As the state capture commission of inquiry takes shape, we should be concerned about whether it will serve its purpose or turn into another fiasco.
It will make compelling viewing and feed the nation's constant craving for excitement.
Legal and parliamentary battles have become our national sport - probably because synchronised knitting would be more thrilling to watch than some of our national sports teams.
From the Oscar Pistorius trial to the parliamentary inquiry into Eskom, we have become enthralled by the characters, the intrigue and the theatre of it all.
Helped along by performance artists like Jacob Zuma and Julius Malema, we have become accustomed to the thespian nature of politics, without paying much attention to the real issues and the outcomes of processes.
The inquiry headed by Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo should not turn into a reality TV show that keeps the nation spellbound for a few months with a festival of legal titans and a parade of heroes and villains.The commission has a broad mandate and, according to the time frame set by Zuma, who appointed the inquiry, it has to submit its report and recommendations within 180 days of starting work.
The first of 10 points listed in the terms of reference is "whether, to what extent and by whom attempts were made through any form of inducement, or for any gain of whatsoever nature of influence [from a] member of the national executive, including deputy ministers, office bearers and/or functionaries employed by, or office bearers of, any state institution, or organ of state, or directors of the boards of SOEs".
Considering the way the Gupta contagion spread through the state, this alone could take months.
How do we know how many people they captured or tried to bribe across the system?
The revelations and evidence already in the public domain need to be investigated and verified before witnesses are called.
Even with the tide having turned against Zuma and the Gupta network, we do not know whether Zondo and his team will get the co-operation they need from political players who have knowledge of the capture project, or were complicit.When Zuma, then still president, announced the commission in January, he said: "I trust that we will all respect the process and place no impediments to prevent the commission from doing its work."
But considering Zuma's drop-and-roll strategy in his legal matters, and his aversion to being held accountable, you have to wonder whether he would testify before the commission and, if he did, whether he would tell the truth.
Some of the terms of reference are specific to Zuma, including whether he had any role in the Guptas' offer of cabinet positions to Mcebisi Jonas and Vytjie Mentor, whether he disclosed any appointments of office bearers beforehand to members of the family, and whether he violated the constitution or any ethical code by facilitating the unlawful awarding of contracts to benefit the Gupta family.
How would the commission determine any of this conclusively without being able to interrogate Zuma?
Malusi Gigaba's spectacular blundering this week over the Guptas' citizenship makes the case for why lying is not a viable strategy.
So far, none of the political players implicated have come clean about their relationships with the Guptas, let alone shown remorse.This means that they either believe they can use legal gymnastics to dodge the commission, or get away with lying.
But the primary role of the commission is not to put politicians in the hot seat, it is to uncover the depth of the capture infestation and recommend ways to remedy the situation.
The commission has no prosecutorial powers, so the most obvious remedy should first and foremost have been via the criminal justice system.
However, because Shaun Abrahams is like a hen sitting on eggs at the NPA, a series of state capture cases are in limbo without a decision to prosecute.
The ineptitude and clumsiness in the criminal justice system was also evident in the ruling of the High Court in Bloemfontein on Friday. The court directed that the Asset Forfeiture Unit unfreeze R10-million in Atul Gupta's bank account because the investigators could not provide evidence that he had received the proceeds of crime from the Estina dairy project.
Author Jacques Pauw said at a literary festival this week that judging by the way the Hawks were conducting their investigation into his alleged possession of state security material, they were bound to botch the Gupta investigation...