EDITORIAL | It’s no coincidence state capturers are slinging mud at Cyril

The narrative that seeks to portray President Cyril Ramaphosa as a heartless and corrupt BEE billionaire who’s trying to steer the liberation project in favour of white and foreign business interests has an obvious political objective. It was augmented and given further colour by a new episode this week. It must have left the president wondering what he has to do to score a victory in the vicious game of our politics and the smear of claims of illicit enrichment on the backs of the working poor.

The EFF has been at the vanguard of allegations that Ramaphosa was implicit in the Marikana massacre of August 2012, and that he has “blood on his hands’’ for the deaths of the 34 striking mineworkers. He was a director of Lonmin, the multinational owner of the Marikana mine. He has since apologised for the “language’’ he used in urging that “concomitant action’’ be taken, which his opponents interpreted as a call to use violence. That Ramaphosa has not yet visited Marikana, though he has said he will, has given his opponents further ammunition.

It’s an odd twist of history that we’ve gone from a president who once couldn’t pay for his own car wash to one whose wealth will always cast a shadow in a context where inequality has become the fulcrum on which our politics is leveraged. Witness also the circumstances in which Ramaphosa won the presidency of the ANC in 2017, with fundraising among business figures so successful that some, including public protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane, saw the so-called CR17 fund as a subject for investigation as to who donated and what they expected in return.

Through all of this Ramaphosa has stood his ground, withstanding the attack from Mkhwebane and from assorted voices in his own party and in the EFF. He has always been scrupulous in relinquishing his business interests where necessary and he hardly gives the impression of a president trying to benefit from office.

But it’s questionable how much the clean bill of health he got from Swiss-based commodities trader Glencore this week will have helped burnish his image as a clean-dealing corruption-buster. Nor does his past association with Glencore’s Optimum Coal Holdings, which chose his Shanduka mining company as its BEE partner, make for happy reading in light of what transpired at Optimum and its starring role in the Gupta state capture saga. And in light of what we further learnt about Glencore this week.

It’s questionable how much the clean bill of health Ramaphosa got from Swiss-based commodities trader Glencore this week will have helped burnish his image as a clean-dealing corruption-buster.

Last week, Glencore was fined about $1.5bn (R23.2bn) by the US justice department for running elaborate corruption networks in countries in which it operates, including the DRC and Nigeria. According to a US attorney “bribery was built into the corporate culture”. It paid about $100m (R1.55bn) in bribes for mining rights in several countries. There is another South African twist to this tale in that Glencore has its origins as a sanctions-buster during the apartheid era and its former CEO Ivan Glasenberg is originally from SA.

That SA was not among the countries in which Glencore was found to have indulged in corrupt practices raised suspicions as to why SA alone had been spared the corrupt touch from Glencore. And the absence of proof of any sort did not deter the EFF, which alleged “Glencore paid Ramaphosa through intermediaries to gain political influence and manipulate contracts with key state-owned entities, particularly Eskom’’.

All this might have been quickly forgotten in the news cycle had the giant itself not awakened, and issued a ringing statement of innocence in respect of Ramaphosa and its dealings with him. According to the company, “Mr Ramaphosa had no direct involvement in the day-to-day operations of Optimum Coal Holdings (OCH) or Optimum Coal Mine (OCM). Mr Ramaphosa divested his entire interest in OCH on May 22 2014, prior to him taking office as the deputy president and prior to his involvement with the Eskom War Room. 

“Mr Ramaphosa therefore had no interest in OCH following the conclusion of the cooperation agreement and during the period when OCM/OCH were negotiating with Eskom regarding potential amendments to the coal supply agreement (CSA) with Eskom and an extension to the CSA. 

“The suggestion that Glencore involved Mr Ramaphosa in the acquisition of OCH with a view to, or with the expectation of, leveraging Mr Ramaphosa’s influence to achieve amendments to the CSA, is false and baseless.” 

The revival of the corrupt mining magnate Ramaphosa narrative has also re-energised the likes of former Eskom bosses Brian Molefe and Matshela Koko, and it feeds into their claim that the Zondo commission that threw such light on their role in state capture was politically motivated.

If there is fresh testimony that could corroborate claims of Ramaphosa’s alleged corruption, by all means let it come out. Until then though one can expect those implicated in the Zondo reports to use any method at their disposal to get off the hook. We mustn’t allow these sideshows to distract us from the bigger picture of holding the real culprits of state capture to account.