Ramaphosa isn’t the good guy just because you want him to be

As is often the case in South Africa, there seem to be two completely incompatible narratives regarding the recently released report by the public protector, which found President Cyril Ramaphosa guilty of having violated the constitution and misled parliament.

Both of these schools of thought appear to be advanced by people who have watched too many Hollywood movies, and so assume that this is a clear-cut situation involving a good guy and a bad guy.

Those on the pro-Cyril side of things see the gains he’s made in the fight against corruption, and either think this means any wrongdoings on his part must be overlooked or that they are entirely fabricated.

The public protector’s supporters, extremely vocal on social media, allege there’s a plot by white monopoly capital, Pravin Gordhan (who advancers of this agenda believe is the real president of South Africa), and of course Ramaphosa to silence Busisiwe Mkhwebane so the “Thuma Mina” brigade can capture the state.

Who is right? Likely neither, or, more accurately, possibly both – although probably only a tiny bit.

The pro-Mkwhebane narrative sees a strange truce – or more than this, a collaboration – between the so-called “Zuma faction” in the ANC and the EFF, who were once sworn enemies.

The Zuma loyalists – both in the ANC and in more marginal breakaway parties such as the African Transformation Movement (ATM) and Black First Land First (BLF) – believe that Zuma is innocent, that the influence of the Guptas and their alleged capture of the state was at best overstated and at worst completely fabricated, and that Ramaphosa’s presidency represents the fight-back of those who oppose radical economic transformation and support big business  – often taken to mean white – interests.

The EFF’s take is slightly different. According to them, the Guptas and Zuma did indeed capture the state, but that the same thing is now happening under Ramaphosa, with party leader Julius Malema going so far as to say that what is happening now is the “real fight” and that their earlier battle against Zuma was nothing in comparison.

These theories, doused as they are in paranoia, conspiracy and bias, make it tempting to believe those who seem to think that the sun – to use the crudest analogy – shines out of the backsides of Ramaphosa and his allies.

Those on this side of the spectrum seem to see any criticism of Ramaphosa as necessarily tied into the pro-Zuma/EFF/public protector narrative.

What this does, sadly, is obscure the genuine questions that should be asked about the donations hugely controversial company Bosasa – and others – made to the CR17 campaign which led to Ramaphosa becoming president of the ANC.

It’s not that these questions aren’t being asked, it’s that they are being drowned out by those who have already convinced themselves of who is right or wrong. So allow me to amplify some.

The Citizen carried a lead story this morning by Sipho Mabena, who spoke to advocate Paul Hoffman, director and founder of Accountability Now.

According to Hoffman, Mkhwebane’s finding that Ramaphosa was required to declare donations to his ANC presidential campaign, as he was a member of parliament at the time, is correct.

Hoffman also said that some of Ramaphosa’s arguments, advanced at a press briefing where he announced that he would seek a judicial review of the report, were flawed.

READ MORE: Mkhwebane’s findings on Ramaphosa are (mostly) spot on, say experts

These include that Mkhwebane lacked the power to probe funding to his CR17 campaign or make findings, as her powers are limited to issues concerning public administration and the improper exercise of public or statutory powers, and that the campaign and its fund-raising operations did not concern the public.

According to Hoffman, these arguments do not take away from the fact that Ramaphosa’s “funding has to be disclosed”.

He added, however, that Mkhwebane’s finding regarding her suspicions of money laundering was simply incorrect, and that the part of the report relating to disclosure of funds is the only part he agreed with.

On eNCA, political analyst Prince Mashale said that, at Ramaphosa’s press briefing yesterday, the president “failed to answer critical questions about him and his relationship with Bosasa”.

He added that this didn’t necessarily mean Mkhwebane can be trusted.

And on both Twitter and his 702 show, Eusebius McKaiser argued that Ramaphosa’s answers to questions from journalists following the briefing were not convincing.

McKaiser acknowledged both the flaws of Mkhwebane’s report – such as her flip-flopping regarding whether Ramaphosa had “deliberately” or “inadvertently” misled parliament, as well as her credibility issues, but said neither of these factors prevented the president from frankly answering political and ethical questions surrounding disclosure of funding.

He also said that the flaws in Mkhwebane’s report appeared to be used by Ramaphosa to obscure the fact that he may have genuine questions to answer – the “lawfare is convenient” for him, as McKaiser puts it.

“Because the public protector report isn’t watertight, he can focus on her and the urgent review,” McKaiser added, but as citizens “we must frame this as being about the links between money and political power in our society”.

These concerns can’t cease to matter because the guy in charge is the one we like.

Things aren’t looking good for the public protector, following the ConCourt finding that she must personally pay 15% of legal costs incurred by the South African Reserve Bank (SARB) after her report involving them was overturned, and not just from a financial perspective – our apex court found that Mkhwebane was dishonest, acted in bad faith and even “put forward a number of falsehoods” in court, “including misrepresenting under oath”.

This ruling will only make it easier for those who have picked sides to advance their agenda – that either the president or the public protector are being targeted.

It must be comforting to believe that one of these two characters is the good guy and one the bad.

But unlike in an action movie, the truth probably lies somewhere closer to the middle.

The Citizen digital news editor Daniel Friedman. Picture: Tracy Lee Stark.

For more news your way, download The Citizen’s app for iOS and Android.