ANC power struggle shows that South Africa is not exceptional (after all)

Nelson Mandela and his successor Thabo Mbeki presided over the halcyon days of South Africa’s new democracy.

South Africa is in the grip of political uncertainty. That President Jacob Zuma will go before the official end of his tenure after national elections next year is inevitable. But when, how, and at what cost to the ANC and the country?

The current crisis is being framed as one of internal party politics – or the immorality of Zuma and his supporters. In fact, the impact is much bigger and wider, affecting South Africa’s standing in Africa, and in the world.

In 1994 the world, and particularly African countries, looked to South Africa to provide ethical leadership after the end of apartheid. This was boldly depicted in the “African Renaissance” – the cultural, scientific and economic renewal of the continent championed by former President Thabo Mbeki.

For a short time, South Africa occupied the moral high ground and was able to influence the agenda of intergovernmental organisations like the United Nations, the African Union and the South African Development Community.

South Africans were called on to play a key role in a number of areas. Two stand out: conflict management in, for example, Burundi, DRC, Lesotho, Ivory Coast and Zimbabwe. And as the “bridge-builder” between the West and Africa.

It also twice took a seat on the United Nations Security Council and was part of initiatives such as the India Brazil South Africa Dialogue Forum. It also became part of the Brazil Russia India China and South Africa (BRICS) association among other international bodies.

But from around 2010 South Africa’s leadership role began to slip. It has now arrived at a point where it can no longer claim to be leading any renaissance. The new reality is that it’s beset with governance challenges similar to many other African states.

The rest of the continent watches and sees yet another example of a dream deferred. The expectations that the country would lead the continent have gone. It, too, is in the throes of regime survival. The lament is:

South Africa has become just another African country.

The beginning of the end

The meltdown of the ANC should not have come as much of a surprise given events over the past 20 years, and the inevitable decline of liberation parties. Pointers to the inglorious direction the country was headed in were evident in the corruption around the arms deal (1999), the fight over Mbeki’s refusal to roll out antiretroviral treatment (1990s), the decline in the economy on the back of a global crisis (2008-2009) and rising unemployment (from 2008). To this should be added the growing appetite of an emerging black elite, whose acquisition of wealth was closely tied to state resources tenderpreneurs.

Then in 2007, buoyed by populist appeal for a change of the guard, Zuma rose to power as president of the ANC. The following year the ANC’s National Executive Committee forced Mbeki to resign. Mbeki had lost the support of the committee over a range of issues including economic policy, his style of leadership, and a focus on continental and international affairs rather than domestic issues.

Mbeki sacked Zuma in June 2005, after the court findings of a corrupt relationship with Schabir Shaik, his friend and financial advisor at the time. The political contestation between the Mbeki and Zuma factions set in, leading to Mbeki’s political demise.

The deepening of the structural roots of the malaise in South Africa has therefore been long in the making.

Conflation of the state and the party, state capture, and patronage politics became the defining features of Zuma’s presidency. And ultimately they became the factors that led to his dethroning. South Africa began to display the stereotypical symptoms of the typical African state:

• elite decadence in the midst of poverty,
• accumulation of wealth through proximity to state resources and state capture,
• challenges in the delivery of services, and an inability to provide human security.

South Africa’s exceptionalism claim is dead

South Africa’s claim to exceptionalism in Africa has been dispelled. Two decades ago Ugandan academic and author Mahmood Mamdani pointed to the myth of South Africa’s exceptionalism and that it shares the legacies of colonialism and the bifurcated nature of the state that colonialism had bequeathed other African states too. This meant that South Africa was no different in its political and development outcomes.

Leadership is an important mediator for the direction of any country. Visionary and principled leadership led the continent – and South Africa – to liberation. It’s what is sorely needed now across the continent, and in South Africa.

South Africa finds itself in its current situation because the country has succumbed to nationalist, chauvinist, patriarchal and elite interests. But changing the president, though necessary, won’t be sufficient to get South Africans out of this quagmire. South Africans needs new leaders as well as new forms of leadership that understand the driving forces of post-colonial states and their proclivity towards non-democratic forms of governance.

South Africa needs leadership that places it once again in the political and socio-economic trajectory of Africa and fosters a collective responsibility to develop and share its wealth among all who call it home. It must also develop the governance structures that will lead it to that goal. To do this requires moving beyond regime survival towards reinvigorating a visionary pan-African leadership that once again begins to set an agenda of unity, prosperity and dignity.

South Africa is no longer the beacon of hope for the continent it once was. But South Africans needn’t despair. The recognition of its banality finally presents the opportunity for its people to sit as equals at the table with other Africans and engage in much needed dialogue on the kind of leadership and governance that would take them forward on the journey to an African Renaissance.

Cheryl Hendricks, Professor of Political Science, University of Johannesburg

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Zuma's reluctance to leave office is offering sound lessons in democracy

South Africa’s President Jacob Zuma is resisitng attempts by his party, the ANC, to force him out of office.
Reuters/Sumaya Hisham

South Africa’s President Jacob Zuma is digging in his heels and refusing to relinquish the top job despite mounting pressure from his own party, the African National Congress.

His determination to stay put is being widely condemned by a range of South African voices. But there’s a case to be made that his reluctance is doing South Africans a favour as it is forcing them to clarify various constitutional and political issues. Most obviously, albeit inadvertently, he is asserting the supremacy of parliament over the authority of the party.

Because the top leadership structures of the ANC are divided – including the top six where it seems that only four want him to leave office immediately – Zuma is exploiting what wriggle-room he has left. He’s effectively saying that the forces ranged against him aren’t convincing enough, and that he still has considerable support within the party.

In other words, he is daring the ANC leadership to put a motion of no confidence to the National Assembly and to use the party’s majority to vote him out of office.

His gamble is this: he can survive such a motion if it is put by an opposition party because to support an opposition motion would prove hugely embarrassing to the ANC. The speaker of parliament has already put down a motion of no confidence tabled by the opposition party, the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), for discussion after the budget speech on February 22.

For the ANC to put down its own motion, and then try to ensure it received a majority, would all take time, time, time. And that’s what Zuma wants so that he can rally his supporters, convince waverers that he still has some clout, and maximise his bargaining power.

If the party’s new president Cyril Ramaphosa could manage to secure a clear majority of the ANC’s national executive committee (it’s highest decision making body in between elective conferences) asking Zuma to resign, then it is conceivable that Zuma might accede to leave office. But more likely, he would continue to force the ANC to resort to parliament.

And even if he were to step down at the very last moment, his behaviour is reminding South Africans where, ultimately, the power to elect and depose a president lies, and that is, with parliament.

Zuma’s nine lives

Zuma has already survived umpteen votes of no confidence brought about by opposition parties. Not enough ANC MPs have ever voted with the opposition to carry the motion.

In the last event, a small minority of ANC MPs used the cover provided by a secret ballot to vote in favour of the motion (or to abstain). But the large majority voted for Zuma to stay in office. At the time, they could use the excuse that the ANC’s national conference was coming up and that it was the appropriate place for the leadership issue to be decided. But now that has passed, Zuma’s favoured candidate has lost, Ramaphosa has triumphed, and he now wants the President to resign. What excuse would the ANC MPs have for not supporting the opposition motion this time round?

The justification that they cannot be expected to vote for a motion put by the EFF is morally and politically threadbare. What is Ramaphosa going to do? Argue that internal ANC unity matters more than the needs of the country? What would the popular reaction be to the ANC in effect voting for Zuma to stay in office?

Frankly, the ANC’s cover would be blown.

The role of MPs

Beyond the immediate issue of Zuma, South Africa’s political parties need to debate what they expect of MPs. There was much talk prior to the previous vote of no confidence for the need for ANC MPs to display their ‘integrity’, a code word for them to break party lines and vote for the opposition. In other words, it was suggested that MPs should resist acting like party cyphers. Yet, in the ANC’s eyes, its MPs are ‘deployed’ to parliament, and have to obey party dictates. Little or no room is left to individual conscience.

Cyril Ramaphosa, Deputy State President of South Africa, and president of the governing party, the ANC.
GCIS

Historically the tradition in parliamentary systems has been that certain issues, often relating to human rights, are resolved by party whips allowing MPs to vote according to their individual consciences. In South Africa, political parties have largely been spared potential conflicts over divisive issues such as the death penalty because they’ve been resolved by the Constitutional Court.

This has meant that, since 1994, MPs have largely been kept in party line because of the threat of being disciplined by their parties. The ultimate threat is their dismissal from the party which in turn means being kicked out of parliament. This follows largely from South Africa’s adoption of a party list proportional representation system. In contrast, in constituency based electoral systems, for instance in the UK, MPs are accountable downwards to voters in their constituencies as well as upward to their party bosses in parliament.

This means that MPs in South Africa are unlikely to put the interests of the people (the voters) above those of their party. This issue is not satisfactorily resolved, as the ANC likes to say it is, by voters having given the majority party most votes at the previous election.

Alas, political life is more complicated than that.

Voters want accountability as well as representation. While most South Africans understand the need for proportionate representation of political parties in parliament, there is nevertheless a substantial hankering for MP’s to be more accountable to the voters.

There is a widespread argument that a change to a mixed member proportional representation scheme would square this particular circle. Some MPs would be elected from multi-member constituencies (with from three to seven MPs as recommended by the Van Zyl Slabbert Commission on the electoral system) while others would be elected from party lists to bring about overall proportionality. This would mean that South African could be able to identify particular constituency MPs who had particular responsibilities to represent them.

In turn, this would mean that MPs would have to consider more than the interests of party bosses when casting their votes.

It is certainly an attractive idea, and is one which needs a proper airing. Whether practice would match electoral system theory is another matter. For all their numerous faults political parties can’t be dispensed with; nor can they be expected to operate without exerting discipline on their representatives in parliament.

At the same time, citizens want to be represented by individuals who are more than party donkeys.

South Africans need to debate in what sort of circumstances they expect or make allowance for MPs to deviate from the party line. But they need to recognise that there is an inherent ambiguity in the role of MPs: at times, they are faced by conflicting obligations, simultaneously to party versus people. Accountability demands that they justify their decisions.

Ironically, Zuma is banking on that ambiguity, while hoping that ANC MPs duck the need for accountability.

Roger Southall, Professor of Sociology, University of the Witwatersrand

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Why it's taken so long to prosecute state capture cases in South Africa

Head of South Africa’s National Prosecuting Authority, Shaun Abrahams.
Reuters/Siphiwe Sibeko

The Asset Forfeiture Unit of South Africa’s National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) has confirmed that it is probing seven cases related to what has come to be known as “state capture”, involving R50 billion. This development follows months of public frustration due to lack of action by the country’s law enforcement agencies despite mounting evidence pointing to massive corruption. Politics and society editor Thabo Leshilo spoke to legal expert, Professor Penelope Andrews.

What does the NPA’s decision tell us about South Africa’s prosecutorial capabilities and resolve?

The failure of the NPA to act swiftly and vigorously against those involved in state capture shows that there has been a dereliction of duty.

The NPA has the capability and could muster the resolve to pursue prosecutions according to its constitutional mandate: without fear, favour or prejudice. So its decision to act now says little about its capabilities but more about its autonomy and independence.

The latest developments highlight the challenges around the appointment of National Director of Public Prosecutions. From all accounts, the incumbent Shaun Abrahams is deeply compromised. His loyalty to President Jacob Zuma, who appointed him, means that he is caught in a professional malaise and inertia.

The president has the right to appoint the head of the NPA as set out under South Africa’s Constitution. There is unlikely to be a conflict of interest if a strong independent individual is chosen. But when a weak individual – someone who is chosen for reasons other than their legal talent and skill – is put in the post, the chances are that they will fail to act decisively against their line managers. The result will be the situation South Africa finds itself in now.

Why did it take so long for any action to be taken?

There are several possible explanations that the NPA could offer for the delay.

Firstly, they could argue that it takes time for evidence to be gathered to build a solid case.

Secondly, South Africa’s political climate, particularly in the last two years, has not been conducive to pursue those involved in allegations of state capture. This seems to have changed with a new president, Cyril Ramaphosa, at the helm of the governing African National Congress.

The third possibility is that the NPA has finally decided to act because it didn’t have a choice. Of all the institutions involved in discussions about state capture, the NPA’s silence has been the most noticeable. It finally got to the point where it had nowhere to hide and was forced to act.

The last possibility is that the NPA has been spurred on by developments in the British Parliament where Lord Peter Hain called on UK regulatory bodies to investigate some British companies mentioned in the Gupta e-mails. These actions stand in direct contrast to the inaction of the NPA, an embarrassment, thereby forcing it to proceed.

Should South Africans be concerned about the rule of law?

The NPA and the police have not promoted and protected the rule of law as well as they could have. But the country’s judiciary has been a ray of light.

Except for a few lapses, the judiciary has consistently tried to strengthen the foundations and safeguard South Africa’s very fragile democracy since 1994. This has been despite many attacks – direct and indirect.

Several judgments show this. One was the case of Johannesburg businessman Hugh Glenister who took then Police Minister Nathi Nhleko and the Director of Public Prosecutions to court to force them to prosecute police officers involved in a crime. Another was the Nkandla case which involved the use of public money on President Jacob Zuma’s private homestead. The Constitutional Court found that Zuma had failed to uphold the rule of law.

The unique feature of the South African Constitution is that judges are the final arbiters over the exercise of all public power. This is a welcome departure from the apartheid era, where parliament was sovereign and judges had no authority to review or overturn parliamentary actions, no matter the lack of morality or justice. In short, public power under apartheid was not subject to review by the courts.

Through their creative and courageous decision-making the post-1994 judiciary, especially the Constitutional Court, has demonstrated the textbook example of an effective separation of powers doctrine in a democracy.

Why is it hard to prosecute corruption and commercial crimes?

It is probably harder to prosecute corruption because it invariably involves subterfuge and deception to create the web of relationships. These relationships are often challenging to unpack.

And the levels of complexity in certain kinds of commercial cases – sometimes involving layers of complicated financial and other documents – make them harder to prosecute.

Yet the NPA has in the past two decades succeeded in a few prosecutions for corruption, including that of Schabir Shaik, Zuma’s then financial benefactor.

Its challenge is resources. Its a David versus Goliath situation if you compare the expertise in the NPA’s ranks with the resources that white collar criminals have at their disposal. This is true even though the NPA has expertise in its senior ranks.

In addition, in most cases South Africa’s top legal minds provide expertise, at very high rates, to white collar criminals.

There is nothing that prevents the NPA from employing outside expertise to prosecute complex cases, as it did in its case against tax dodger David Cunningham King.

To prevail in the pending state capture prosecutions, the NPA should look beyond its in-house expertise and gather the best talent in the legal profession.

Penelope Andrews, Dean of Law and Professor, University of Cape Town

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

South African news station ANN7 is on the skids: why it won't be missed

Television news station linked to the Guptas faces imminent closure.
Reuters/Siphiwe Sibeko

The closure of any media outlet is normally mourned by all journalists, because of the loss of jobs, diversity and competition. But the announcement that South African pay-TV operator Multichoice will not renew the contract of news channel ANN7 will be no great loss to the news media, or the public debate.

It will, though, be a setback to the corrupt three-way state capture conspiracy which brought together ANN7, Multichoice and elements of the government, as exposed by the now notorious Guptaleaks emails.

The emails were leaked some months ago from inside the Gupta clan. The family has been at the centre of state capture accusations in South Africa because of its extraordinary influence over President Jacob Zuma, his family and members of his Cabinet. The allegations of corruption have extended to Multichoice. It stands accused of making multi-million rand payments to both ANN7 and the South African Broadcasting Corporation to get their support for Multichoice’s attempt to influence government policy on digitalisation.

Yesterday Multichoice, which is facing an inquiry by South Africa’s broadcast regulator Icasa, announced the results of its own internal probe. The company said it had made mistakes, but there was nothing corrupt or illegal about its decisions. Nevertheless, it would not be renewing ANN7s contract when it expired in August. Instead Multichoice would open up bidding for another black-owned news station.

The night before this announcement, ANN7 had run a piece on air about the Vrede dairy farm, in central South Africa, which is part of the police investigation into Gupta-inspired fraud. The TV station promised to give the country the real story that the rest of the corruption obsessed media were not telling.

The report aired by ANN7 was a clear illustration of the kind of dishonest journalism the station has produced since its launch in 2013. It was unmistakenly part of the fight back campaign being launched by Zuma’s supporters, a number of whom are among those accused of fraud in relation to the dairy farm.

An unseemly story

As part of the piece station owner Mzwaneli Manyi, a former government communicator who was gifted the station by the Guptas, went to the farm himself to show that it was not derelict, but a “world class facility”, a fact being downplayed by the rest of the media. It was a repetitive piece in the ANN7 tradition of trying to deflect criticism of friends and sponsors accused of corruption and state capture.

There were also some significant omissions in the report. It made no attempt to tell the audience why the farm’s current state was relevant to fraud that happened at least five years ago under different ownership. Nor did it address the issue of whether it was worth the R220 million of taxpayers’ money that went into it, nor why most of that money appeared to have been peeled off to pay for a lavish Gupta wedding and other non-farming activities.

It did not say whether the farm was profitable. They did speak to some of the 45 employees who said they and their families depended on the farm, though the townspeople they spoke to all said that the politician’s promises that this farm would benefit the community had come to little.

It was the worst kind of sham, poisonous journalism for which ANN7 has become known. It was based on a false premise (that the media were suggesting that the farm was still derelict) and intended to throw up dust around those accused of involvement in what was by all accounts a fraudulent business venture.

One veterinarian took one look at the pictures of cows and tweeted, “Call the SPCA”, saying these bony bovines did not look healthy enough to produce significant amounts of milk.

But Manyi did not get an expert to look at the pictures. Instead the station wheeled out analysts and commentators to repeat the station’s mantra that other media was hiding the real story as part of the grand white monopoly capital conspiracy.

A history of dishonest journalism

Was this kind of dishonest political propaganda the reason Multichoice not renewing ANN7’s contract? It’s impossible to tell how the decision was made because the company gave no details of what their mistakes were, nor any explanation of why it was not corrupt.

One possible conclusion is that Multichoice and its parent company, the global internet and entertainment group Naspers, was doing what it has done best for over 100 years: move with the political wind to stay onside with whoever is – or is going to be – in Pretoria’s Union Buildings. With Zuma about to be replaced as president of the country by new African National Congress president Cyril Ramaphosa, the Gupta connection becomes a liability rather than an asset.

This is why the demise of ANN7 is more worrying for the Gupta network of corruption than for journalists or the viewing public. Surely in the post-truth age we have to act against those who knowingly purvey falsity?

The closure of ANN7 could be viewed as South Africa’s Facebook lesson: diversity in news is of dubious value when it means polluting the air with dishonest journalism. What South Africa audiences want is more, better, independent journalism – and they will have a better chance of getting that if ANN7 is replaced by another station.

There is a precedent in this country for a media outlet that was born in sin and shunned for decades by anyone who cared about news and journalism: The Citizen newspaper. It was started in the 1970s with secret government funds, with the express intention of undermining the Rand Daily Mail, at the time the most liberal and anti-apartheid of our newspapers.

The Citizen went through multiple changes of ownership until this history was bleached out. But only diehard apartheid supporters would have mourned its closure in the 1980s, just as only diehard Gupta-supporters will mourn the disappearance of ANN7.

What this incident highlights more than anything is the danger of the Multichoice monopoly on pay-TV, which gives it extraordinary power to decide what alternatives audiences have to the public broadcaster, the SABC.

Rather than the future of ANN7, South Africans should perhaps worry about Multichoice having so much power, and using it so cynically.

Anton Harber, Caxton Professor of Journalism, University of the Witwatersrand

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Is South Africa seeing a return to the rule of law? More evidence is needed

South Africa’s President Jacob Zuma and Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa. Which one of them does the criminal justice system support?
EPA-EFE/Cornell Tukiri

It appears as if the Gupta family, known for being politically connected to South Africa’s President Jacob Zuma and accused of “state capture”, have not had a good start to the year. The country’s Asset Forfeiture Unit has indicated that they’re pursuing 17 cases to recover R50 billion linked to state capture and corruption. The unit, which falls under the country’s National Prosecuting Authority, is reportedly going after the Gupta family and their associates.

The phenomenon of “state capture” in South Africa epitomises unconstitutional conduct. It has involved private interests using illegal means to gain influence over public representatives or state officials with the aim of getting them to take decisions that benefit both parties but compromise the public interest and the constitutional integrity of state institutions.

Capturing the criminal justice system is critical to those pursuing the state capture agenda: it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy in the sense that it’s aimed at securing protection against any criminal prosecution. In turn this creates a favourable environment for ongoing state capture.

The question then is whether the latest developments of possible charges and asset seizures requested by the NPA against Gupta related companies amount to a paradigm shift?

To answer this question we need to keep in mind four factors: the rule of law, the relationship between politics and the criminal justice system and the professional independence of the country’s prosecuting system. In addition, it’s important to remember that putting a stop to state capture requires a myriad of actors to play their part.

Other countries have faced this predicament. Examples of investigations with explosive political implications include the FBI’s probe into Hillary Clinton’s e-mails days before the 2016 American presidential election and the Robert Mueller special investigation into possible Russian interference in the US election.

The difference in South Africa is that the democratic checks and balances to prevent long-term harm are not yet fully consolidated.

The rule of law

State capture and the rule of law are mutually exclusive. This is because the rule of law depends on effective judicial independence and incorporates the separation of powers principle.

South Africans have welcomed the latest developments because they believe they will strengthen the rule of law. For many this principle is sacrosanct because it’s part of a democracy as well as quality government. In principle it insists on equality before the law for all, and no exceptional treatment.

It also confirms that all disputes in society involving constitutional or legal principles, governance matters and private matters affecting legal rights must – in the final instance – be resolved by judicial means.

In addition, the rule of law confirms that all executive and administrative actions are subject to judicial adjudication or review.

A more complex issue is how the judiciary and criminal justice system can become entangled in political dynamics. How should a government relate or interact with its criminal justice component? What is the acceptable norm? On the one hand it is part of government. On the other it has to be independent.

The criminal justice system is immensely attractive to politicians in power who want to use its investigative and intelligence capacity to deal with political foes. This has certainly been the case in South Africa over the past decade.

The question is whether the latest actions taken by the NPA are a continuation of the abuse of its power, or the beginning of a genuine rule of law regime.

The new president of the African National Congress President Cyril Ramaphosa has said that he wants the NPA to act swiftly against those implicated in state capture. This is significant given that developments since the early 2000s have compromised the independence of South Africa’s investigative and prosecutorial institutions.

But South Africans should be cautious about uncritically accepting the latest moves as a new-found sense of independence. Is it not simply a change in allegiance from Zuma to the new ANC leadership?

Over the past 10 years the country’s criminal justice system has been exploited by the government to deal mainly with internal ANC factional dynamics. The country’s Revenue Service, which also has investigative and semi-judicial powers, has also been drawn into these dynamics. This is graphically captured in the book The President’s Keepers written by investigative journalist Jacques Pauw.

There are a number of examples of the criminal justice system being exploited for political ends. One of the most prominent examples was the 2007 “spy tape” saga. This involved taped conversations between former NPA and Scorpion officials in which the timing of Zuma’s corruption charges were discussed. In 2009 the tapes were appropriated by the National Director of Public Prosecutions as a justification to withdraw the charges because the conversations politically compromised the NPA. This, on its own, was an extraordinary self-indictment.

Another example was the Hawks and NPA investigations against Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan and SARS officials responsible for tax crime investigations. This was meant to neutralise the threat posed by the tax authority to Zuma’s networks.

The reverse side of this trend was numerous court judgements initiated by opposition parties, NGOs and foundations to counter executive actions deemed to be unconstitutional and to challenge parliamentary procedures or prosecutorial decisions. Often the judiciary landed up reprimanding the criminal justice system.

A paradigm shift?

The NPA’s new approach to the Guptas should not be seen in isolation. Other important institutions are playing their part in challenging bad behaviour.

For example, a parliamentary portfolio committee is making impressive inroads into poor governance and corrupt behaviour at the state power utility Eskom.

In the private sector South Africa’s main commercial banks have closed the bank accounts of the company owned by the Guptas, Oakbay Energy and Resources. Internationally companies implicated with the Guptas such as Bell Pottinger, McKinsey, KPMG have been called to account.

The international business response has been followed by court orders for the seizure of company assets. The prosecution of individuals could be next. This will be complex because in these situations it’s difficult to know who to prosecute when the scale of involvement is so widely spread.

Any prosecutions will have to satisfy the public’s quest for justice. They will also have to serve as a deterrent against a repetition of the mismanagement, criminal behaviour and political complicity in hijacking government institutions.

The main objective should be to restore public confidence in key institutions that make up the criminal justice system. These include the Hawks, NPA, state and crime intelligence and the revenue service. It is a huge task, not least because the NPA is caught in the shifting power relations between Zuma and Ramaphosa. This makes its mandate to act without “fear or favour” a Herculean task.

The positive side is that the judiciary is not politically compromised in the same way.

Dirk Kotze, Professor in Political Science, University of South Africa

This article was originally published on The Conversation.