Let's stand up against state capture

8 September 2016 

1. Introduction 

On 01 September 2016, just as most ordinary people were thinking of hitting the sack, the Minister of Mineral Resources, Mosebenzi Zwane, released an extraordinary statement announcing that the termination of financial services to Oakbay Investments (Pty) Ltd, should be investigated via Judicial Commission of Inquiry. 

This was a reminder that, although the Guptas are now less brazen, they are just as influential at getting what they want, when they want it, from President Jacob Zuma.  

In the past, the Guptas would shout "Jump" and President Jacob Zuma would ask "How High". Now, the Guptas whisper "Jump" and President Jacob Zuma still - you guessed it - asks: "How High". 

 We have been reminded and must not forget that "state capture" remains a clear-and-present danger to democratic South Africa.

2. National Treasury

The Mineral Resources Minister's extraordinary statement was repudiated within twenty-four hours and we were told that it was made in his "personal capacity" and that its "unfortunate contents" were "deeply regretted". 

However, the "unfortunate contents" merit a second look precisely because they have such serious implications - not just for the financial sector and the economy, but also for South Africa. 

The Minister recommended: 

- that the termination of financial services, including banking services and auditing services, to Oakbay Investments (Pty) Ltd, should be investigated via Judicial Commission of Inquiry; and 

- that effectively there be a review of the functions of National Treasury and the South African Reserve Bank. 

All this was done of course without consulting the Finance Minister who is responsible for the financial sector in South Africa. 

 And it exploded right here yesterday with the Finance Minister contradicting the Mineral Resources Minister on the need for a Commission of Inquiry.

So, whoever said that the Mineral Resources Minister's extraordinary statement would cause "inconvenience and confusion" was absolutely right.

Of course, the Minister's intention was clear: 

- to undermine the Finance Minister; 

- to undermine the institutional independence of National Treasury and the South African Reserve Bank; and 

Most important of all to establish an investigation into the termination of financial services to the Guptas. 

We all now know that the Minister is a "hired gun" and he was "contracted" by the Guptas to carry out a "political hit" on the financial sector, National Treasury and the South African Reserve Bank. 

We all witnessed the Minister ducking and diving, and his outrageous refusal to reply to my question probing why he released the extraordinary statement, which leaves us with the uneasy feeling that the recommendations do in fact reflect the views of Cabinet, and perhaps even President Jacob Zuma. 

What was really terrifying about the Minister's response was not just his North Korean political values, but the fact that he seems determined to press ahead with his bizarre recommendations.

Which, if it goes ahead, will ultimately reduce investor confidence and make a sovereign ratings downgrade more likely in South Africa.

Whatever the case, this is a perfect illustration of "state capture", with a Minister acting, not in the public interest, but in the private interests of one family, and that family is: the Guptas.

We must not be fooled because the Guptas have learned a thing or two from President Jacob Zuma by casting themselves as victims and champions of the working class in South Africa. 

But the truth is that the Guptas are not victims: the Guptas, and the businesses controlled by them, are the subject of multiple investigations, including investigations by the Hawks, the Financial Intelligence Centre, the South African Reserve Bank and National Treasury. 

 Which explains why they "contracted" the "Ambassador from Saxonwold" to carry out a "political hit" on the financial sector, National Treasury and the South African Reserve Bank, in the first place.

3. Conclusion

We have to stand up against "state capture" because it undermines the rule of law in South Africa. 

We have to stand up against "state capture" because it undermines public trust in independent institutions in South Africa.

We have to stand up against "state capture" because it undermines the legitimacy of democracy itself in South Africa.

And we must do this because a democratic state that has been "captured" is not a democratic state: it is a "failed state". 

That is why we expect Ministers to serve the public interest, not the private interests, of one family: the Guptas. 

That is why our Constitution states that Ministers: 

- may not expose themselves to any situation involving the risk of a conflict between their official responsibilities and their private interests; and 

- may not use their position to enrich themselves or improperly benefit any other person. 

And make no mistake, we can stand up against "state capture", and we can do this by establishing an ad hoc committee to investigate allegations of “state capture” by certain individuals and their alleged undue influence over the government and to report to the National Assembly by no later than 30 October 2016. 

We should not forget that the last time the Guptas were in Parliament, they were guests of President Jacob Zuma. 

And so we should ensure that the next time the Guptas are guests in Parliament, they are guests of an ad hoc committee established to investigate allegations of state capture against them. 

Issued by David Maynier, DA Shadow Minister of Finance, 8 September 2016