Ahead of his February recall, former president Jacob Zuma wanted desperately to stay in power for three more months.
He claimed at the time that he wanted to remain president to introduce newly elected ANC president Cyril Ramaphosa to international bodies such as the AU, the UN and the Brazil, Russia, India, China and SA (Brics) bloc of countries.
This was a fanciful tale at the time and was largely and rightfully dismissed. There was, and is, a reason for Zuma’s continued fight for relevance. It is rather simple: the upcoming inquiries and investigations into state capture and corruption would likely lead to him, his family and his top loyalists being held to account.
Managing the consequences of the looting of the state was the main reason for his resistance to leaving office, which in the end came rather suddenly for him. Victimhood and threats to the ANC were his defence in the past, and they are still his fallback position.The state capture inquiry, the parliamentary inquiry into state capture and Eskom, the South African Revenue Service (SARS) inquiry and investigations by the Hawks are not fully underway and far from complete.
We forget it is not yet four months since Zuma’s departure as head of state. Uncovering the extent of the rot will require much more than changing boards and leaders in critical positions such as then director general of intelligence Arthur Fraser or SARS commissioner Tom Moyane.
Zuma continues to pose a threat simply because a desperate man is a dangerous one. There are many inquiries and investigations he should fear, which is why over the weekend the South African Communist Party (SACP) urged Ramaphosa to clean up the security cluster because “it may work against him”. Zuma still has loyalists in intelligence and police structures who he may seek to use.Reports emerged in the Sunday Times in April about a potential plot to split the ANC’s vote in KwaZulu-Natal, and possible moves by Zuma loyalists to form a political party. This came up again last week, with further confirmation that a new party formed by those who feel Zuma was prematurely axed is on the horizon.Such reports have tended to surface around the time of Zuma’s court appearances. The narrative of Zuma splitting the ANC has long been dangled over the party, particularly when he was under political pressure from inside it. Shortly after the economic crisis caused by Zuma’s recall of Nhlanhla Nene as finance minister in 2015, the pressure on the ANC to recall him mounted. But it refused, fearing a split.
In 2016, then ANC secretary general Gwede Mantashe repeated the same mantra: removing Zuma would split the party. But much had changed by 2017, when the ANC’s alliance partners, union federation Cosatu and the SACP, took formal decisions to call for Zuma’s recall.
In addition, the 2016 local government election caused a shift in the ANC, with calls for his removal beginning just three months after the polls in which the party lost three major metros.
In December 2017 ANC branches rejected Zuma’s preferred candidate for president, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, albeit by a small margin.
A unitary slate, headed by Ramaphosa but encompassing both factions, won the day. The danger of splitting the ANC was dealt with at Nasrec.
Should a new political formation cohere around Zuma in KwaZulu-Natal, it is destined to remain there – a regional party of ardent, ambitious but relatively powerless sympathisers. It is a bogey-man tactic that was common during the Zuma era but should not be taken seriously.
The difference between then and now is that Zuma always hid behind the ANC as an organisation. He cannot do that because he is no longer party president, but also because ANC members are increasingly aware that their political survival no longer hinges on loyalty to him.
The leadership elected at the ANC conference in KwaZulu-Natal, which is set to take place at the weekend, will provide a clear indication of the extent of Zuma’s influence in the province. The election of a top structure encompassing both the former “Zuma slate” and those aligned to Ramaphosa will be a blow to Zuma as it would suggest his backers are slowly but surely buying into the new president’s unity project.
Ramaphosa is by no means idly watching Zuma’s brazen attempts to erode his legitimacy as party president but is clearly pushing back – apparent in his decision to adhere to the courts’ stance on whether the state should pay Zuma’s legal costs.
Shortly after Zuma’s April court appearance, Ramaphosa officially withdrew his office’s appeal against the judgment on the former public protector’s state capture report and made it clear Zuma must fight the estimated R10-million personal costs order against him on his own.
In his bid to have the prosecution against him withdrawn, Zuma is pleading poverty and once again trying to whip up support with threats against enemies and warnings of an ANC split. But it is yet another attempt to avert justice. It is an old and tired ploy, and South Africa should view it for what it is: a distraction from the very serious challenges facing the country, in part brought on by Zuma himself.
Natasha Marrian is a political editor...