ANCYL statement on the release of the State Capture Report
4 November 2016
The ANCYL notes the so-called “State of Capture Report”, loosely referred to as the State Capture Report. After going through this report, we remain convinced that the drama surrounding its release was quite unnecessary. In our view, this is a one-sided report, riddled with gossip, innuendo, hearsay, untested evidence to say the least. It is of grave concern that some of the key individuals implicated in this report were not even given the slightest opportunity to present their side of the story. This behavior and style of execution of the Public Protector’s duties is questionable and goes against the “audi alteram partem rule”, which is guaranteed in our Constitution. We cannot but question why the former Public Protector, Ms Thuli Madonsela, opted to conveniently finalise an incompetent and half-baked report, rushing to release her findings whilst she was fully aware that she had failed to conduct a fair and thorough investigation?
We further take a serious exception to the preferred scope covered by this report. We are of the view that any investigation into the litany of allegations and subsequent complaints of state capture before the Public Protector should have included an investigation into the decades-long state capture by the white monopoly capital. If former Public Protector’s intention was to truly and comprehensively investigate and expose state capture in South Africa, how come is the published report silent on the role of white monopoly capital in capturing South Africa? This is particularly concerning when it is public knowledge that the Afrikaner Broederbond, aided by the Apartheid Regime, built its ill-gotten wealth through state coffers. It is not rocket science that to this day, the same community has continued to enjoy this ill-gotten wealth and still enjoys monopoly over every sector of our economy. It is therefore shocking and suspicious that the Public Protector would solely focus on individuals who don't even own 1% of the economy! In fact, it begs us to ask the question of what is the real intention of this report? Evidently, the real intention of this report was not all to investigate state capture by the biggest and longest-serving capturers of our South African state.
It also remains our strongest conviction that the supposed state capture report has little or nothing to do with state capture in South Africa but is rather a targeted and coordinated attack on the persona of Mr Brian Molefe and Eskom. The fact that this report contains so many allegations and adverse findings which cast negative aspersions against a man whom the former Public Protector did not even bother to request or subpoena for interview, for the purposes of affording him an opportunity to offer his side of the story, is very worrisome. This intentional and convenient behaviour goes against our Constitution and certainly robs Mr Molefe of his constitutional rights. The only inference that we can draw from the former Public Protector’s behaviour is that her objective was never to conduct a fair investigation, but rather to destroy Mr Molefe and other targets. We want to encourage Mr Molefe to stay strong this includes others who implicated.
It is not long ago that Mr Molefe was celebrated as a shining example of Black Excellence in South Africa! Clearly, his outstanding track record in most recently turning around Eskom, rescuing the nation from load-shedding, taking Transnet to greater heights, untainted reputation, business acumen, and most importantly resolve to transform Eskom's skewed procurement patterns, could not have sat well with white monopoly capital. It is public knowledge that white monopoly capital has continued to benefit enormously from the billions worth of tenders from Eskom. As if his achievements were not enough, our call for him to be appointed as Finance Minister was most likely the last straw for his nemesis. This call certainly set in motion the final quest for his head.
We call on all implicated individuals, directly or indirectly, to take this report on judicial review as privileged by the Constitution. We are particularly interested in a range of constitutionality issues that this report will most definitely spark fierce debate right up to the Constitutional Court, especially in as far as the powers of the Public Protector and the Head of State are concerned. To our knowledge, the Head of State is the only one empowered to institute a judicial commission of inquiry in terms of s 84(2)(f) and not the Chief Justice. This is why President Zuma has previously instituted judicial commission of inquiries even where there were prospects of him being subject to investigation by the very same judicial commission of inquiries, a case in point is the Arms Deal Commission.
We further appeal to the newly appointed Public Protector, Ms Busisiwe Mkhwebane, to also take the former Public Protector’s shoddy work on judicial review as the current report may continue to undermine the Public Protector’s Office. We further call on her to take all the necessary steps in restoring the stature of the Public Protector’s Office, even if it means laying complaints or opening cases against the outgone Public Protector to the most appropriate authorities and/or platforms.
Issued by Mlondi Mkhize, National Spokesperson, ANCYL, 4 November 2016
