Even in matters of the heart, they say one must kiss a few frogs before eventually meeting the love of their lives. In our politics, it seems those putting together the Government of National Unity (GNU) may encounter a few frogs before a deal is signed.
The decision by MK Party to send Nathi Nhleko and Tom Moyane as their chief negotiators with the ANC, which is trying to put together a GNU, is interesting as it is revealing.
Nhleko served former president Jacob Zuma’s administration as police minister, while Moyane was at the helm of the South African Revenue Services (Sars) when state capture set in.
In essence, Zuma, as the de facto leader of MKP, sent two people known to embody state capture on his watch, to discuss with the ANC, which no doubt blames them for much of its electoral woes.
For many ordinary people, this looks like the proverbial turning of the knife. The ANC went around the country telling us how bad these people are during the elections and now it is telling us the outcome of discussions with these “baddies” will potentially be good for South Africa.
For context, Nhleko resigned from the ANC ahead of the May 29 elections but oversaw the police at the height of the investigations into government’s corruption-laden R206m expenditure at Zuma’s Nkandla home.
Nhleko brazenly told the nation that Zuma’s huge swimming pool, which cost R3m, was a fire pool to help in case of an inferno in the presidential residence. It is worth noting that swimming pool is worth more than many people’s houses in the northern suburbs of Johannesburg.
But when Zuma announced in December he would be voting for MK Party, the truth about the fire pool started coming out in bits and pieces.
ANC secretary-general Fikile Mbalula told reporters in Mbombela, where the party celebrated its 112th birthday: “We defended former president Zuma, even going to parliament and saying that a swimming pool is a fire pool ... The Constitutional Court, chaired by [justice] Mogoeng Mogoeng, issued a judgment against Jacob Zuma, but the ANC stood by him. Zuma now says he can’t stand President Cyril Ramaphosa [after the Phala Phala scandal],” Mbalula told the media.
He said Nhleko and the ANC lied for years to defend Zuma from scrutiny. He said Nhleko was “sweating” during a heated debate over Nkandla in parliament because “it was difficult to defend a lie”.
Nhleko hit back at Mbalula’s pop psychology, noting: “It is terrible to suggest [that] because I was sweating, that I was lying. There was no lie that I was telling.” The point is Nhleko lied about the pool years ago and remains unrepentant.
Moyane, on the other hand, is responsible, with the help of American management consultancy firm Bain, for dismantling Sars' ability to generate revenue in ways hitherto unseen in our democracy. The state capture commission said this of him: “Zuma promised Moyane the position of commissioner well in advance of Moyane’s formal appointment, despite a process of selecting an appropriate candidate from an extensive list of suitable people. He was a man on a mission to wreck the institution.
“The resultant implosion was caused by reckless mismanagement of Sars on the part of Moyane. What occurred at Sars was inevitable the moment Moyane set foot there. He dismantled the elements of governance one by one. This was more than mere mismanagement — it was seizing control of Sars as if it were his to have.”
Even if Moyane was a reckless manager, he would still be unsuited to be the guiding light for a GNU. Even if Nhleko lied to parliament about the swimming pool and now promised he would not do it again, he still would be the wrong person to be negotiating South Africa’s future.
Choosing the very people who embody state capture is a deliberate decision by Zuma to send a message to his former comrades in the ANC: now that you are on your knees, having failed to get more than 50% at the polls, you must speak in tongues about the same people you used to say are bad for our country!
How is it that the process of rebuilding the economy is being negotiated with the very people who destroyed it? What message is that sending to hard-working, ethical employees at Sars now, for example? What message does the involvement of Nhleko send to all other civil servants who helped expose corruption, including state capture?
The idea of a GNU may be good, but the process of arriving at it is sending a message that runs counter to accountability and clean governance. We understand the negotiators may need to kiss a few frogs before a deal is made. They must, however, be mindful that the process of building is as important as the outcome. If mismanaged, it may damage the very thing being built. The least said of those who chose Nhleko and Moyane as negotiators, the better.
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.