Time, it seems, is running out for those who hoped the case opened by former superspy Arthur Fraser against President Cyril Ramaphosa will torpedo his clamour for a second term at the Union Buildings.
As days become weeks, weeks become months since the opening of the case, those who believe he must step down know it is now a matter of weeks before the ANC’s much-vaunted conference, and by most accounts, Ramaphosa seems set, for now, to survive the Phala Phala storm. Various investigations, it appears, won’t be completed before next month’s conference.
The smooth running of Ramaphosa’s question and answer session in parliament on Thursday also marked some form of return to normality, the acceptance that Ramaphosa, at least for the foreseeable future, is not going anywhere. Not that he shouldn’t, but that, realistically, he’s staying put.
This is creating frustrations and generating fissures among key players in the saga. Ramaphosa’s former head of security, Wally Rhoode, who seems the de facto fall guy, has promised a press statement because his family is tired of the saga.
Rhoode, of late, is engaged in skirmishes with controversial investigator Paul O’Sullivan, who has claimed Rhoode was behind the leak of the Phala Phala saga, implying Rhoode threw Ramaphosa to the wolves. This, O’Sullivan claims, was because Rhoode was broke and Fraser was his crutch. This, of course, infuriated Rhoode, who wants an opportunity to tell O’Sullivan “where to get off”.
O’Sullivan, meanwhile, also claims no involvement in the Phala Phala saga until his name was publicly mentioned by Fraser — the point of his interview by Sakina Kamwendo on SABC TV. “It is easy,” says O’Sullivan, “especially for a person such as Fraser, to take a thin long line of truth and wrap it in lies in the hope the casual observer will believe the whole thing, when it is a tailor-made pack of lies ...”
Fraser says Ramaphosa is lying when he claims the dollars under his couches were from the “sale of animals or hunting of game as glibly articulated by the president”.
Asked about his alleged involvement in the Phala Phala cover-up by Kamwendo, O’Sullivan blew his top, asking: “Who do you think you’re talking to?” He then dropped the call live on national television.
The ANC surely can — but is not necessarily going to — find someone within Ramaphosa’s camp who is untainted by malfeasance to take this country forward.
All the “crybabies” came out to play. Racism. Bullying. Others said if what happened to Kamwendo had happened to Karyn Maughan, a white journalist who faces private prosecution by former president Jacob Zuma, many journalists would have come out to say “we stand with Karyn!” Prominent journalists were dragged online. Even the EFF released a statement, saying a black woman was attacked and there was silence but when white journalists are touched, the sky must fall.
It’s possible O’Sullivan was motivated by race, but in all honesty, there is nothing in his interaction that screamed racism. Given our history, it’s easy to see why people will cry wolf each time a white person bullies a black person. Racism may be a factor, but it cannot be assumed a priori. Is it the actions of the perpetrator or simply the basis of the races of people involved that made the interaction racist? I am the last to defend any racist, and O’Sullivan’s actions didn’t appear racist. I just saw a guy full of himself, a bully without a sense of occasion and one who, in his mind, is a Ramaphosa-lite.
Did Kamwendo handle the bully brilliantly? Yes. Was she abused? Bullied? Of, course. Is it unusual? No. So should the SA National Editors Forum be releasing a statement each time a bully drops a phone during an interview with a reporter? Of course not. But did Sanef leaders discuss this matter? Yes, as we do many others.
As the media freedom chair, I wanted a statement out, but I lost the argument. My view was that Kamwendo was abused and bullied. Sanef has a position on anti-bullying, especially of female journalists. The fact that we view bullying as an occupational hazard does not mean we should accept it as normal. Or tire from pointing it out. However, we can’t always cry “bully” every time any of us is bullied. And that happens a lot — in almost every newsroom. So that’s how I lost. And I accepted it. Sanef, a microcosm of our society, is an arena of debates, sometimes very uncomfortable ones.
But if you move away from the Rhoode/O’Sullivan/Kamwendo nexus, you can see that those who want Ramaphosa out are left with six weeks to the start of the ANC conference and so whoever (O’Sullivan) supports Ramaphosa, must be whipped. And whoever (Sanef) is not seen supporting the whipping of O’Sullivan, must be dragged on social media. But what all of this means is that side skirmishes of Fraser, Rhoode, O’Sullivan, Kamwendo snf Sanef escalate as the race for the main prize — the ANC presidency — intensifies.
The nation should not be sidetracked by sideshows. The main question is whether Ramaphosa is worthy of the president’s chair at the Union Buildings. My short answer is that he is not — not because Fraser’s claims are wholly believable but because he (Ramaphosa) has become a compromised campaigner against corruption in our country. The ANC surely can — but is not necessarily going to — find someone within Ramaphosa’s camp who is untainted by malfeasance to take this country forward. Ramaphosa now sounds like former president Jacob Zuma when he says his government is committed to the fight against corruption. It’s untenable.
Even if Ramaphosa outsmarts his ANC opponents next month, the ANC’s main headache is whether the ordinary people will vote for him regardless of the warts. Time, that limited commodity, marches on, meanwhile.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.