Did Ramaphosa know about the Bosasa ‘donation’ and consciously lied to the House not once but twice?



“Ah, ah, yeah (Lies, lies) ooh, baby (lies) Well, well. We took a vow to be ever true. I lived up to mine, tell me, did you? Someone saw you with your old lover. Hand in hand, I don’t understand. You said it ended so long ago. You had me believing while you were deceiving me with lies (lies). Wish I could have seen it in your eyes. (Lies) but I never did (no, I never did). Words made famous from the guitar-laced tune of South Africa’s famous jazz export Jonathan Butler.

A week is a long time in politics, we know it because on November 6, South Africa’s caretaker president Cyril Matamela Ramaphosa pressed by the DA to clarify his knowledge of a payment of R500000.00 paid to his businessman-son Andile Ramaphosa’s trust account by Bosasa, the questionable facilities management company stood proudly and told South Africa that he as ‘moral’ leader would take his son personally to jail if there is any corruption with the payment.

This statement was precipitated by the DA leader Mmusi Maimane informing the House that he has in possession an affidavit signed by the former Bosasa accountant of a payment of R500000.00 paid from the company to the Ramaphosa’s son (Andile). Bosasa, which now trades under the name, African Global Operations, is a company that receives billions of rand in contracts from the South African government.

Caretaker president Ramaphosa in reply to this question told the House that he had confronted his son on the payment and that Andile explained that the money was for advisory services provided to Bosasa. Ramaphosa senior went on to explain his son’s business interest with the following words, “He advises both local and international companies and this payment, I can show you Mr Maimane that I asked him at close range whether this was money that was obtained illegally, unlawfully and he said this was a service that was provided. To this end, he even showed me a contract he signed with Bosasa and the contract also deals with issues of integrity, issues of anti-corruption and all that.”

Ever the one seeking to be seen to act against corruption, a scripted trademark of his infamous CR17 campaign was framed around, Ramaphosa was eager to let us know that if there was any corruption in the arrangement, he would act.

Showing that he wears the big drolls, Ramaphosa talked tough with the following words: “If it turns out that there’s any illegality and corruption in the way that he has dealt with this matter, I will be the first, absolutely the first to make sure he becomes accountable even if it means that I’m the one that will take him to the police station,”  [sic]

On Friday 16 November, Ramaphosa in a written reply to the Speaker of Parliament shared that he “inadvertently provided incorrect information”. Clearly, this constitutes an undeniable backtracking on his earlier response delivered in parliament. Ramaphosa now would tell South Africa the received amount that was paid by Bosasa into his son’s account was really a donation for his CR17 Campaign to ANC high office.

What then to make of this 360 degrees turnabout of SA’s caretaker president on a subject of politics and money complex where beneficiary companies who earn billions from their relationships with political power exert power for their donations.

There are those who argue we must extend Ramaphosa honour for him rectifying himself through his latest version. These argue it shows his consistency of trying to be clean. Firstly, while this may be or not, the issue of Ramaphosa’s response in the first instance was not organically coming from as initiated, he was coerced in asked questions from the DA. Meaning the DA must get the credit for firstly, bringing the subject matter of this questionable payment to the House’s attention. Secondly, the DA’s threat and subsequent action to attain a right to access the details of the claimed contract Ramaphosa proudly shared, forced the second response. We may therefore not rush to extend praise to the Ramaphosa, it can be argued that he was forced to make both statements and can, therefore, never get any respect for taking the House in confidence on the subject matter.

Secondly, his latest turnabout on the saga, by itself does not take him out of any troubled waters. We now have two versions of one incident, two versions provided from the same mouth and we have to make sense of this in a space of media crafted “angels and demons’, where the toxic relations of capital’s influence on the political canvas is laid bare daily in VBS scandals, Municipalities looted by business, State Capture Commission, and politicians fingered for corruption. Can we simply take the president’s word in both instances, why should we not place the burden of truth on the president? May I also remind us in this very toxic space, Ramaphosa is paraded as an angel, the opposite of his predecessor.

Thirdly, Ramaphosa’s first statement thus can be reduced to the typical fancy footwork of politics in which he thought his charm would save him and stop the DA from seeking the details of a claimed contract. His so-called ‘tough talk’ was nothing but politics as guided by his ever-present public relations machinery.

In the fourth instance, beyond the first and second statements of Ramaphosa which presents diametrically opposite content lays the critical question: How much of the donation did Ramaphosa know upfront before his first oral response to Parliament? It becomes crucial to engage if Ramaphosa knew or not because his second statement affirms that Andile received this money as a donation not for Andile’s campaign but for the CR17 campaign. Meaning, Andile and his trust account were used as a conduit to receive R500,000.00 under the guise of a service-provider contractual relationship as advanced in his first response.

In the fifth instance, we must need again attempt to understand, the intention to have received the money for work performed in a trust account which holds its own ramifications that the relevant authorities may want to engage in an unfolding saga. What is now essential is to establish did Ramaphosa know before he made his first statement. His claim from his first response suggests he did not know. He equally in his second statement claims the money was deposited or received without his knowledge. Who exactly directed and or advised that the donation is made into the trust account?

It, therefore, becomes a matter of what is the common denominator of both statements, as you guessed in both first and second statement Ramaphosa denies knowledge. That for us can become the smoking gun. Because it attests motive for both statements without realisation. It can be surmised knowledge of the donation compromises Ramaphosa in every aspect.

With the benefit of his second statement which places him as the direct benefactor, we know it becomes an attempt to move Andile out of the picture and Ramaphosa daddying-up to say I can handle this. If we now take cognisance of his second response which delineates a CR17 campaign and not a contract, can we still assume that Ramaphosa did not know? It becomes increasingly challenging to extend the benefit of the doubt to Ramaphosa as absent in knowledge of the donation.

In the sixth instance, thus, on the other hand, merely acknowledging the money was for the CR17 campaign as the new truth, opens up a slew of questions among others, were these donations solicited? Who was directly responsible to have fiduciary control and powers as to where and how such received money was to be spent? How many other State-purse beneficiary companies made similar donations, and are the other accounts beyond Andile’s trust account that were also used for the CR17? Can we trace how the money left Andile’s trust account and who became the second level beneficiary?

Have we forgotten, how Bidvest a company Ramaphosa has known close ties with, reserved hotel rooms for ANC delegates attending 54thConference and was rumoured to buy the votes of delegates. Bosasa’s ‘donations’ and Bidvest’s generous gifts and that of others can be construed as nothing but to buy the favour of the incumbent. It goes without saying that at some stage Ramaphosa will have to repay them in kind and that in SA will come from the state coffers however wrapped. We know businesses do not give out money without an explicit intent of benefitting ultimately or later. What is the deal Ramaphosa has with his donors, that he would use his son’s Trust Account under the guise of service provider contract relations?

Let us equally dispense with the sophism of the donation was for the ANC Campaign. The ANC was not campaigning in 2017, it will campaign for 2019 national elections. It is deceiving to make the claim that it was an ANC campaign who benefitted. This was the CR17 Campaign who was in the race to become president of the ANC. Hiding behind an ANC flag is not acceptable, it must remain the Cyril Ramaphosa campaign for ANC high office. The ANC cannot be used to hide who was the benefactor of this donation.

We are compelled to ask, what was the motive of the donations on the part of Bosasa and others we still in the future will hear who equally made donations? We do not have to go far, Bosasa is infamously known for having bought politicians favour, we recently learnt of the vocal MP Vincent Smith loans and monies received from Bosasa.  We have heard how other politicians like Gwede Mantashe and Nomvula Mokonyane were also linked to Bosasa favours or deals, while these are not yet proven they fill our discourse. We also know that Watson’s controversial company is a gross benefactor of billions from the very state coffers now presided over by Ramaphosa and his team.  Among those who also benefitted from the corruption of Bosasa is Deputy Minister Thabang Makwetla who received a bribe of R1million, the same has not yet denied but dubiously after a month returned to Bosasa as is claimed.

What then is the meaning for someone who framed his CR 17 campaign on morality narrowly understood in money corruption claims between the state and capital, why would Ramaphosa have been that naïve to assume these donations would not indicate the opposite of what he was seeking to sell South Africa? Or was this common for Ramaphosa throughout his political and business careers to receive donations regardless of how these may compromise and send wrong messages? Was this the businessman cutting the deals in receiving donations to propel him to the ANC high office by extension SA presidency? When were Bosasa plausibly and many others going to call on a return of the favour of their donations? Was Bosasa and others told ‘you have benefitted it’s time to pay back‘? We don’t know there are so many unanswered questions and the more we engage Ramaphosa in his two statements, the more we see a character emerging of someone who has questions to answer.

Lastly, the undeniable subject of familial relations between Ramaphosa and his son arguably the heir to his billions affords grounds to conclude Ramaphosa may have from the start been totally in the loop on the either, requested or offered and subsequently received money. He as the face and head of the CR 17 campaign, may even have directed the Trust as the recipient beneficiary account for this and possibly other donations.

Should we prove that Ramaphosa had prior knowledge of this ‘donation’ for his advancement into ANC high office, can we then argue Ramaphosa consciously lied since he knew upfront? What then are the implications for Ramaphosa if it can be established that he lied to the House and that he was responsible to direct all the funds of his campaign?

The State Capture Commission has seen many lies exposed, Nene Nhlanhla was made to fall on his sword for his lies. Malusi Gigaba after 14 years of being in the cabinet was proven to have lied under oath. Zweli Mkhize was exposed by the ANC Treasurer-General to have lied when he denied the ANC received donations from Vele Investments who owned the now sequestrated VBS bank. Vytjie Mentor’s multiple lies are laid bare in the middle of her testimony, was forced to correct lies in her published book, and subsequently, through her attorneys Webber Wentzel apologising for having lied about meeting Fana Hlongwane. Barbara Hogan and Vytjie Mentor have both lied about the role, designation of among others the ANC DSG, Jessie Duarte who only became DSG in 2012.

Now we have to contend with the ANC President, who is the current caretaker SA president, who may have knowingly deceived and lied to the House when he may have known from the start the truth of the Bosasa donation to his son’s trust account which was for his benefit. Ramaphosa remains suspended in mistrust, the face of ambivalence and not trusted by the poor to lead SA to an economic transformation that will benefit colonial and apartheid victims. With seven months to the elections, can Ramaphosa be trusted to lead the ANC to victory as a morally sound corrupt free individual, when his business deals – donations – which spares not even his own and however wrapped follows him like a wet diaper?


Did Manyi disrupt the rehearsed account of ‘state capture’ leaving Wiliams and the media in particular eNCA jaundiced?


 – Disruptions usually occur where order protests a presence –

Jeremy England in his postulated disruption theory as physics asserts, “life is the universe’s way to dissipate energy more efficiently, meaning that what we see as an order is really just nature’s way of spreading disorder more broadly.”  

England’s mind in this regard, therefore, leads that, we assume the energy we employ to create order as constructive or “putting things aright,” when actually we are setting the stage for more disorder. In other words, most people look at an ordered system as the natural way things should be. That’s what opens up opportunities for successful disruption.

I thought of this as I continue following the State Capture hearings that started on August 20. The State Capture as a Commission initiative as led by some is to set things in order, at least that is the claim of politicians and those who claim to know. It is also the claim of those who want to find against others where they absolved themselves into the media crafted ‘angels and demons’ frames of our discourse. Yet while, as is claimed things are being put right, the stage of more disorder is set. Who would have thought that the angel Nene around whom a campaign of Zuma removal was led, would fall in the disorder of putting things right?

We have been listening to a number of essential media crafted ‘angels’ sharing their accounts with the explicit intent of proving the existence of state capture as a crime through the funnels of their personal experiences as linked to an ecosystem of a job. Some painstakingly and without realising painted a picture of how their presence in a specific setting was a threat to the claimed looting hence they were fired from such job.

If one closes one’s eyes and listens deeper, one will be forgiven to assume the Commission increasingly purports a glorified labour dispute resolution entity that after the fact is used as a means to hear the aggrieved in a cabinet and senior official descriptions. In a drama filled week where Barbara Hogan shared essentially her 18-month tenure as minister of Public Enterprises, she spared few as she dragged the ANC’s deployment system, scorned enemies Jacob Zuma, Gwede Mantashe, Jessie Duarte, Jeff Radebe and Blade Nzimande among others from the ANC and the state before the commission for their degrees of complicity to the media-created crime of state capture.

We can comfortably surmise the Commission for some constitutes their last moment to settle scores that cannot be settled in any other forum. Hogan, among other things, relates how the late Ahmed Kathrada, her partner accompanied her and was sitting in the car while she was being fired inside by former President Zuma and Secretary General of the ANC Gwede Mantashe. The issue of Kathrada’s choice presence to accompany her is used as another means to evidence a heartless Zuma and Mantashe combo. Clearly a side-show of note, we are not sure what she had hoped Kathrada’s presence should have meant.

Until now the media reporting on the State Capture Commission as relayed in particular by eNCA, the unofficial mouthpiece of a faction of SA broadcasting with unfettered space and access who muscled itself into being the official news channel after ANN7 was forced to die, would daily feed us the salacious angles that fits their ideology and agenda. We are fed Ad-nauseam the same opinions and clips of among others anchors and commentators who consciously make more of for example a Hogan account.

Since eNCA has its own scripted agenda of conditioning ignorant minds as to who really proved state capture, we must hear them defy the attempts of objectivity, because objectivity for many in the media space is a dreaded disease to be avoided at all and any costs. Clearly having no interest or appetite the likes of Jeremy Maggs, Vuyo Mvoko, etc lack the capacity to hardly ever critically in balance form reflect on the testimonies of those whom they have already declared heroes.

Until now the proverbial ‘State Capture ship’ was sailing in crafted smooth waters, with Vincent Maleka doing his job and pretty much in control of convincing SA of the media invented crime of State Capture.

Then came Wednesday, just before lunch we saw Mzwanele Manyi take the stand, yet he took the stand not in the witness seat, but in the place customarily reserved for legal counsel. Manyi showed up without any legal representation.

Manyi originally scheduled to appear before the Commission on November 23, took issue with evidence leader Maleka for seeking to deny him the opportunity to engage the matters raised by Phumla Williams who earlier shared her experiences at GCIS. In such testimony, she implicated Mzwanele Manyi as the CEO of GCIS on a number of scores. Let us not forget Pumla Williams’ account was made out to be the gospel and became a key testimony for the media’s claim of State Capture. She was passed off as a very credible, hard working and proficient in knowledge as a repository for state processes on procurement and contract employment conditions.

Advocate Vincent Maleka naturally attempted to throw a block to Manyi’s request to only engage the matters pertaining to Williams’ evidence. He even suggested if Manyi was going to avail himself now, he must be willing to face cross-examination on every issue that Maleka has in front of him that implicates Manyi. Maleka previously also argued to deny Fana Hlongwane among others the right to cross-examine, when he opted for a narrow interpretation of what the Terms of Reference of the Commission in this regard mean.

Manyi protested and said he has not filed a petition to cross-examine hence he will restrict himself to the account as it relates to the Williams submission. Judge Zondo allowed sense to prevail and directed that Manyi, for availing himself be afforded to present what he had deemed the reason for his appearance for Wednesday and be available to be engaged on the scheduled 23rd November date. Manyi was emphatic that he is ready to be engaged on the said date on the litany of other matters that Maleka has prepared to engage him on. The Chair Deputy Chief Justice Zondo prevailed on Maleka to consider either questioning Manyi after his submission or to hold back on all questions for the scheduled date of November 23. With this Manyi prevailed and began to lead share his account on the terms he had advanced.

Right here a disruption in the State Capture narrative as heard before the Commission was now being presented. Manyi became the first person to give an account on matters that he had determined to address devoid of other things that may be levelled against him. His testimony backed by reports including a scathing report from Treasury he had to fight to lay his hands on confirmed a disruption. Manyi presented his account which includes exhibits detailing a different story of his leadership at the helm of GCIS as juxtaposed to the claimed competency of those who have been celebrated by the testimony of Williams.

Manyi shared how he became the CEO of GCIS. He made it clear that it was the late Collins Ohm Chabane, the Minister in the presidency with jurisdiction over planning and monitoring who very briefly informed him that he has a choice one of two jobs either, CEO of GCIS or COO in the presidency. He opted for the first and started working based on his understanding and prism of leadership to transform GCIS from its complicated shaded visionary statement to the still embraced simple but practical statement that has survived since 2012. He shared his analysis and assessment of an entity that lacked in effectiveness and efficiency to execute its mandate. Manyi also highlighted how he uncovered the crime of corruption through a procurement system that seasoned celebrated ones could not.

He took the time to show how Pumla Willams was economical with the truth on straightforward questions directly posed to her by the Chairperson on some issues. Manyi clarified these matters and gave explanations as to why Williams’ testimony is not credible and bereft of facts. Manyi’s account poured cold water on the claims of Williams, he even explained his so-called contact with her when she was testifying seeking to enable her to relay the facts and not the imagery.

Manyi’s evidence proved damning to the media crafted so-called ‘star account’ of Pumla Williams, he came armed with documents and reports as he outlined that Williams was implicated in an R7million scheme at the expense of GCIS. This payment was paid in tranches of R1million to avoid the scrutiny of the treasury. Apparently, the splitting of invoices was until Manyi’s arrival at GCIS a common practice.

Armed with a Treasury Report on its investigations into irregular expenditure he broke down the calculations. The 7million expense raised had to do with the irregular appointment of a service provider. He also raised the subject of R777000.00 paid to the second supplier. Manyi explained that had Treasury not launched its investigation, the financial exposure for GCIS could have accrued to R26M. Manyi was emphatic the person who signed this payment was Ms Pumla Williams.

According to Manyi, Williams was not authorised to sign for such expenditure. Manyi informed the Commission that there were in the real sense three service providers found naked in the National Treasury’s report. Two of these were directly linked to GCIS, while the third one was contracted to Stats SA. He outlined the duty of the Stats SA service provider was to supply goods for the work to be done at GCIS appointed service providers. He argued that this did not happen while the service provider was paid R64million for work not performed. Manyi explained that his decision to divert reporting from Williams to the CEO, was once he became aware of the rot at GCIS.

It can be argued that Manyi’s testimony caused more than a disruption to the much made of Pumla Williams testimony at one level while on the other hand to the Commission itself which was coasting along assuming their witnesses have made the case for the media crafted crime of State Capture. Not only did Manyi tore Pumla Williams’ testimony to shreds, and disrupted the Commission he equally disrupted the biased media led by eNCA anchors. We know that as much as the Commission is claimed to set things right, as its own universe it really is spreading more disorder particularly to those who naturally assumed their testimonies can only be the truth.

Clyde N. S. Ramalaine
Political Commentator & Writer Chairperson of TMoSA Foundation

POEM: Capturing the state commission, season one


State Capture Commission,
season one, are you following?
Where facts become fiction
and fiction is led by fixation,
where published books are re-edited
and multiple versions,
have become concrete evidence.

State Capture Commission,
a comedy of drama,
where one is offered a bribe
by someone,
you really can’t identify,
and threatened
by the same person.
All for millions six-hundred on toe…

All of this after
you starred in a movie
dubbed “Guptaleaks”, illegally obtained,
and sold on bootleg,
you were paraded in an expert of linking dots,
the champion of proving of state capture.
Now you not sure,
all you know it was a Gupta…
after all they all look the same…

State Capture Commission
where Zondo laments lack of evidence
when Ramaphosa told us
of the grave ‘extent of capture’ …
and confusion on Brian Hlongwa
and a Fana Hlongwana runs wild,
and plays out naturally in stuck mental confusion.

Season one sees,
a Mr Kaunda regularly confused
for a known female Lakela.
meetings with people
that simply never took place.
All of this between
an acquired taste for curry,
handbags – carried by a president,
wheelchairs and crutches,
galore claims of ministerial jobs,
when the record shows,
you invited yourself and was red-carded for wasteful expenditure,
your Transnet request-sponsorship.
Yet you are the second key witness,
for a crime called state capture.

State Capture Commission,
where evidence leaders,
err in lack of skill,
the focus is misplaced,
some hellbent on reading rules
in punitive means,
and a deputy chief justice forced
to help and educate,
while his own reputation,
in the end, may suffer.

Will we hear of jobs lost?
When you have lost other jobs too,
while linking the dots co-star Parafin
says he has no claims against,
Zuma…state capture’s fixation.
Will these stand cross examination?
Your guess as good as mine…

Evidence is important,
if I must write a report in the end,
I need evidence, not media reports
evidence is important,
Zondo clearly in irritation bemoans.

Season One,
A mix-masala assortment of fiction,
drown a semblance of facts,
Where more than a flirtation with fixation,
paints the canvas, the land of tourists and smiley faces.
Backed by a puppet master’s guide…

You can’t wonder,
who is the puppet master,
behind all this, rehearsed play?
Just a matter of time before all know, we already linking the dots –
after all Pravin – he signed Pauw’s book,
the drama continues,
the twists ever so real
Exactly, how much more can we handle,
in this soap-opera,
the subscription we pay for?

Clyde N.S. Ramalaine
Copyright, August 28, 2018

Coalition antics a mockery of the will of the people


EFF dethrones the DA in coalitions while it leads a blindfolded ANC along, making a mockery of the will of the people.

South Africa remains a country proving an oyster tray for any interested public intellectuals. There is so much to opine on, from the drama at the State of Capture Commission to Theresa May’s whistle blow-stop, the ANC’s reneging on land reform as per its latest statement, the Constitutional Court pronouncing on culpability in the CPS and Sassa saga that cleared a Bathabile Dlamini, the Cape Flats police brutality in Bonteheuwel and the Nelson Mandela Metro’s dethroning of former mayor Trollip and replacing him with his arch-enemy Mongameli Bobani of the UDM. Claims of a resurgence of xenophobic violence in Soweto. This was followed by the Tshwane non-event and obvious egg on the face of an overconfident Kgosi Maepa of the ANC.

John Adams, the second USA president remarked on coalitions and democracy with the following words, “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. Twas never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

The changing nature of our politics as evidence in an appetite for coalitions some claim is a sign of democratic maturity, while others see this era of political coalitions as utter expediency in which the will of the people in ballot definition is prostituted for veiled but glaring self-interest even at a personal level. South Africa is less than a year from its sixth national elections that will give effect to a sixth administration. Since the municipal elections of 2014, South Africa is increasingly proving a country ready for coalitions.

A coalition in political party sense attests a political alliance or an agreed political bloc for cooperation between different political parties on common political agenda, often for purposes of contesting an election to mutually benefit by collectively clearing election thresholds.

The SA psychology for coalitions is hardly a natural process but has a central player who above all else until very recently has defined the canvas of coalition politics in a democratic SA. The Democratic Alliance until recently stood unrivalled in its existence and daily life as anchored in the phenomenon of coalitions politics. For an elongated period, the DA singularly initiated and determined the political landscape of opposition party politics.

We saw how it swallowed Patricia De Lille’s ID party, we witnessed how its kiss with Mamphela Ramphele bludgeoned to death an AGANG-SA, it toyed with Lekota’s COPE and had flings with Holomisa’s UDM. It long bedded Meshoe’s ACDP and had flings with Buthelezi’s IFP. Can we forget how it’s chasing after Zwelinzima Vavi’s skirt was made public? This is a party that while it fails to live up to its first name (democratic) it excels in its last name (alliance), it rules by alliances where interest is the common factor.

It, therefore, becomes important to contextualise what happened this week against the backdrop of who the Democratic Alliance is in its governance of SA political nodes. What we are witnessing in this season is the fragility and glaring imploding, that many of us have opined over a longer period of time that showed this week when the last streaks of glue of its alliance with the Economic Freedom Fighters tore and it could no longer rely on the Patriotic Alliance for that one significant vote that stymied the earlier plan of the EFF.

Not only did the DA lose the Nelson Mandela Metro mayoral seat but it also lost its leader status of coalitions, it was dethroned by a less sophisticated somehow uncouth, streetfighter bully small enough to be an annoyance and big enough to make you realise how small you are with your so-called numbers.  The DA learns again today the truth of Napoleon Bonaparte’s words when he remarked, “The allies we gain by victory will turn against us upon the bare whisper of defeat”

It was clearly a week of political intrigue and drama. One that delivered jolts of tremors in the body-politick of South Africa’s leading political parties. We finally saw the much threatened and long promised removal of Nelson Mandela Metropole Mayor, the controversial vernacular-sassy Athol Trollip has his mayoral chain violently removed. The first salvo for this now historic event saw the DA speaker of the house Andre Lawack removed. Trollip was removed when a rebellious DA councillor decided it is time to pull the plug on him and the DA. Trollip and the DA were unceremoniously removed.

The DA’s entire campaign in parliament was in painting majority rule as a bad thing often using the northern state of Zimbabwe and its Zanu–PF as the evidence for this. The DA in its reinvention from its former Democratic Party, under Tony Leon whom Mandela dubbed a chihuahua, to its iron-guard Godzilla’s Democratic Alliance, had this idea as its central persuasion. You will recall how the DA in its practice of politics often sought to make democracy and political life determined by the courts.

The DA was always the master coalition partner and has had several intimate relations, one – night stands and weekend-spends with virtually every party that is defined in opposition sense. In 2016 it started flirting and casually dating the EFF, it’s most difficult so far.

The DA in 2016 first succeeded to smooth talk the young virgin of politics, who out of its anger for her parent the ANC was willing to defy every law and make agreements with the worst to insult its parent. The DA with this anger of a young lover, the EFF, was able to secure itself in two Gauteng metros.

Not that Gauteng in recent national elections ever delivered for the ANC outright power, it was always a borderline case of 50%-plus. The ANC in the province made a ton of blunders; can we ever forget the move to force Thoko Didiza into the race as an alternative when the race between two contenders was considered too violent. This move left the ANC exposed since its voters in Tshwane did not endorse the will of a boardroom Gauteng leadership and showed their dissatisfaction when the ANC failed to make the cut to define and form the local government of Tshwane.

While Trollip has been long on the radar for removal, Solly Msimanga in a comedy of recent appointments from people who claim education and expertise they simply never had soon stood accused of massive corruption for an issued tender that did not meet the necessary PFMA requirements. Msimanga was fingered by the EFF as the next one after Trollip to go. We knew that because the EFF’s leader had a press conference and spelt this out. They made it clear that Herman Mashaba, the City of Johannesburg Mayor, was not in any danger or under any threat of losing his job because, apparently, he is pliant to the objectives of the EFF. The noise around an intended Msimanga ouster gained intensity and momentum with the emergence of a new face in the ANC Tshwane leader Kgosi Maepa.

We learnt of a night-vigil to be held on Wednesday as the ANC in Tshwane was readying itself for taking over the mayoral office. Maepa’s social media world was a-flood with him making wild claims how he will be mayor come Thursday night. Well its Friday now, the mayor of Tshwane is still Solly Msimanga, after two motions sponsored respectively by the EFF and the ANC against him were disrupted abandoned after the EFF staged a walk-out.

Interesting enough, the EFF is so smart and self-centred and knows how eager the ANC is to occupy the mayoral seat that it staged a walk-out because their motion was procedurally questioned. To show you the EFF is not concerned about any of these political parties including the ANC, it didn’t want Msimanga removed on an ANC motion, it was never going to allow the lusty ANC to get that honour. It rather staged a walk-out to ensure the ANC’s motion fails regardless of whether the aim of removing Msimanga was the objective. The ANC had to abandon its motion because without the EFF it could never bring the motion to succeed

Coalition politics while a practised invention of the DA as matriarch is quickly becoming the playground of the much smaller in size EFF. The EFF has understood the greed of its fellow partners to hold office and uses that as a means to negotiate whatever it deems right for itself. The EFF has become the kingmaker for the DA and promised the same to the ANC; its best role is its practised king dethroner. Trollip was made by the EFF, similar to Msimanga and Mashaba. The EFF’s stance though glaringly obvious is interesting since they have managed to make a mockery of democracy because it better understands the heartbeat of a ruling party who has lost credibility and an essentially white-interest party that can snap out of the fundamental core of its interest.

The EFF plays their new type of coalition politics in a form of street-brawl style. It’s unconventional demand and threat strongman politics are informed by scaremongering as it claims it leads SA. Another aspect of the EFF, which many don’t see, is their dictate of who becomes the appropriate candidate. While it claims not to dictate choice, it essentially demands the right to veto the choice of partners for what it deems ‘clean’ or ‘proper’ candidates.  This, in a nutshell, is telling your partner it’s your choice to select, it’s ours to veto your choice, therefore directing you in your choice because you not capable to present an honourable choice.

The ANC is very uncomfortable and not accustomed to coalition politics, it’s really a novice because it was spoiled for the better part of democracy to always secure an average of 62% of the national ballot.

It’s the first sign of dipping across the board was the 2016 municipal elections. It was now in stark reality faced with not a single outright win of any metro in Gauteng. It survives in Ekurhuleni, aided by the singular vote of the PA who keep Mzwandile Masina as mayor. Since the ANC is new to the notion of coalition politics it does not know how to play the game and swayed by its rudimentary interest of ruling it assumes it can negotiate itself back into a mayoral position because that has the same power of a ballot endorsement.  If the ANC in both national and all metropole definitions can rightly pause and hear again Benjamin Franklin when he cautions, “Necessity never made a good bargain”

Clearly, SA’s leading party is at sixes and sevens on what coalitions mean and where that will play out, it has been sold the story that it will not make it to the psychological 60% threshold come 2019 hence it must now find the most appropriate partner to pull them over the bar. The ANC remains inept on the practice and ingredients of coalitions, it trails the mother of coalitions the DA, it equally falls behind the upstart street-brawler bully EFF.

Coalitions are essentially about a deal. It just appears the EFF gets better for its size from both the DA and ANC, who remains one stuck in sophistication and the other inept in negotiating the best deal for themselves.

Clyde Ramalaine

Political Commentator and Writer

Ramaphosa and Magashule a volley of ‘dark corner’ versus ‘a product of white capital’ recorded claims

plotting against any elected ANC official with aim of removal remains wrong, be it a president or secretary general functionary-

The role of the media in South African politics with the ANC as its epicentre cannot be overstated. If we today have ‘state capture’ or ‘secret meetings’ claims bandied around in certainty of persuasion less in evidence but anchored in sentiment, it can directly be attributed to intimate relations between political personalities and a lusty media.

Yet, it is also not a complete picture to end there, peeling the layers in search for a better understanding of the media on these two respective matters lead us to a discovery we perhaps didn’t want to make. That being, a group that does not exclude some who in apartheid sense were agents and today are paraded as celebrated moralists. Also, not excluded from this group in the media, may I add, is a segment of essentially women journalists who at some point in their individual and or collective careers have been on the side of those they today appear to seek to destroy at +every turn with their claims through an access of media as weaponry.

Twisted relationships, friendships some intimate between journalists and politicians are an age-old thing. Apartheid’s known project, Stratcom evidence the symbiotic relationship shared by both media and political interests. In SA we also know of this since this increasingly extends to some leaders of organised labour and political party definitions in which among others the ANC, COSATU and the SACP are not exempted.

The challenge we must contend with remains, have we reached a place where this tiny segment of journalists dictates the daily politics from personal deep-seated scorn over what happened at a personal level and setting. As already concluded the paucity of politics as led by the ANC has provided an opportunity for the personal agenda of journalists to direct the landscape of SA discourse. On another score, are these journalists mere tools used by sophisticated political interest to wage proxy wars in zones of public space where they are handsomely rewarded? Has South African discourse become controlled and dictated to by past intimate relations and to what extent have these journalists been active in dictating to ANC leadership their utterances?

We know this pollution of cross-border relationships between the political and the media immanent in agreed pact by some as EFF leader Julius Malema recently confessed of himself and Ranjeni Munusamy on removing Jacob Zuma. This is a classic example of how common interests can violate and abuse the profession of ethical journalism reducing it to an orchestrated vendetta-driven-machinery of pure interest where the rules favour those who have the platforms to denigrate others while celebrating those they may benefit from at essentially an economic level.

On Monday elected ANC President and SA caretaker, Ramaphosa addressed the COSATU Congress that was about to elect a new leadership. For the first time in a very long period, the entire ANC Top 6 leadership attended together. We know that COSATU is vocal for its claims of ‘state capture’ and more recently its demand on action against those who stand accused of having engaged in ‘secret meetings’ to oust Ramaphosa.

Ramaphosa is silent on many things among others, our request for him to speak on the Bird Island Boys scandal, which he hitherto has remained ominously silent about. He is silent on the subject of true economic redress in line with ANC adopted resolutions, I am not yet engaging his temporal relief rescue deal, we will engage that shortly. Ramaphosa continues his double- speaking on land and appears to navigate his way around what white monopoly capital have come to define as radical and populistic ANC adopted policies that scare investors from seeing SA as worthwhile investment soil.

Notwithstanding that, Ramaphosa appears to have used his presence at COSATU, his historical constituency base to take wild but direct swipes at his own Secretary General Ace Magashule. Let us hear Ramaphosa in his own words., “Those who want to divide the ANC, what agenda are they serving? Because coming out of Nasrec, we all held one agenda of unity, renewal, jobs and transforming our economy. So, if you are going to divide the ANC tell us what your agenda is,” Ramaphosa accused those who met, as having done so in the claim of some “meeting in dark corners” and plot to divide the ANC of being counter-revolutionaries. “Comrades, this is a call for unity. And those who are engaging in acts to disunite our people and divide our people must be exposed,” he added.

With this statement in the heartland of his constituency, Ramaphosa ventured to entertain a salacious topic, abandoning reason and the espoused interest of the unity he in the same breath prognosticates for populistic rhetoric and being in control of a media-led initiative. It became his space to serve a volley of shots necessitating a response which was to be returned by a Secretary-General, Ace Magashule who from the bedrock of his 25 year-long of the Free State province will not be going down in the silence of the night. Magashule too went to his home-based Mangaung constituency, this time it was a youth event of COSAS. There he would make known his mind and heart on the actions of Ramaphosa as displayed at a COSATU rally.

Well, what happened at COSATU was an ANC president throwing his secretary general for his convenient wolves, he went there to politically annihilate a nemesis, someone he never appreciated because Magashule was not part of his ‘winning team’ that he in a break with ANC culture and traditions dared to announce months before the conference. Ramaphosa fed Magashule and he knew it because as he spoke his pack of wolves were shouting…. AAAACCCCCEEEE… in reference to Magashule, whom Ramaphosa deliberately sought to embarrass.

The ANC president failed to protect his leadership but was willing to sacrifice him to the lowest bidder, ready to proverbially deliver his secretary general’s head on a silver platter to those who have to bid for his political life. In a strange recurrence of a repeat of proverbial Marikana tragedy, Ramaphosa knowing a better path consciously opted to be this callous and less circumspect to appreciate what his actions would have in impact on the ANC.

Ramaphosa misled by the venom his constituency decided to abandon the sense of leadership for unity and fell hook-line-and-sinker for an audience that in all probability forced him to lose his composure and be reduce to the one-minute politics in defiance of being the one who was elected to lead the ANC in unity. Ramaphosa had been here before when he was one of those accused of plotting to overthrow a Thabo Mbeki presidency in 2001. He knows from where those claims emanated and what the prevailing internal political climate was at the time. He, therefore, with such historical information may have had access, as in the case of Marikana, to a better toolbox from which he may have opted to deal with these claims of ‘secret meetings’ which he rephrased as, “meeting in dark corners.”  He knew that the meetings took place in public spaces (Maharani Hotel lobby and Beverley Hills veranda) and that the claim of a ‘secret meeting’ is and remains a sophism but he needed to suck on the joystick of this moment in front of his constituency base flexing his political power muscle.

Secretary-General Ace Magashule, in addressing the COSAS gathering in the Free State, therefore, responded to Ramaphosa’s open attack and would not back down. He made it clear that Ramaphosa with his attack was first attacking an ANC leader. Never before has a secretary-general been so clear on a president he was serving. While former SG’s may have expressed their private views on presidents they served, Magashule told Ramaphosa in an unequivocal sense, you and your CR17 hardliner crowd will not prevent me from meeting a former president. His choice of words significant, “Let me tell you, nobody can stop me from meeting President Jacob Zuma. I will even invite President Jacob Zuma to come and talk to you as students”

Magashule continued, “There is no ANC leadership which I am part of, that is going to stop me and many others from meeting president Jacob Zuma”. He asserted, “Nobody will take me out of this ANC, nobody.”  With this Magashule underscored the important role and significant place former President Zuma holds in ANC setting despite attempts to reduce him in political expediency to a pariah state of leprosy because some in their fears and media invented ‘state capture’ coupled with ‘secret meeting plots’ prove gullible to earn public sympathy by playing the victim.

What Magashule next said, is more scathing and more blood-curdling, he ventured to draw a distinction between himself and Ramaphosa in ANC original sense. It is a given that Ramaphosa owes his public life and later political presence to the mind, heart and hand of white monopoly capital if we accept his emergence in 1978 as adopted one by the Urban Foundation. Magashule would have known, the words of Clive Menell’s spouse, Irene who as recorded in Anthony Butler’s biography on Ramaphosa, said Ramaphosa was brought into the Urban Foundation as a ‘charity gesture’.

Ramaphosa from his Urban Foundation umwelt, therefore, owes his public life to white capital interests since we also know it was Harry Oppenheimer who envisioned a UF, while Anton Rupert had the honour of defining the UF in strategic ethos. Calling Ramaphosa a product of white capital interest is driving a jagged-edged dagger into the heart and twisting it for maximum impact, clearly a very angry Magashule. He with this becomes the first high ranking ANC official and member of the ANC to tell Ramaphosa you not authentically ANC, you don’t belong to the ANC you are a product of white interest, that is your known history Magashule dovetailed this in reference to himself as juxtaposed to Ramaphosa,
“I am not the product of a white person. I am not a product of capital”. He thus seizes the moment to claim himself as a member of the ANC produced by the ANC and thus a product of the ANC, unlike Ramaphosa.

Why then would Ramaphosa take the media inspired so-called ‘secret meeting’ so serious though he appeared to have attempted to downplay it?

Ramaphosa remains an ANC president that is confronted with the reality of an ANC that may stumble for the first time in reaching the proverbial and psychological 62% margin his predecessors since Mandela to Zuma comfortably attained and maintained throughout the life of democracy. He is confronted by a significant portion of ANC members and leaders who did not trust him to lead and continues not to trust him. While many at first glance wanted to make NASREC a battle of CR and NDZ camps contest, a better way to look at it remains the battle between the forces of capital and the actual poor that has come to describe and define the ANC in a totality of its existence in this epoch. Nasrec became the struggle between white privilege and black economic denial. What cannot be denied is that Ramaphosa’s rise to the ANC leadership comes with flame grilled peri-peri white monopoly capital spice. While the most recent published most IPSOS survey (a useful tool that forces peoples thinking) extends him a personal popularity of 72% over the ANC’s 60% it cannot be seen as a final word on what is really happening in the ANC when it comes to the division of white capital and the economically disenfranchised poor.

From this, it is crystal clear that the ANC as led by Ramaphosa continues to lead a deeply divided organisation and one increasingly as warned by Oliver Tambo teetering with ‘self-destruction’ if the two fundamental positions of its president and secretary general offices are at war with each other. For the last known 25 years of the ANC in democracy seldom have the lines so clearly been drawn and the divide so emphatically clear. The last time we saw a secretary general resign was Ramaphosa himself when he bitter with not be considered fit to accompany Mandela to a deputy president post, stepped down in 1996.

What then is at stake as an immediate focus?

The critical aspect at stake is the ANC list finalisation, the balance of forces in an ANC setting has always subjected itself to the use of this cardinal aspect to determine the actual lay of the land in support for or against. This critical aspect usually managed and led if not controlled by the office of the secretary-general is in this season the prize position, it appears the CR 17 hardliner group has smelled blood and will seek to hound Magashule from his elected office, incidentally something not considered a plot. They seek to solidify their control over the ANC at an internal level where Magashule in his current position stands as the last frontier.

A tale of secret meetings since Nasrec 2017, have come to define the ANC leadership. Not having won the contest of presidential elections in the outright convincing sense, it is visiting in ghost form of taunting the current ANC president. The margins of 179 votes that separated him from his contender has after nine months not dissipated. Equally so the even tinier margin by which Magashule became secretary-general a mere 24 votes is also not relenting for those who never wanted him in that position. The strategy to bulwark and upstage the secretary-general’s office was the beefing up of the presidential office at the Luthuli Head Office.

While the contest is easily drawn between two personalities of a Ramaphosa and Magashule, we will miss the bigger picture that of a contest between capital and the poor, what some have dubbed as the Bidvest ANC versus the Gupta ANC. A tale of ANC policies versus a cremora-lite version of double-speaking. The survival of an ANC organisation needs the cooperation and working together of these two offices with clear boundaries. While Ramaphosa remains thrust in legitimacy crisis for those who didn’t trust him to lead the ANC which made up a significant chunk. Magashule is also abhorred by those of the Ramaphosa camp who see him as a problem and the next one to hang to dry after forcing Jacob Zuma and Supra Mahumapelo.

Was Ramaphosa, wrong for referring to the Maharani and Beverley Hills Hotels meetings as “meeting in dark corners”?  Yes, he was, we all know as I already opined in another piece earlier that the claims of a ‘secret meeting’ in a public space simply do not corroborate. We know that the term ‘secret meeting’ was not even concocted in origin by any ANC leader but a questionable journalist Sunday Times journalist, Qaanitha Hunter, who herself in the aftermath of her exposition was exposed for her past and cosy association with Atul Gupta and the New Age newspapers which she left angrily for not being appointed as its deputy editor when she demanded to earn more than others. We also know that Ramaphosa’s ‘meetings in dark corner’ claims feed of the media led narrative of ‘angels ‘and ‘demons’, those who make up his dark corners crowd, are necessarily following the scripted media line of ‘demons’. I am afraid Ramaphosa knew exactly what he was doing and why he was doing it.

It was, therefore, irresponsible for the ANC president to fall for the claims of a ‘secret meeting’ unless the president so relies upon, or is in cahoots with these expressions of the selected media for a means to deal with his organisational leadership legitimacy challenges. Why then would Ramaphosa be this irresponsible? It is a game of high stakes and time is not favourable to his leadership. On a daily basis, the window of opportunity for CR 17 hardliners to convince those whom they in the aftermath of Zuma resignation squeezed out and side-lined is closing to take control of the ANC, to engender true unity, or to convince others that they can be trusted to deliver unity. In order for these known hardliners to secure full control (whatever that means), they have in their wisdom resolved to get the elected secretary general Ace Magashule out.

They have worked meticulously on that plan. The plan is clear Magashule is a problem and not working in the interest of those I would refer to as the undying CR17 hardliner supporters who include Ministers like Pravin Gordhan publicly accused by among others the DSG of the ANC Jessie Duarte as sitting behind a plot to have her and others who were Zuma sympathetic removed, purged and exposed with state capture claims as a politically expedient means. It means Magashule will face a drummed-up SACP and Cosatu led the disciplinary hearing, yet I ask why is Ramaphosa not facing a disciplinary hearing too.

Ramaphosa, with this statement at COSATU, may have read the balance of forces at an internal level as shifting towards his side, buoyed by the idea he was going to announce on Thursday a government initiated economic rescue package. The idea of being seen to saving SA in an economic rescue package though aesthetic and very temporal may have been part of his arsenal for coming at the elected ANC secretary-general. Magashule on a pre-planned drummed up theatre of a COSATU elective conference. When former Cosatu president, Sdumo Dlamini was interviewed on the subject of a secret plot to oust Ramaphosa, he had more wisdom to publicly laugh at the reporter, perhaps thinking are you not understanding this as part of a lame public relations job aimed at harvesting sympathy for an incumbent.

It is clear that the lines have been drawn, and pretending it has not been drawn is to fool oneself. The ANC unity that was propagated from the voting at Nasrec and pleaded for in the aftermath of the outcomes of the conference, appears a long-forgotten past.

The unfolding days and weeks purport to be very interesting particularly since Ramaphosa already stands accused of playing the man and not the ball. He is already called out for his double-standards of questionable morality as it relates to an organisation and its leaders on corruption claims. As is asserted in for example the weekly Mail & Guardian that accuses him of an ambivalent ethic when he is silent on some of his key supporters like Chairperson and Minister Gwede Mantashe and Deputy Minister Thabang Makwetla who are fingered in BOSASA corruption when he is obsessed to want to listen to questionable scorned  journalists leading a media narrative of ‘secret meetings’ from the bedrock of their personal displeasure with deals that have gone wrong.  In the case of Makwetla, very vocal in condemning of Zuma, it gets even worse because he admitted he received a bribe of R1million which he kept for six weeks before developing a conscience to take the money back. This again exposes Ramaphosa in a farcical leader sense again as more concerned about his personal self-interest and political survival, something his days from UF, CUSA and COSATU later ANC SG days became notorious for. It is an open secret that Bosasa directors offered to make many ANC MPs millionaires. I this what happened to Vincent Smith?

Something will give and only time will tell but those on both sides of the NASREC presidential divide are today more emboldened, the lines are harder and the risks more pronounced. The ANC is and remains a toxically divided organisation and do not have the luxury of uniting before May 2019 a time schedule for South Africa’s sixth national elections.

What must remain as undeniable, is that a plot against an elected organisational president or its secretary general attest the same crime and one cannot be preferred to the other in blurred aesthetics of kaftans of an SA president as super important. If we too condemn the media created ‘secret meetings’ of those Ramaphosa call meeting in ‘dark corners’ can we also condemn the ‘secret meetings’ to plot against Magashule for his removal? Don’t be misled by a caretaker SA president’s role, see the wrong at an ANC organisational level where its most senior incumbents are subjects of alleged plots real or fake.

Clyde Ramalaine
Political Commentator and Writer
Chairperson of TMoSA Foundation – The Thinking Masses of SA

Mbeki claims a pro-poor ANC has abandoned its roots


Reading Mbeki in this epoch reminded me of James E Cone’s book entitled “Martin and Malcolm and America a-dream-or-a-nightmare”. In such Cone makes the case that for King, given his education, economic status and social standing in that society the cry was for integration. Malcolm Little (X)’s struggle was about the right to his identity not as integrated but in coexistence of an equality of humanity with those responsible for his disenfranchisement.

He then shows how it was right for King to dream while X only saw a nightmare. I am afraid the liberation struggle could not have been about being accepted by the colonials and apartheid minorities, the struggle was always about the emancipation to possess and own as was taken from those who suffered the fate of disenfranchisement.

Let me then upfront thank Mbeki for having shared his mind and nailed his colours to the mast with this 30-page mini-volume, on the subject of land redress, among others, since we now have heard him in crystal clear fashion.

The former President of the ANC and SA recently took it upon himself through his foundation to release a statement which he refers to as a pamphlet centred on the subject of a land debate. In it he details a historical path for an ANC-led national question, driven by the philosophy of a national democratic revolution in which he locates the ANC as leader of society. Mbeki contextualises the history of liberation struggle understood from yellow, black and green colours as far back as 1912, for a movement that first came to be known SAANC and finally the African National Congress. We hear him as he categorically asserts, “Accordingly, successive generations among this indigenous African majority have consistently accepted and treated the ANC as their political home exactly because of how it has defined its historic mission over the decades, and what it has done to accomplish this mission.”

In order to drive his fundamental points home that being, (1). A consistent ANC policy position with the 1960 adoption of the Freedom Charter as cardinal bulwark he argues that the ANC’s  54th Conference held in December 2017 in its adopted and articulated position on land (2) deviated from that trajectory and is yet to explain its reason for such deviation and means for such actions. (3) He argues that this deviation translates to an abandonment of what the ANC always believed, stood for and lived up to since it (4)recrafts the ANC as representative of the black masses and by extension, therefore, the ‘black party’ that former President Jacob Zuma articulated, as new and un-ANC.

In order to advance his rationale to make the case for what he termed a contemporary and most recent deviation, he juxtaposes the outcomes of the 2017 Policy Conference held in June and the adopted resolutions with its leadership pronouncements. In defence of his position he cites Pixley ka Seme and Chief Albert Luthuli in different epochs who both articulate in parity the notion of an ANC that exists to attain and work for a democratic, non-racial and non-sexist society in its fundamental original intention and end goal as understood in a national democratic movement leading a revolution framed around a national question. He painstakingly explains this to those who do not know at the hand of critical areas in the life of the ANC among others the formation of the PAC in 1959 and later the Group of Eight who were expelled in the early 70’s.

We must, however, caution that Mbeki’s choice of Ka Seme and Luthuli in this instance are deliberate because he extends himself a free pass not to cite for example, a Anton Lembede who in crystal clear sense shares his mind on the tension of the white supremacist mind on the Africans, with the following words, “The African people have been told time and again that they are babies, that they are an inferior race, that they cannot achieve anything worthwhile by themselves or without a white man as their ‘trustee’ or ‘leader’. This insidious suggestion has poisoned their minds and has resulted in a pathological state of mind. Consequently, the African has lost or is losing the sterling qualities of self-respect, self-confidence and self-reliance. Even in the political world, it is being suggested that Africans cannot organise themselves or make any progress without white ‘leaders. Now I stand for the revolt against this psychological enslavement of my people. I strive for the eradication of this ‘Ja-Baas’ mentality, which for centuries has been systematically and sublimely implanted into the minds of the Africans.”

Mbeki may also reduce the formation of Umkhonto we Sizwe as a mere tactic but not a progression in thinking on how to realise the goals of that humanity it advocates as its objective.

Mbeki continues his belief of multiracialism and claims, “all South Africans had an obligation to accept that our country had become a multi-racial entity and therefore that it must respect the principle and practice of unity in diversity, became the view of the indigenous majority which had come to accept the ANC as ‘virtually their only true representative and defender of their interests!”

Mbeki in preamble sense makes a fundamental point when he argues, “Thus such notions as building a “non-racial” South Africa as a central objective of the liberation struggle became a property of the majority of the African oppressed, not merely the ANC. This is why all political formations which sought to challenge the ANC on this matter of a “non-racial” South Africa failed. This was because the matter to ensure that the successful liberation struggle remained loyal to the task to build a “non-racial” society had become an objective shared by the majority of the African oppressed, regardless of political affiliation.

One may easily concur with his claim for its apparent nobility and tranquil stance, yet at a deeper level arises questions on the ensconced subject matter of ‘race’ and how that ‘non- racial’ is given content. Later on, as means of conclusion, we will revisit this topic and ask of Mbeki to not just in a historical path but cognisant of an experiential reality, wherein undeniable and the definite anomalies breathe, what such content of a non-racial identity make look like. Particularly since Mbeki is known for his personal conviction of a doctrine of multi-racialism, the same he extends to the ANC devoid of necessary critique in asking the ANC why it accepts race as means for identity configuration.

Mbeki laments the fact that history will lead that the ANC has always understood its historic mission, as “being as being the heavy task to negate and repudiate the vile racism inherent in imperialism, colonialism and apartheid. Throughout the century of its existence, while also fully respecting its antecedents, the ANC has therefore done everything to emphasise that it has a historic mission both to help eradicate the legacy of colonialism and apartheid and simultaneously to help create a truly non-racial and non-sexist human society”

With this Mbeki again reminds all and sundry that the ANC he joined and later served from inception came into existence not for the masses, but for an elite minority who engaged on land ownership.  This is true, yet it cannot be that this is upheld as if the ANC did not increasingly adopt a pro-poor stance and identity. We all know that those who vote for the ANC from Mandela to today make up the poor and hardly the elite.

Yet, Mbeki appears to contradict himself when he a short while later argues, “it is therefore obvious that the ANC must proceed from this well-established tradition, which identifies it in the eyes of the masses of the black people as their representative and leader, as it takes action to take such action as arises from the adoption by the 54th National Conference of the ANC of the resolution on ‘land expropriation without compensation’. Meaning his deliberate reference and acknowledgement of ‘masses of black people’ identifying with the ANC as their representative and leader, inadvertently underscores Zuma’s unequivocal claims of the ANC as a black party. Mbeki’s sensitivity to ‘a black party’ as articulated by Zuma appears more artificial than real since we know the ANC in governance is kept in power by the poor black masses.

We are compelled to pause and ask of Mbeki to explain his deliberate usage of these constructs, particularly those that define social identities in SA. From previous engaging with Mbeki, my assertion remains that Thabo Mbeki in a sense of convenience of assumption uses “African” and “Black” interchangeably without ever attempting to define any of the constructs in its ontological trajectories, its evolutionary developmental cycles and its current anomalies and ambiguities.  In that sense, we are not sure if his use of ‘black’ is borrowed from the prism of a much later developed (the 1960’s) Black Consciousness response psychology paradigm or a ‘black’ defined by those who had defined natives black that came to be what he considers the authentic ANC?

Likewise, we are not clear and he does not afford us to appreciate his usage of ‘African’ as either borrowed from a geographical milieu or the known Pan Africanist philosophy made famous under the leadership of Robert Sobukwe. We are also not sure why he is reluctant to nail his proverbial colours to the mast to explain the problem of an African identity formulation from a scholarly perspective. For Mbeki, these are interchangeable constants less because he laboured to explain them but more for his ease of use to drive a point home when it suits him.

It would then have to be surmised that for Mbeki the ANC at inception and throughout its cited history understood the differences of what an ‘African’ means and what ‘black’ or any other group in distinction to each other. Mbeki has not taken the time to red flag or question the fact as to why the achieved democracy he espouses as an attainment of the national democratic revolution as misled by apartheid wholly and uncritically appropriated and adopted these race-based configurations for the totality of South African humanities.

Mbeki, pontificates, it therefore stands to reason that as far as the ANC is concerned, the Land Question in our country cannot be resolved in any manner which destroys or negates the role of the ANC in terms of helping to create and build the new and humane Africa of which Pixley Seme and Albert Luthuli spoke! With this, he wants to hold the ANC to the words of Seme and Luthuli as a matter of convenience because he accepts and prescribes to a doctrine of a static ANC that was not shaped by its century-long sojourn.

So desperate does Mbeki become that he has to remind the ANC that ‘South Africa belongs to all who live in it, black and white; and, the land shall be shared among those who work it! ‘, The truth is there has never been a season when the ANC did ever imagine a South Africa without those who have accepted white for their denotation. As the USA social scientist James Baldwin long concluded, “there are no white people, only those who think they are white”.

To therefore, in this season, seek to underscore the right of ‘whites’ is an overstatement to say the least. To read the ANC the riot act on the reality of black and whites living together is a jaundiced rhetorical jab. No ANC leader has called for the eradication of whites, what ANC leaders increasingly have come to realise is that its position of seeking a living together must be centred on the undeniable reality of the very two nations Mbeki himself analysed in the economic sense which is the elephant in the room. That awareness dictates that the ANC leadership admits, calls for change and develops policy positions and  programmes that will ensure redress over the shorter and longer period.

When ANC leaders do this, it is in the aim to work for that which must reflect the true new society where the apartheid world is no more. The ANC and all its members and supporters call for land redress not with vindictive and malicious intent but in stark acceptance that the current situation is not the revolution it set out to achieve. The current politically connected few empowered blacks with their spouses cannot be considered the end of redress when the masses are landless. Yet it also cannot be accepted that the attainment of radical economic transformation will occur without costs to those who currently own that space. We cannot be under illusions of grandeur on what it will take to attain true economic redress, redress wherein lands stand front and centre and not a tactical means but the last frontier that marks liberation.

Mbeki continues to state, “Put simply and directly, the decision taken by the ANC at its December 2017 54th National Conference on ‘the Land Question’ raises the question – whom does the contemporary ANC represent, given its radical departure from historic positions of the ANC on ‘the resolution of the National Question’! It may very well be that that the ANC leadership is perfectly capable of answering this question in a satisfactory manner. “

To, therefore, play adjudicator and ask who does the contemporary ANC represent is as rhetorical as asking who did the ANC that was forced-fed GEAR and ASGISA etc, represent? Who did the ANC that relaxed laws to see major divestment when in democracy concessions were made for apartheid companies like De Beers, Old Mutual etc under his watch to move SA earned wealth to foreign stock exchanges in London etc?  Or will Mbeki tell us Gear, ASGISA were tactics and did not engage the central holy grail of non-racialism as he now makes of the land question?

Perhaps the biggest error Mbeki commits is his choice to think of the ANC as an organisation in exile. He denies the ANC its natural character of being a living organism that must engage its environment. To pretend the ANC remained static in its persuasion on a score of things that details its raison d’etre  is not hear Neville Alexander when he pleads for a new vocabulary for describing things (and I include people): “…societies and the global village have changed so radically that to continue to analyse and describe things as though we were still in 1848 or 1948 or even 1984 is to be woefully blind and self-defeating.”

Mbeki, therefore, is oblivious to the fact that beyond the original composition of who the ANC represented at Waaihoek in Bloemfontein, it has evolved to become the poor that a Zuma presidency became sensitive to and showed a grasp to realise where the ANC’s future lies. It’s therefore, not wrong to talk of an ANC which was originally for the elite with the attainment of a negotiated settlement ultimately in democracy evolved into the ANC for the poor and black masses essentially; we know that from what we spend on social development from the fiscus on a daily basis.

According to Mbeki, Jacob Zuma was advancing a perspective about ‘the resolution of the National Question’ radically different from the long-established a historic position of the ANC, which he led at the time.

I concur with Mbeki that ‘the ANC must fully discharge its responsibilities on the Land Question as our country’s governing party. In this regard, it must explain in public and in detail what it intends to do relating to all major issues relating to the land. My agreement emanates from the fact that the ANC has failed to act in the interest of the masses that keep it in power, in delivering a coherent plan to actualise redress of land ownership. The ANC is engaged in double speak in its attempts to be apologetic because it seeks to be looking for a win-win situation of deal-making. The ANC must ask itself as to how it may have concluded to strive for land ownership and in the same breath advocate for a sensitivity of the apartheid economy. Less in a choice of agricultural land and or urban land to be expropriated, but to know 72% of all land remains the in unequal ownership of apartheid and colonial beneficiaries, and that is the result of a negotiated settlement.

We thus summarise:

  1. We must ask Mbeki where and in what forum were South Africans afforded space to engage this categorical multi-racial identity claim he so glibly claims? We also need to know where is the evidence that a former president can claim South Africa in democracy accepted the doctrine of race for South African identities? If the president can show us we may take him more seriously, because the record shows an ANC-led government  – despite many of us protesting this race means for identity configuration – refused to listen and continues to believe it knows what a multiplicity of races looks like. Mbeki in honesty will have to admit this race doctrine for identities was wholly and uncritically appropriated by democracy.
  1. Mbeki’s handling of the subject of land in this epoch and his lens for interpreting where we find ourselves postulates a claim that blame for an apparent deviation of ANC fundamentals must necessarily be laid at the post-Mbeki leadership. One of his cornerstone beliefs is the ANC until his period of leadership that came to an abrupt halt in September 2008, was on the right path in honouring of the ANC of Seme, just not the one of Lembede.
  1. Throughout this his expression of a necessary and timeous contribution to solicit an ANC statement on land, we find Mbeki uses the interplay of “indigenous”, “Africans” and “blacks” in a symbiosis of convenience less in corroborating his claims of usage or in clarification for his foothold. This is a common thread with Mbeki not just as limited to this reflection, but throughout the better part of the nineties.
  1. Mbeki’s pleading for an ANC to remain true to its founding strategic ethos which he claims had been the case for 105 of its 106 years of existence, leaves a chance to ask what this means in a society where the reality dictates a failed economic transformation for the masses in which land stands central?  Let us not forget Malcolm X reminded us the revolution was always about the land.
  1. A cardinal critique I continue to have for Mbeki in his non-racial doctrine is his natural acceptance of ‘race’ as the correct means for South African identity formulation. Mbeki does not question or challenge the construct of race, he does not pay any due deference to the fact that race is and remains a debunked scientific notion that continues to exists seventy years on purely in social constructionism. Meaning it was birthed by a society in an epoch which remains questionable for another society who may have developed the tools to appreciate humanity outside the frame of its highly carceral nature.  Maybe he must hear Deborah Posel again, when she reminds us all, “The architects of apartheid racial classification policies recognised explicitly that racial categories were constructs, rather than descriptions of essences”.
  1. Mbeki’s paradigm race is a benign innocent construct that is contaminated by racism, meaning he does not appreciate that race is and remains the product of a racist mind.
  1. Mbeki’s defence of the constitutional democracy as uniquely ANC’s original thought and premise is not without challenge. It may be a useful means and tool of noble attempt to define the ANC and South Africa, yet there are those that argue the ANC had no clue what a constitutional democracy was and how it would function. Maybe Mbeki can explain why Van Zyl Slabbert in his book “Duskant die Geskiedenis” argues it was up to Professor Marinus Wiechers to help and explain to the ANC leaders the idea of a constitutional democracy.
  1. It is therefore rather expedient for Mbeki to – in broadside sense – want to red-card his elected successor Zuma as having attempted to supplant the SA constitutional democracy for a parliamentary democracy. We must ask did the ANC in 1912 and throughout ever define this constitutional democracy for SA that it today defends as if it birthed it? There are those who argue the idea of a constitutional democracy despite its egalitarian expressions became a useful and very effective means to contain how and what type of transformation will be attained. It by extension underscores the challenge of a negotiated settlement for the fact that it inadvertently guaranteed the oppressor his right of identity however that is defined while it equally explicitly for 25 years underscores the plight of the oppressed, colonialism and apartheid victims.
  1. May we remind Mbeki it was none other than him as he in soberness of mind, so we believed then, pressed by the undeniable reality of the moment to observe the true state of a South Africa beyond its glades, mountain peaks, pristine coastlines, fauna and flora and a wildlife second to none in juxtaposing that to the ruthless and crude ugliness of an endemic racist economy that underscores white wealth and black poverty.  He was the one that told us we live in a black and white South Africa where white means advancement and wealth and black has a signpost of poverty and squalor.
  1. While Mbeki, speaks of a non- racial society as the fulcrum focus of an ANC original intent, he does not explain why the non-racial, 25 years since a 1994 and its preceded CODESA engagements, wherein this season there is  consensus that the National Party outfoxed the ANC and left the table with much better a deal than the ANC led negotiators, content is not yet filled. Mbeki has never attempted to fill that non-racial with content because the day he may attempt to do so without annihilation of race, which he uncritically has come to accept as means for the social identities of South Africans. As with his use of African in the frame of the National Question, Mbeki is super lite on content for the African because anytime you want to use African for more than geographical spacing you expose yourself to get twisted in your own confusion.
  2. Mbeki must be held accountable less for his astute intellectual mind, but for remaining one who gets away to thrust subjects (African, black etc) in conclusiveness upon SA, without ever explaining or being open to being engaged on the constructs he uses.
  1. Mbeki’s epistemology has either developed or should we accept regressed to conclude whatever we need to do is at the privilege of capital. We must, therefore, have to bow to capital if we hope to have our land back because its role is so dominant that our fate is dependent on such.
  1. Mbeki laments and advocates for a win-win situation for SA, one where the poor and the wealthy feel they both have one. It is this form of misconception of deal-making that has come to define the ANC that proves problematic. Liberating of the masses cannot be reduced to a win-win deal making frame.

Can someone tell Mbeki that the poor will never be satisfied for as long as the wealthy have their wealth unfettered in birthright claim?

Blacks however defined will never be okay to be black if whites own the means of production and they must remain at the mercy of that in the form of a win-win situation claim. To arrive at the current imbalance of land ownership and economic inequality participation there was no deal-making. Land was taken and done so not to appease anyone but those who took it. The ANC is not advocating for an eye- to an eye but it is emphatic that land will be taken, and that cannot translate to a denial of the existence of apartheid beneficiaries, but its natural next stop in this arduous journey of liberation. There needs to be no apology expected or proffered, neither can this be deliberately confused in fear-rhetoric as a deviation from the liberation ethos.

To pretend the poor can be seeking to be directed by a misguided pietism of selflessness where they can be politically free but economically oppressed and bereft of land ownership and define that as a win-win is the thinking of someone who is a benefactor of the imbalance. To achieve this the state has an undeniable role to play.

  1. Mbeki attests a convenient mind on what the ANC has become that is oblivious and negates the role that capital played from the time poor ANC leaders had their personal homes, children’s school fees and annual holidays paid for as bought by capital. The same capitalist society he defends in claims of we must resign ourselves to the fact that the national democratic revolution cannot occur without the role of the entrenched capitalist of a special kind in SA. Mbeki is still busy trying to rewrite history and wants to apportion blame for land, be it in agricultural or urban, on a new ANC, one he easily wants to define that emerged with his departure. Mbeki, therefore, tells us land return to the masses must be a win-win deal with the same colonialists and apartheid capitalists. He advocates there will be no land redress without capital agreeing to it. In a nutshell, it is in the hand of the capitalists and beneficiaries to again determine the economic fate of the landless masses. How can this be correct?

Clyde Ramalaine

Political Commentator and Writer

Nene is gone! Creecy and Mashatile – choices present caretaker Ramaphosa with a conundrum

South Africa had two Nene moments in the last almost 36 months. In November of 2015, former president Jacob Zuma fired Nhlanhla Nene from leading the treasury, he had assumed that role since he as deputy succeeded Pravin Gordhan. When Zuma fired Nene and momentarily appointed Des Van Rooyen, all hell broke loose and Zuma was forced by every power that defines colonialism and apartheid and their benefactors within and outside the ANC to part with his decision. The campaign against Zuma’ s decision led with a charge of South Africa having lost billions because of this decision to have Nene removed. A fully-fledged campaign was launched to tell South Africans that the country in regard to its economy must be restored back to before the Nene moment in 2015. It has therefore been the overarching mission to bring SA back to a prior November 2015 ‘Nene moment’.

We did not have to wait long for that, when the new ANC president and current caretaker President of SA, Cyril Ramaphosa announced his maiden cabinet he restored Nhlanhla Nene to this post when Malusi Gigaba was dropped. It is clear Ramaphosa did not do any due diligence on Nene.

It is October 2018, we are having another Nene moment, brought about due to his own confessions before the State of Capture Commission in which he details his non-disclosure of having had seven meetings with the now leprous Gupta family. Don’t forget, in SA’s new discourse if you remotely had interacted or engaged with the Guptas’ shadow you are leprous and must be quarantined, but you can meet Rupert, Oppenheimer, Koseff, Watson or Joffe every day and you are naturally extended a clean bill of health because SA remains what it is, a nation in the grip of historical political and continuing economic white power. Nene is virtually history, and Ramaphosa is about to make an announcement on his choice to lead Treasury, he has to in any case announce his first cabinet reshuffle, since the ANC and SA lost its Minister of Forestries, the unique Edna Molewa who was also laid to rest this past weekend. Nene, therefore, is history; the interesting question is who will replace Nene? Before we deal with the advanced candidates, that apparently depicts the binaries of black and white in this instance let us engage a history of Treasury appointments from the dawn of democracy.

In order to appreciate this replacement question, it becomes important to contextualise the ministry of Treasury, which details from the beginning of democracy a strange phenomenon. If we ask when did Treasury become such a powerful unique ministry, we may be mistaken to assume such timing. It then becomes important to ask who did Mandela as the first SA president in Democracy appoint? Well, when Mandela, the icon for many, put his team together to lead SA into what we all hoped as the start of comprehensive transformation, it was not an apartheid classified African, Coloured or Indian he appointed.

South Africa’s first Minister of Finance, Derek Keys, a politician by profession who served from 30 August 1931 – 29 April 2018, was in effect and truth apartheid’s last minister of finance. Keys served in both De Klerk and Mandela’s cabinets respectively from the periods of 1992 to September 1994.

Given the fact that Mandela’s cabinet was a result of a negotiated settlement, we can easily accept that the position of treasury became a negotiated deal. We also can now accept that the appointment of Derek Keys came from a strong lobbying of the economic interest role players who had abundant access to influence, if not direct Mandela’s choice.  One sometimes involuntarily wonder what the State of Capture, had it in terms of reference been extended to inculcate this era, would have made of the many meetings Mandela had with among some Clive Menell, Harry Oppenheimer, even a Douw Steyn and who knows else.

The idea of the Treasury is a special ministry that needs to be guarded more than all was borne from this racialised thinking, where whites are trusted to do a good job of finance and blacks not. The ANC back then already it appears, lacked the trust in self to appoint somebody who did not share the denotation of white as predetermined by colonial and apartheid illegitimate regimes.

When Derek Keys fell ill and was relieved in September 1994, Mandela with another opportunity to prove transformative failed to heed that, he instead took refuge in appointing a banker, the Nedbank executive Chris Liebenberg, who was appointed Minister of Finance of South Africa and served from 19 September 1994 to 4 April 1996.   Since Liebenberg was not a member of any political party, accommodating him in Mandela’s cabinet warranted the amendment of the constitution. All this time the ANC saw nothing wrong to argue a rationale for economic transformation with treasury as the driver, it accepted Mandela’s second choice against transformation without any question or critical reflection.  Was this the evidence that even the ANC did not believe in itself or the apartheid oppressed identity to be capable to lead Treasury?

Later on, Mandela appointed Trevor Manuel, effective from 4 April 1996 he served in that office until the start of the 4th term in May 2009. Even when Manuel was appointed by Mandela at the time it was with a proviso that Chris Liebenberg hangs around to hold Manuel’s hand for a six-month period.

This suggests the ANC from Mandela lacked the confidence and presence of mind to be decisive in positioning treasury at the forefront as a toolbox for transformation. It instead appeared willing to accept that it collectively lacks the ability to lead treasury and that apartheid whites were skilled at that.  For some, Manuel’s appointment as a novice on many scores and surprisingly, also in a mellifluous sense, was an appointment of another ‘white ‘identity, because he was mistaken to either be English or Jewish purely on his external appearance. (South Africa is, unfortunately, a country where one still gets tagged by looks to determine one’s identity)

Treasury under Manuel, who remains the longest-serving finance minister in democracy, became a formidable force and the groundswell that gradually assumed the character of a superior-ministry, when it under Mbeki was allowed a sense of free-will to lead in initiating and implementation of policy decisions that resulted in a softer ear for white monopoly capital, overseeing gratuitous outflows of capital. We lived through an epoch of several drops in exchange rates for import duties, concessions on allowing corporates such as Old Mutual and many others to leave SA and list on the London Stock Exchange. It didn’t take long for the historical, political and ongoing economic powers to settle into an acceptance of Manuel, who nowhere threatened the status quo of economic disparity but sought to maintain the status quo under the guise of stringent fiscal discipline ethos as the totality of what came to define Treasury in democracy.

Economic transformation was sacrificed for a need to appease the World Bank and biased rating agencies to prove SA as masters of fiscal discipline, which became the so-called success story of the Manuel and Mbeki years. Aided by a global booming economic period, what Manuel did at Treasury became the standard for SA and it didn’t matter to the ANC that economic transformation was not realised. Instead, BEE policy – pollution, where a handful of connected individuals, their families and circle of friends benefitted, became the defining architecture of a claimed successful economic transformation as managed by Treasury.

The ANC again failed to develop a coherent plan and, in the deficit of clear intent, to use Treasury as a means to a necessary end. Those who will defend Mbeki will say that he did exactly what you’re protesting the ANC failed in, with his intentions for BEE, but the reality details that under Mbeki we had GEAR and ASGISA and they produced nothing for the poor but continued the perpetuating of a protection of the interest of apartheid beneficiaries. Instead of overseeing aggressive economic transformation where the masses benefit, the managing of SA indicators in compliance to international western powers, unapologetically aligned to white interest, became the central focus for this ministry while it now mushroomed into a superpower-ministry claiming a   legitimacy because it maintained stringent fiscal discipline. Mbeki, therefore, kept the Finance Minister of Mandela’s GNU cabinet.

Fast-forward to a post-Manuel period, Pravin Gordhan the pharmacist who also was a Manuel protégé, was appointed by Jacob Zuma with the advent of the 4th term in May 2009 and he remained that until May 2014. You will recall how Manuel and Gordhan’s appointments were interpreted as non-Nationalist stances, where these whom apartheid did not classify as African were favoured at the expense of what apartheid defined as African. Commentary ran wild that the ANC continued its now tradition of mistrust of the African identity to lead this ministry. In a sense, what Mandela started with as a forced or lobbied Keys appointment, his later choice of Liebenberg who was to hand-hold Manuel who despite his, for some, white physical trademarks out of a known history, remains classified by apartheid as Coloured. Manuel was succeeded by Gordhan whom apartheid declared an Indian, it, therefore, meant, if Apartheid’s race classification identities had served this office, it was favouring three dominant classifications (White, Coloured and Indian) with a glaring absenteeism of the apartheid African identity. Having an apartheid classified identity to lead Treasury did not happen until 2014.

It then came as no surprise that the time had come for apartheid’s African identity to fill the position, given the ANC’s national question on identity that delineates an African in particular and blacks in general notion. given the ANC’s national question on identity that delineates an African in particular and blacks in general notion.  Zuma’s choice was a much-reported advent when Nhlanhla Nene was appointed at the inception of the fifth term in May 2014, and many buoyantly declared him SA’s first true African in charge of Treasury. Some of us vehemently protested this claim because we already had a Manuel and Gordhan who were just as African.

Nene is releasing himself this week making it easy for Ramaphosa to decide on his new finance minister, so we assume. The question becomes will it be easy for Ramaphosa and who are the contenders? Will Ramaphosa return to the pressurised ‘logic’ of Mandela or will he continue to let the apartheid African identity stand, which his predecessor in three instances opted for with Nene, Van Rooyen and later Gigaba?

The contenders we are told are Gauteng ANC MEC for Finance, Barbara Creecy and in internally veiled but increasingly more vocal sense, ANC Treasurer Paul Mashatile. The debate on the next appointment comes clouded with a floating gender subject matter that some seek to make the epicentre. I will dare to dismiss this as frivolous because the ANC as an organisation has long fulfilled its own set-out obligation to have gender parity. Bringing gender into the fray may very well be, at this stage, a pure deflection. Creecy has led the Gauteng Treasury and is a candidate because she runs the biggest budget of SA’s provinces. She also is a candidate because she has continued to run Gauteng with the template of fiscal discipline as the overarching theme.

When it comes to a budget that practically depicts transformation for the poor Gauteng stands accused of neglecting its poor. The current challenge in apartheid spatial communities of townships as understood on the diaphragm of racial classification, for example, the Coloured communities are not devoid of its claims of this ill budgeting on the part of Creecy and her Gauteng ANC leadership. To corroborate this assertion against the Gauteng ANC and its MEC of Finance, Barbara Creecy, we can hear the October 7, Media statement of the #TotalshutdownofGauteng update. It reads, “The Gauteng Shut down Coordinating Committee (GSCC) met with more than 12 Communities, today, representing the Voiceless so-called Coloured people of to plan a sustained offensive against the State who consciously decided to exclude us from the country and provinces purse.” [sic]

Nothing can be clearer than this that the GSCC group red-cards the Gauteng province on transformation. While Creecy may have proven strong on fiscal management, she must own up to a budget that does not accommodate transformation if this statement is taken for what it is. On the other hand, we know that Paul Mashatile, the current ANC Treasurer General is pushing from inside in a strange twist of events to unify the position of Treasurer General of ANC and that of SA Finance Minister. The apparent logic for this claim emanates from what he and others advance as most liberation movements who end up leading nations they freed to have their party Treasurer Generals serve as Finance Ministers. On another score, it is also claimed that fusing these two positions may take the ANC out of its own financial predicaments, whatever that may mean and however that may be defined or by whatever means we do not claim to know.

The choices before Ramaphosa with Creecy and Mashatile appears to straight-jacket him into the choice of appeasing the never gratifying interest of white monopoly capital, who will naturally be satisfied by a Creecy presence in that space. Unfortunately, the lines are long drawn and often depicts a simplistic binary of white preference to what is black for this office, at least as seen from corporate SA. Therefore, a Creecy appointment may regain Ramaphosa some ground that he definitely had lost with white voters with his recent noises on land expropriation, who at first glance considered him the second coming of Mandela, even draping him in now vaunted ‘ramaphoria’ kaftans.

The contest between these two has another dynamic to it. Remember Barbara Creecy spent the balance of her political life as a provincial backbencher. It is, therefore, Mashatile that brought her into a sense of MEC limelight. She thus owes allegiance to him for that. Is this Mashatile’s means to get a hold of the SA treasury?

Either way, Mashatile stands to gain because his protege Creecy if successful will have it difficult to forget it was Mashatile to whom she owes gratitude.

This makes Ramaphosa’s choice even more complicated. Ramaphosa must also provide reasons why he is letting Nene go for mere meetings since he cannot fault Nene on work delivered. Should he decide to hold on to Nene he runs the political risk of being touted a weak leader who supports Gupta capture.  He also will have to explain why he wants to fire anyone else in his cabinet who have been associated in meetings with the leprous family of SA business the Guptas.

Yet, Ramaphosa is also pressured to reward Mashatile who vociferously campaigned for him as a CR17 hardliner, critical in pushing fronts to have him earlier installed and deliver the SONA, despite Ramaphosa’s publicly stated transition comments that engaged a process. Mashatile can claim he is owed and if the ANC Chairperson Gwede Mantashe was rewarded with a plush cabinet posting, why can he not be equally rewarded. Yet Ramaphosa knows that daring to appoint Mashatile will run the risk of delegitimizing his claims of hoping to have a ‘clean team’, whatever that may mean, or as it is often claimed, to keep Treasury pure from essentially Gupta influence. You can bet your bottom teetering Rand that as soon as Ramaphosa awards Mashatile, the same media will unleash every claim, real or fake, in an apparent closet that Mashatile has been tagged with over an extensive period of time. White monopoly capital will never trust Mashatile to lead South Africa’s finance ministry; we know that they do control Ramaphosa’s choices no different to how it controlled Mandela’s choices for the office of Treasury.

This Nene moment proves interesting because he is not tagged for having done a bad job, he is tagged with the convenient leprosy of Gupta association. Nene is history because he went to the now leper’s colony and is contaminated, it has nothing to do with his abilities to run treasury or not. In fact, in this silly season, it does not matter, as long as you have not been to the leper’s colony (Gupta’s) you are clean and ready to serve.

One can only wonder why and how SA arrived at this convenience of capture blame in Gupta association when Rupert, Oppenheimer and all others summoned ANC leaders to their houses and instructed them on choices. Remember how Fikile Mbalula was summoned and instructed by Johan Rupert as per Gayton McKenzie’s book, “Kill Zuma by any means”

Ramaphosa is caught between a rock and a hard place if it is about these two choices. If its Creecy, he will continue to ostracize himself from those whom he relies on to make his caretaker role a permanent five-year term. He will be accused as winding the proverbial clock backwards in white trust as exclusive for the treasury ministry. His choice for Mashatile will put him at war with those who do not trust any apartheid African leader in the made-hallowed office of Finance Minister. Mashatile will be attacked from every corner in the media.

Whatever Ramaphosa’s choice, he is facing a form of a Rubicon with this appointment, since reappointing Nene was easy because the anger of those who hated Zuma afforded him to make that choice, less in rationality but in political savviness, as the one to fix his predecessor’s mess-up.

Tonight, he is confronted to make a choice, that may confirm his Mandela aspirations even in fault lines or his choice to continue what his predecessor Zuma started, to make the ministry equal to all where anyone and definitely an apartheid classified African can lead. Ramaphosa must choose carefully because his personal political career is again on trial with his choice for SA’s next Minister of Finance. He is still dealing with the crisis of illegitimacy and remains mistrusted on many fronts.

He en-route to May 2019 elections days is still dealing with the crisis of legitimacy and remains mistrusted on many fronts, choosing his next finance minister may prove more challenging than what meets the eye.

Clyde N.S. Ramalaine

Political Commentator and Writer