Removing President Jacob Zuma was never going to be easy. Power has become like oxygen to him; the look on his face when Cyril Ramaphosa was announced as party president at the ANC conference in Nasrec spoke volumes.
It was an expression of disbelief and anger.
One only has to look at Zuma’s track record over the past decade and a half to understand the phrase in Ramaphosa’s statement on Wednesday: “This is a challenging time for our country.”
Indeed it is. Zuma has not acknowledged his wrongdoing, nor will he, which is why he told the ANC’s national officials last Sunday that he felt he had done nothing to warrant his removal from office prematurely.
His posture and attitude towards the many crises wrought by his presidency indicates that his removal cannot be rushed, sealed and delivered without following the arduous route Ramaphosa has chosen. His reaction to the Nkandla scandal swivelled from “I paid for my own house” to “I did not ask for it” – referring to the estimated R246-million upgrades that were bankrolled by the fiscus.
Justifying his removal of Nhlanhla Nene as finance minister, which caused R90-billion in government pension funds to go down the drain, Zuma said Des van Rooyen was the most qualified finance minister he had ever appointed. Whether true or not, the motive for Van Rooyen’s appointment was not that he was more qualified than Nene, but that he was pliable enough to take the state capture project to the next level and push through the nuclear deal.
Ever the victim, Zuma has never truly accepted responsibility for his conduct, even when it led to the ANC losing three major cities in the 2016 local government election.
While many within and outside the ANC feel that Zuma is being given too much leeway by Ramaphosa, Zuma has shown that before conceding he first inflicts the maximum amount of damage.
This is a key factor Ramaphosa has to consider as he deals with Zuma’s exit, to protect the country. Zuma is, after all, still the commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
The first step in this process was the defeat of Zuma’s candidate at Nasrec. The next was the election of a national working committee stacked in Ramaphosa’s favour, despite the messy, divided mishmash elected to sit on the ANC’s national executive committee (NEC) in December.
At its first ordinary sitting of the year the NEC handed Ramaphosa and his top officials the mandate to deal with Zuma’s exit, another key step because it gave Ramaphosa the authority to handle the matter in his own way and time. He and the rest of the officials met Zuma on Sunday and sought to convince him to step down – and failed spectacularly.
A Zuma ally who met the president ahead of the meeting expressed frustration at his inability to rationalise the situation, describing him as still being in the “pre-Nasrec mode” of thinking.
The next step was Monday’s national working committee meeting, which agreed overwhelmingly that Zuma be recalled – only two people went against the majority. Arrangements were made for a special NEC sitting to hammer in the final nail.
Zuma may have felt party officials would not move so swiftly to secure the final step towards his exit, but they did, which caused him to backtrack on his refusal to resign just two days later during a meeting with Ramaphosa. This is entirely consistent with Zuma’s conduct in the past. From “I won’t pay back the money” to an apology and R7.8-million loan from VBS Mutual Bank to do so. From saying the public protector’s findings were mere recommendations to acknowledging that they were binding.
From appointing Van Rooyen, the “most qualified” finance minister, to reappointing Pravin Gordhan.
From defending a decision by the National Prosecuting Authority to drop corruption, fraud and racketeering charges against him for almost a decade, to admitting to the Supreme Court of Appeal that it was indeed irrational.
Zuma made another 11th-hour about-turn during his legal challenge to Thuli Madonsela’s state capture report, when he abandoned his bid to have the investigation referred back to the public protector.
While there is frustration and befuddlement at the way Zuma’s exit is being handled, it is understandable. In every contentious situation he has faced as president, he has sought to create the maximum degree of anxiety and uncertainty, for it is under these conditions that he thrives.
Ramaphosa’s almost annoyingly methodical approach counters this. It is this approach that will neutralise Zuma’s remaining arsenal – his supporters in the ANC top six leaders and in the rest of the NEC.
Even at the final hour, Zuma’s conduct is predictable. But rest easy. He resists, but in the end he always concedes.
- Natasha Marrian is political editor of
Business Day
OPINION: Arduous route to eject Zuma
It was an expression of disbelief and anger.
One only has to look at Zuma’s track record over the past decade and a half to understand the phrase in Ramaphosa’s statement on Wednesday: “This is a challenging time for our country.”
Indeed it is. Zuma has not acknowledged his wrongdoing, nor will he, which is why he told the ANC’s national officials last Sunday that he felt he had done nothing to warrant his removal from office prematurely.
His posture and attitude towards the many crises wrought by his presidency indicates that his removal cannot be rushed, sealed and delivered without following the arduous route Ramaphosa has chosen. His reaction to the Nkandla scandal swivelled from “I paid for my own house” to “I did not ask for it” – referring to the estimated R246-million upgrades that were bankrolled by the fiscus.
Justifying his removal of Nhlanhla Nene as finance minister, which caused R90-billion in government pension funds to go down the drain, Zuma said Des van Rooyen was the most qualified finance minister he had ever appointed. Whether true or not, the motive for Van Rooyen’s appointment was not that he was more qualified than Nene, but that he was pliable enough to take the state capture project to the next level and push through the nuclear deal.
Ever the victim, Zuma has never truly accepted responsibility for his conduct, even when it led to the ANC losing three major cities in the 2016 local government election.
While many within and outside the ANC feel that Zuma is being given too much leeway by Ramaphosa, Zuma has shown that before conceding he first inflicts the maximum amount of damage.
This is a key factor Ramaphosa has to consider as he deals with Zuma’s exit, to protect the country. Zuma is, after all, still the commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
The first step in this process was the defeat of Zuma’s candidate at Nasrec. The next was the election of a national working committee stacked in Ramaphosa’s favour, despite the messy, divided mishmash elected to sit on the ANC’s national executive committee (NEC) in December.
At its first ordinary sitting of the year the NEC handed Ramaphosa and his top officials the mandate to deal with Zuma’s exit, another key step because it gave Ramaphosa the authority to handle the matter in his own way and time. He and the rest of the officials met Zuma on Sunday and sought to convince him to step down – and failed spectacularly.
A Zuma ally who met the president ahead of the meeting expressed frustration at his inability to rationalise the situation, describing him as still being in the “pre-Nasrec mode” of thinking.
The next step was Monday’s national working committee meeting, which agreed overwhelmingly that Zuma be recalled – only two people went against the majority. Arrangements were made for a special NEC sitting to hammer in the final nail.
Zuma may have felt party officials would not move so swiftly to secure the final step towards his exit, but they did, which caused him to backtrack on his refusal to resign just two days later during a meeting with Ramaphosa. This is entirely consistent with Zuma’s conduct in the past. From “I won’t pay back the money” to an apology and R7.8-million loan from VBS Mutual Bank to do so. From saying the public protector’s findings were mere recommendations to acknowledging that they were binding.
From appointing Van Rooyen, the “most qualified” finance minister, to reappointing Pravin Gordhan.
From defending a decision by the National Prosecuting Authority to drop corruption, fraud and racketeering charges against him for almost a decade, to admitting to the Supreme Court of Appeal that it was indeed irrational.
Zuma made another 11th-hour about-turn during his legal challenge to Thuli Madonsela’s state capture report, when he abandoned his bid to have the investigation referred back to the public protector.
While there is frustration and befuddlement at the way Zuma’s exit is being handled, it is understandable. In every contentious situation he has faced as president, he has sought to create the maximum degree of anxiety and uncertainty, for it is under these conditions that he thrives.
Ramaphosa’s almost annoyingly methodical approach counters this. It is this approach that will neutralise Zuma’s remaining arsenal – his supporters in the ANC top six leaders and in the rest of the NEC.
Even at the final hour, Zuma’s conduct is predictable. But rest easy. He resists, but in the end he always concedes.
Business Day
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending Now
Latest Videos