Corruption chronicles: Genuis, Luck and the Quest for Truth

Corruption has plagued South Africa for years, with billions of rands coming and going while syndicates have become some of the most powerful entities, as the justice system fails to charge criminals and their organizers for their crimes. The reality is simple: we know of corruption, we know who committed the crimes and who the leaders of many criminal syndicates are, so why have they not been prosecuted? Has it been due to luck, sheer genius, or both?

To pinpoint every corrupt case would have me writing for days and you reading for a similar amount of time. So, I want to explore three key ideas: firstly, the Zuma years and the period leading up to his presidency; secondly, the Zondo Commission and its findings; and lastly, the Phala Phala incident involving the current president of South Africa, Cyril Ramaphosa. Hopefully, through this, we will be able to gain insight into why the state has continued to fail at prosecuting corruption, the similarities between many of these cases, and the lack of evidence surrounding them.

Let's start by unpacking Jacob Zuma and his endless battle with accusations of corruption. In 1999, he was involved in an arms deal where he was associated with a French company accused of offering multiple bribes, though not directly him but his counterpart Shabir Shaik. This led to his dismissal from the ANC in 2005 by Thabo Mbeki. However, due to his growing political influence, he was reinstated back into the ANC, defying Mbeki’s ruling. Mbeki later lost the political party presidency to Jacob Zuma in December 2007, despite Zuma's involvement in the arms deals. Furthermore, charges brought up in 2008, including tax evasion, racketeering, corruption, money laundering, and fraud, were brushed off by the ANC, who believed they were politically motivated due to Thabo Mbeki's interference with the case. So, how does a man fighting accusations of corruption, fraud, and sexual assault find himself in the presidency a year later?

Well, it is simple if you believe that everything in life is linear. The NPA (National Prosecution Authority) dismissed the Zuma case due to mishandling, where the former head of the Scorpions, which was disbanded, and the former head of the NPA were found conspiring to reinstate Zuma's charges after they had been wiretapped. Even though it was believed that the corruption charges had merit, they were no longer devoid of conspiracy. The question is why and how did this happen?

The Scorpions, with a prosecution rate between 82% and 94% established in 2002, was one of the most effective policing systems in South Africa. The Scorpions had arrested 617 individuals by 2006 and finalized 180 prosecutions. It was the ANC which called for the integration of the Scorpions unit into SAPS (South African Police Service) due to Zuma and his allies believing it was used as an entity to prosecute political opponents of Thabo Mbeki. With growing support for Zuma, it made sense to disband the one entity tarnishing his political reputation. Was this a political move from the former president or was it by chance? The Hawks special investigation unit that fell under SAPS had its national police commissioner appointed by the president. Interestingly, Bheki Cele was appointed after the arrest of the former police commissioner General Jackie Selebi due to corruption. Ironically, Bheki Cele was suspended due to his involvement in an unlawful R500 million lease agreement for new headquarters in Pretoria, which is ironic considering he is the current police chief.

The most evident thing here is that with the rise in popularity of Jacob Zuma, there was a willingness to place less attention on his ongoing criminal activity, which foreshadowed his presidency. Throughout his time, he faced multiple corruption scandals and charges, the largest being the Nkandla homestead, which used state funds to build his R240 million homestead. Due to his position as president, he was able to dismantle entities that sought justice, such as SARS and the Scorpions. Accompanied by the introduction of the Guptas, who stole R50 billion in cahoots with Zuma, however, even after stepping down from the presidency, he has failed to be put behind bars despite all the evidence against him. And no, the arrest that led to the July Unrest was due to his contempt of court and not because he was found guilty of his crime. So, was it because Zuma, during his presidency, was able to destroy the entities meant to hold him accountable, or because he ensured that people looked the other way while he continued to steal money from the state?

Secondly, the Zondo Commission. Without going too deep into the extensive report and information, there are a few things I think would be useful to point out independently of the actual material. The lack of banks, auditing firms, and legal entities present meant that corruption appeared to be individual acts instead of a systemic issue with various beneficiaries and stakeholders. The absence of banks meant there was a lack of access to bank statements and accounts, indicating where money was sent and by whom. The absence of auditing firms implied their potential involvement in ensuring money was taken off the books and pocketed by politicians and their allies. The lack of legal firms also suggested they were well aware of the cases and the people they were defending, yet willing to overlook the wrongdoing of many officials who had engaged in corruption. These entities have continued to exist free of any involvement in the corrupt system, raising questions about who are the non-corrupt entities and who can address the recourse of justice and accountability in South Africa.

Finally, the Phala Phala incident. In 2020, approximately $580,000 (R10 million) was stolen from the President's farm, with reports of the incident emerging in 2022. Many questions surrounded the President and the alleged stolen money. According to the report, the money was stolen from under the sofa. The first obvious question was why there was money in the sofa, followed up with where the president had acquired such funds and why the money had not been secured and declared in a bank. For the past two years, there have been questions and investigations into the incident. For some, this appeared as a money laundering scheme involving the president. However, according to the president, the money was acquired through the sale of buffalo on his farm, which seemed accurate but was contradicted by an investigation by Arthur Fraser, claiming the President tried to negotiate with the Zambian president to return the suspects in hopes of reciprocating the cash of the robbery back to South Africa and tried to pay the suspect R150,000. Many of these questions have been left unanswered as the case is still ongoing, but it does beg the question if our president is involved in corruption and if he is cut from the same cloth as his predecessor.

However, this was a question on corruption requiring genius or luck. I think to answer it simply, the corruption that we have witnessed over the years could not have been done without someone who was highly intelligent. The breakdown of the system, the allocation of ministers, and the dismal cases could not have been orchestrated by just anyone. I think there is some truth in the idea that corruption has to be facilitated by a few entities, but the act of being corrupt and stealing money cannot be done by anyone. It seems to be painted in genius. Cyril Ramaphosa was the negotiator during Apartheid, and Jacob Zuma was the head of intelligence for Umkhonto weSizwe during Apartheid. These are people who show no lack of intelligence. Whether they should be acknowledged as geniuses is up to you. But one thing is certain, they definitely were not lucky.