Jacob Zuma’s long, humiliating journey into ignominious inconsequence

On Saturday, 22 October, just one day before President Cyril Ramaphosa was due to address the nation about his response to the findings of the Zondo Commission, Jacob Zuma gave a public address in Sandton.

The former president’s “national address” was first scheduled for earlier in the week, then for Friday afternoon. It finally took place on Saturday. No explanation for the delays was given and it suggests that he, and the people around him, are not competent enough to keep to their own deadlines.

In his delayed address, Zuma presented his own interpretations of reality that raise a large number of issues that could have an impact on various legal processes.

His claims expose a huge lack of consistency on issues relating to Chief Justice Raymond Zondo, the State Capture Commission, as well as to his own “medical condition”. The nature of his public appearance on its own may raise questions about the competence of the people around him. 

In short, this “national address” may have negative repercussions for him. And, the fact that he is speaking publicly may be an indication of weakness, indicating that he felt he needed to do something to influence certain processes.

If he had maintained his silence, Zuma may have been able to create some kind of mystique, an illusion of power. Each time he speaks in public, or answers questions, that mirage is dramatically weakened.

To many a citizen, his grievance-filled tirade did not imply the dignity that the status of “former president” confers. Instead, it presented just another politician making a statement based on a dubious interpretation of well-known facts. 

Zuma’s statement, when it was made, was startling for many reasons, including his public attack on current ANC leader, Cyril Ramaphosa. Zuma claimed, with reference to the Phala Phala scandal, that “your President has committed treason. No President should conduct private business while in office. Our country’s problems are too big for a President who is busy hustling on the side.”

He also claimed that the media had ignored the Phala Phala scandal and contrasted its treatment with the coverage of the Nkandla scandal when he was president.

It is simply not true that the media has ignored Phala Phala. It has been a lead story in this publication, and most others, many, many times. There has been strong criticism of Ramaphosa’s conduct in this matter, particularly of his refusal to answer public questions about the US dollars stolen from his home.

But Zuma’s comments also appear to completely ignore his own track record in office. He has still not adequately explained why he fired Nhlanhla Nene as finance minister in 2015, or why Nene was never appointed to the Brics Bank, as he had promised.

He has also never answered questions on the record about his relationship with the Guptas, or how it came to be that they were able to steal so much from the government while he was in office.

If it is the case that Ramaphosa has committed “treason” for having a side hustle, how would one define the deliberate sabotage that Zuma committed at the SA Revenue Service, along with consultancy Bain & Company?

Also, Zuma claims that Ramaphosa is wrong to have another source of income. But what about, for example, the money he received from a security company when he was president in 2009? 

Zuma used his speech to attack Zondo from multiple angles, claiming that “Justice Zondo should know the constitutional requirements for the establishment of a commission of inquiry. This too was ignored, and I now know why he ignored a serious charge to the unlawfulness of his appointment as the chair of the commission of inquiry.”

Zuma appears to be saying that Zondo should not have accepted the appointment as chair of the commission.