid declaring his financial interests and benefits and those of his spouses, companions and dependent children. If benefits were received and they were not declared and he was caught out again, he would surely go down.
Of course, it might be that Zuma, his spouses, companions and dependent children had not received any benefits from anyone since he had become President. Even if he and his family have indeed received such benefits they might well be above board in that they might have been given in the spirit of generosity. Unlike in the Shaik case where the money was given as a bribe, it might be that any benefits given to Zuma more recently were not given to secure favors from the President in return for the benefits. In that event, Zuma would have nothing to fear from declaring these benefits (if any).
The fact that he has not declared anything and is claiming rather laughably that it is unclear whether he needs to declare anything, will, however, raise serious questions about Zuma’s honesty and integrity and his ability to stay on the right side of the corruption legislation. If he honestly declares all his interests, he will go a long way to answer those questions and clear up the dark cloud hanging over his head. If he continues to stonewall, we will be well within our rights to conclude that Zuma has not learnt his lesson from the Shaik fiasco and that he is (still) implicated in corrupt practices.
Only time will tell.
Q: How do we know when Zuma is lying ?
A: His lips are moving.
It’s pretty obvious the guy is rotten to the core and was put into power by those even more rotten knowing that he would never expose them because of his own skeletons in the closet.
The only thing that remains to be seen is how they will piss on the constitution to wrangle out of this one whilst we all rush for our keyboards in indignation knowing that nothing will be done.
How does one jail a criminal president when the whole system is criminal and corrupt ? In Africa you don’t. You just suck it up and eventually find other things to write about.
I think all that may work is a private prosecution of all the scum in government. Perhaps we can make a citizens arrest of the president. Put a black bag over his head even !
Journalists interested in women’s and children’s rights should visit all 20 of his children and the other 15 of which he denies paternity to establish whether he is paying his maintenance……
I can just see the Prez sitting in the long queues of the maintenance courts.
All over the country…
Henri
LOL!
I wonder what the stats on the popularity of Mr. J Zuma is like among Black people surely it must have taken a nose dive with service delivery marches countrywide … JZ will be remembered as the man who escaped prison by becoming President of South Africa
Indeed and the comedy of “errors” that is the Zuma Presidency continues…
Pierre, I think you are short changing us with repeating your blogs as though they are SABC soapie episodes. Do you have nothing fresh to say?
Oh dear Mpho, sorry I offended you. The fact that you did not engage with the substance of the Blog suggests however that you are cross with me for reminding you of rather uncomfortable facts which are incontrovertible but which cause you pain – a bit like a battered wife turning on a friend because the friend has reminded her that her husband beats her up and that it might be better to leave him.
Get out the wrong side of the bed this morning dear?
I am not at all concerned by the content of your blog. I agreed with what you said the time before and agree with it now also. But the fact of the matter is that it has been said. By you. Here. So please, say something new – on this topic or on another – or simply copy and paste all the comments from the last time you published this and save us the bother of repeating what we had to say too.
Mpho: sounds like its you who climbed out of the wrong side of your bed this morning. Its just frustration you’re expressing; we all feel it, being far too long sickened by the absurdity of what continues to unfold in South Africa.
I do note however, that the pressure from civil society, including the postings on umpteen blogs and news releases, is actually pressuring our noted miscreants, and gradually I believe, leading to a difference. This public pressure of outrage and disgust must be kept up, as disheartening as its stimulus is.
Imagine if it wasn’t voiced at all. Its a different tsunami rising, or perhaps just the expected withdrawal of Zuma’s.
Mpho
The point you miss is that the government at the moment IS like a soap-opera.
Multiple plots, comedy, tragedy, dark forces, changing cast, lies, sex, illegitimate children, rowdy uncontrollable kids (Julius), theft, corruption, greed …..
The list is endless.
Viva Pierre’s soap-opera Viva.
Mpho, people have short memories. Sometimes it is useful and necessary to remind everyone of that which we as a society have collectively been persuaded to forget. As Milan Kundera famously wrote: “The struggle against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.” Sometimes it becomes and ethical imperative to repeat something in order to keep alive the moral vision of justice and ethics. Those who wish to sink back into a state of moral amnesia in order to allow them not to question their ideological and political commitments and their support for that which is wrong, often get irritated when some among us keep harping on about injustice, corruption and criminality, the flouting of law, and the inconvenient facts which allow many to continue their support for injustice and abuse of power. That is why some white people just hate it when one reminds them of the injustices of apartheid. That is also why some ANC supporters hate it when one reminds them of the sorry saga around the bribing of Jacob Zuma by Schabr Shaik.
Pierre, isn’t that why God in her infinite wisdom created the hyperlink? Link to what you have said before. It was sound, but claiming some need to ram your point home by cut and paste repetition insults the intelligence of your followers, the memory of those of us that remain Alzheimers free and prevents you from properly using that big brain of yours to find a new angle. (Obviously I exclude from the list of intelligent, Alzheimer free readers those who have already cheered you on).
Thankfully, Mpho, we are not reliant on yourr determination of intelligence and man has devised sophisticated testing for this.
And we all know where you fall on the Bell-curve now, don’t we ?
It’s truly amazing how easily you can all be turned from the fascinating text you were formerly praising, to swinging your handbag at anyone who merely asks for a piece of original writing.
Zuma doesn’t have a honest atom in him. And he is probably the most expensive president this country has ever had. Why did he hide behind his constitutional rights when the NPA was trying to gather evidence against him and frustrated their attempts which in the end cost the country millions which could have gone into building schools and other things? As a true ‘African Patriot’ why didn’t he say: “Look comrades, I am not scared and I have nothing to hide and don’t want to waste your money, so I am not going to call on Hulley and constitutional protection and so on. Here are ALL my computers and ALL my diaries and ALL my scribbled notes and WHATEVER ELSE you want I will let you have it without any trouble. You scrutinise and be the judge, my conscience is clear”.
Those eyes are not misaligned for no reason. Hope it is not in the genes, God forbid.
This is one debate that needs to be kept alive by whatever means available, and this includes repetition. This may create a climate where South Africa does not simply go the way of all other failed African states (including and specifically Zimbabwe.)
Let us all hope that this country has the critical mass of informed and intelligent voters to ward off banana republic status. I am heartened by the fact that the alliance spokespeople seem unable to produce responses which even start to deal with the myriad scandals besetting them at present. They are incoherent and increasingly out of their depth. This is good for all of us.
Mpho…on the subject of repetion, you have now said the same thing four times