A FAMOUS GROUSE

OH dear, but despite Jacob Zuma’s emphatic recommendations that his problems be solved the African way, a full bench of the High Court in Pretoria has once more opted for the colder facts of what the President has termed the white man’s methods, and ruled that the decision to drop 783 corruption charges against him was irrational and should be reviewed.

Apparently wholly influenced by foreign cultures and seemingly oblivious to all the warm bodies present, Deputy Judge President Aubrey Ledwaba yesterday laid out the nitty gritty: “Mr Zuma should face the charges as applied in the indictment.”

It was not immediately clear, Reuters reported, whether Zuma would appeal. But even so, this cannot be a good thing for the ruling party, even on a long weekend and with all those cheery workers’ rallies in the offing.

Calls for Zuma’s recall will now surely be ratcheted up to banshee pitch, and here at the Mahogany Ridge we did pause for the briefest of moments to dwell upon the ANC’s predicament. No, truly, we did.

One of the regulars was saying that he’d been told that the party came yea close — with thumb and forefinger held mere millimetres apart — to recalling Zuma in December 2014.  It was all very hush-hush, confidential and what-what, he said, and this came directly from a friend who’d heard it from someone who had once actually spoken to a high-ranking party insider. Or something like that.

What had saved the President then, however, was that, had they recalled him, it would have appeared that the ANC had caved into demands by the opposition that Zuma must go, and that would have left them looking rather weak and silly with runny bits of egg on the faces of all concerned. 

Fast forward then to the present and … what do we now have? 

What effect would a Zuma recall have on next year’s party leadership elections? Who would be caretaker president? Would Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, who has the valued Nkandla Seal of Approval, stand aside for Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa, who has no such seal of approval but at least “understands money” because he has so much of it?

And, of course, lest we forget, there are the local elections in August to consider. A recall would surely be damaging and cost the party dearly at the polls. 

So, we believe, no recall. Not just yet. But what of retaining Zuma? What further harm there? In this regard, it would appear the ANC are experiencing what we at the Ridge have termed the “Danny Dilemma”. 

Named after the memorable monologue delivered by the stoned drug-dealing character of that name in the cult 1987 film Withnail & I, it aptly sums up the party’s predicament. 

After describing a refusal to smoke more dope as “an unfortunate political decision reflecting these times”, Danny went on to declare to his stoned audience: “Politics, man. If you’re hanging onto a rising balloon, you’re presented with a difficult decision — let go before it’s too late or hang on and keep getting higher, posing the question: how long can you keep a grip on the rope?”

Letting go of the rope sooner rather than later, if we may put it that way, could well depend on whether or not the National Prosecuting Authority decides to reinstate the corruption charges.

These, you will recall, relate to the now infamous multi-billion rand arms deal. 

Schabir Shaik, once the President’s financial adviser but now a forlorn undead figure stalking the fairways of KwaZulu-Natal’s better country clubs, was found guilty of fraud and corruption by the Durban High Court in June 2005 which found that he tried to solicit a bribe for Zuma from a French arms company involved in the deal.

Certainly, the DA leader Mmusi Maimane, whose party brought the court application, has wasted no time in pressing for prosecution.

“Those charges must be continued,” Maimane told reporters, “and Jacob Zuma must have what he always wanted, his day in court, and therefore today I think it is not only a victory for the rule of law and the Constitution of the republic. It’s also a victory for us as a political party in the pursuit of accountability and the rule of law in South Africa.”

Fair enough, but which rule of law? Maimane is perhaps being a little flip here, but he is probably correct in suggesting that Zuma always wanted his day in court — on condition that it was an African court, and the more traditional the better.

A court where the bodies are warm, where the cold facts, the influence of lawyers and those cultures of confusion were nowhere to be seen.

This article first appeared in the Weekend Argus.