ANC’s continued support of Speaker Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula signals it is not serious about stopping corruption

The position of the Speaker of the National Assembly, Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula, who faces arrest for allegedly soliciting cash bribes while she was minister of defence to secure contracts with the SA National Defence Force, has become untenable. She is, however, unlikely to resign in the near future, not least because she continues to enjoy political support from the ANC.

In response to her imminent arrest, Mapisa-Nqakula purported to take “special leave” as Speaker and launched an urgent court bid to interdict her arrest and to force the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) to provide her with “the entire state brief”, including the entire police docket and “the entire investigation, including the investigation diary or logbook, all witness statements and all real evidence forming part of the investigation”.

Mapisa-Nqakula’s application seems to be premised on the false assumption that she is entitled to special treatment and that it would be outrageous to arrest her because she is a senior ANC leader and (as an afterthought) also the Speaker. 

This is as depressing as it is predictable. While senior ANC leaders, as well as other famous or wealthy individuals (Markus Jooste, Jacob Zuma and Kelly Khumalo come to mind), have in the past enjoyed special treatment from the Hawks and the NPA, this is not normal or acceptable. In law, Mapisa-Nqakula does not have more rights as a criminal suspect than, say, Thabo Bester, Nandipha Magudumana or the accused in the Senzo Meyiwa trial.

While the Speaker is entitled to fair treatment by the NPA, and while it is not inconceivable — given the recent history of bumbling by the NPA in high-profile cases and despite the lack of evidence to that effect so far — that the NPA may have made mistakes in this case, she is not entitled to dictate to the NPA how she should be brought before a court. 

Her rights as a criminally implicated, soon-to-be criminally accused person (including her right to be presumed innocent by the presiding judge who conducts the trial) should be respected. But she enjoys these rights as a criminal suspect and accused, which means they do not apply to her in her capacity as Speaker and cannot be invoked to protect her political position as Speaker. As Speaker, she can be judged politically and there is no bar against removing her as Speaker, as this is entirely separate from the anticipated court processes.

Read more in Daily Maverick: Mapisa-Nqakula files court papers to interdict possible arrest

This is why the remarks made on Saturday by President Cyril Ramaphosa about her possible removal are self-evidently misleading and disingenuous. Asked about the Speaker’s removal, Ramaphosa urged the public “to allow party processes to unfold”, pointing out that Mapisa-Nqakula had not yet been charged.

“There’s a process that’s unfolding,” he said. “We have processes, geared and independent institutions and in the end, we must rely on those institutions to do their work.”

This comment presents what is essentially a political decision (whether it is politically — and as a matter of principle — tenable for Mapisa-Nqakula to remain as Speaker despite being implicated in serious criminal acts) as a purely legal issue or as an issue of ANC factional politics. This is not surprising, given the fact that the ANC’s step-aside rule has formalised the party’s political decision to cede its moral compass to the NPA, and thus not to act against party leaders who bring the ANC into disrepute unless they are formally charged with a criminal offence. 

A matter of political choice

‘Special leave’