Seriti-style commission would suit the Zuptas

Don’t assume that a judicial commission of inquiry would nail and jail the Zuptas. One word should remind us that justice will not be done. The word is Seriti.

Puzzled? Add two more words – arms deal. Does that ring a bell?

Not-My-President Jacob Zuma is a master at rendering judicial inquiries toothless.

He perfected that when he appointed Judge Willie Seriti to head a commission of inquiry into the arms deal. In 2011, Terry Crawford-Browne petitioned the Constitutional Court for such an inquiry. Zuma obliged. Five years and R80 million later, Seriti produced what Zuma wanted, a whitewash.

Seriti concluded that claims of improper influence or graft in the selection of bidders were unfounded and there was “not a single iota of evidence” that senior politicians had been bribed. Considering how the terms of reference were tailored and the evidence restricted, that was the only possible outcome.

In this matter, the Constitutional Court did not come out the right side, either. It dismissed Crawford-Browne’s application to set aside the Seriti report. Arms deal crooks walked free.

Whatever legal arguments swayed the ConCourt, the upshot was that neither a judicial commission, nor the highest court in the land could bring anyone of significance to book in what was then SA’s biggest corruption case.

Why should the outcome be any different now? The scale is bigger. It could run to more than R1 trillion if the Zuptas’ Russian nuclear deal comes to pass.

Thousands of incriminating e-mails confirm Wednesday that state institutions have been corrupted by the Zuptas. Evidence pours out daily.

Yet Zuma is able to talk calmly in parliament, conjuring with ideas to water down any inquiry. He does not want to follow former public protector Thuli Madonsela’s prescription that the chief justice should choose a judge to head the investigation.

And if there is going to be a probe, he wants it widened to cover all business influence on government since 1994.

This is a script written by British PR firm Bell Pottinger. In order to distract from Zupta malfeasance, “white monopoly capital” is depicted as the greater evil, with Johann Rupert and Trevor Manuel as the bad guys. In such a probe, Zupta dealings would slip into the background.

Much depends on whether Zuma, in his review of Madonsela’s State of Capture report, is able to secure the right to appoint the inquiry’s presiding judge and decide the terms of reference.

Common sense would say, no, the number one accused should not be allowed to do so. But we know from the Seriti probe that common sense does not always prevail in such legal matters.

The ANC, laden with Travelgate survivors and other crooks, does not genuinely want justice. The party won’t push for a probe free of Zuma’s influence. There is room for cynicism, too, about reports that the Hawks are investigating the Gupta-leaks e-mails.

Given the Hawks’ track record, they are more likely to investigate who leaked the e-mails, rather than bring the named suspects to book.

Do you really think anyone will arrest Duduzane, or his Saxonwold benefactors, or Zuma?

Heh-heh-heh.

DA city councillor for Joburg Martin Williams