Truth getting lost in translation

Developments surrounding the ongoing disciplinary hearing of Julius Malema, president of the ANC’s youth league (ANCYL), and the imminent release of the Donen Commission’s report on the Oilgate affair, have again fuelled speculation whether President Jacob Zuma is fighting for political survival. They also highlight a serious information void between government and the media, causing a distorted picture not always fully aligned to the truth. This is the first of our two-part analysis.

Much of the speculation is focused on the ANCYL and Malema supposedly wanting to replace their erstwhile champion, Zuma, with current Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe at next year’s ANC elective conference in Mangaung, as well as on the alleged presidential ambitions of Human Settlements Minister Tokyo Sexwale.

And, whether by design or not, Malema continues to find himself cast in the role of would-be kingmaker apart from continuing to be a highly divisive factor in the ruling political alliance.

However, this past week’s announcement by President Zuma, fresh on the heels of an earlier announcement of a commission of enquiry into the arms-deal, that he would release the report of the Donen Commission into the “Oilgate scandal” by 7 December, added a further twist to speculation about alleged factions, power struggles and challenges to block Zuma’s bid for a second-term.

As the plot thickened, nobody really seemed to be wise as to what was really going on. The only certain thing it seemed was that the speculative broth incorporating Zuma, Sexwale, Malema and others is one of Machiavellian proportions that would do justice to a Shakespearian drama.

It has caused some leading ANC figures and commentators to lament publicly that the ANC was on a self-destructing course.

The two announcements appear to have caught most off-guard after the government was accused of resisting both for years. In the case of the arms deal inquiry it is said that an imminent Constitutional Court judgement that may call on the government to establish such a commission, together with new evidence of bribes being paid may have forced the President’s hand.

It is hotly speculated in political circles that the eventual findings of such a commission could be seriously detrimental for a number of politicians and officials, some of them being alleged opponents of Zuma in the run-up to next year’s Mangaung elective conference.

But equally so, the findings could just as easily be harmful for Zuma himself given that the arms deal corruption allegations against him were never conclusively dealt with in court. The real motive, if there is one, for the commission remains unknown. Neither he nor his spokespeople are helping to ease the speculation.

Similar puzzlement characterises Zuma’s announcement regarding the release of the report of the Donen Commission, set up in 2006 by former president Thabo Mbeki to investigate alleged illegal transactions by South African individuals and companies in the United Nations oil-for-food programme for Iraq.

The commission was established to clean up South Africa’s image on the eve of the country taking up a seat at the UN Security Council after the UN itself had launched an investigation into these matters.

By June 2006 the commission’s report was completed, but not released. Now the report is suddenly to be released despite numerous past demands for government to do so having been ignored, triggering speculation that it is being timed to undermine Sexwale and Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe, both of whom were allegedly named in the report and in recent speculation as would-be successors of Zuma in Mangaung.

Sexwale has in the past frequently been named – with little if any substantiation – as a key backer of Malema, also within the context of getting rid of Zuma.

Broader perspective

However, Zuma’s decision to release the report came after the Cape Argus last week applied for its release in terms of applicable legislation.

And, on Sunday Advocate Michael Donen SC, who chaired the commission, set the record straight in a summary of the chain of events behind the release, a copy of which was published online by Times LIVE.

Donen says “this announcement (by Zuma) has elicited a confusing response from the media, with inaccuracies relating to the commission's background and remit gaining currency”.

In a nutshell, according to Donen, eight companies and three individuals, including Sandi Majali, who later died in mysterious circumstances, were to be investigated. A further seven individuals – including Sexwale and Motlanthe – were to be questioned as witnesses only and were not to be investigated by the commission.

However, the successful application for a temporary interdict by one witness, Rodney Hemphill, against the terms of reference of the commission, prevented the questioning of certain witnesses despite their willingness to testify.

“As a result, any final report that came to definitive conclusions would run the risk of gravely and unfairly maligning them,” says Donen. The commission then cautioned the president that adverse findings in its reports should be presented to their subjects for comment before the findings were made public.

This resulted in two reports being delivered to the president on June 6 and September 30, 2006. The first is now to be made public by December 7, while the second was apparently “leaked to the media some time ago, and published in isolation and out of context” according to Donen. Motlanthe and Sexwale were erroneously cited as having been “named” by the commission’s report.

Instead of fingering Sexwale and Motlanthe the report exonerates them. It also therefore nullifies the frenzied media speculation of the last few days that President Zuma is using the report and the timing of its release to undermine Sexwale and Motlanthe because they will be challenging him in his bid for a second term in Mangaung.

These developments serve to again highlight the need for the media to improve its self-regulation and to act with greater caution and responsibility before jumping to unfair and damaging conclusions.

At the same time it also strengthens the case for improved and more transparent communication between the government and the media, instead of leaving important government communications to controversial party functionaries. In this regard the recent appointment as presidential spokesman of Mac Maharaj is a step in the right direction.

But this turn of events does not necessarily suggest that Zuma may not be challenged for the leadership of the ANC in Mangaung. In fact, an unprecedented challenge of the ANC top leadership at a recent national executive committee meeting by Malema and ANCYL secretary-general Sandiso Magaqa and the reaction of Sexwale in response, as well as other developments, suggest that Zuma may indeed still be faced with a serious challenge in Mangaung. But more about this in Part 2 next week.

Stef Terblance