State Capture Report: Ramaphosa’s silence under Zuma questioned

President Cyril Ramaphosa’s failure to raise his disquiet about the impact of state capture under the Jacob Zuma administration, which saw billions of taxpayers’ money being siphoned by the Guptas, was a sign of him being merely concerned about ultimately ascending to the Union Buildings, political analysts said on Wednesday.

During his testimony last year at the Commission of Inquiry into State Capture, Ramaphosa acknowledged there had been rampant state corruption while he was Zuma’s deputy, but said he did not resign, as that would have hampered his efforts to resist the rot.

Ramaphosa, who was Zuma’s deputy for four years, told Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo: “I had five options: resign, speak out; acquiesce and abet; remain and keep silent; or remain and resist.”

Quitting, he said, “would have significantly impaired my ability to contribute to bring about an end to the graft”.

ALSO READ: Why praising the DA can’t save Ramaphosa

Amid the brewing political storm over Zondo’s report being handed over to Ramaphosa, while implicated in state capture, political analysts have slammed him for not having resigned from the corruption-ridden Zuma presidency.

Political analyst and research director at Unisa, professor Lesiba Teffo, described Ramaphosa as having been “opportunistically quiet in the face of state capture, with his objective being that of ultimately becoming president”.

Added Teffo: “In the same way that ANC veterans, elders and analysts expressed their disgust at the scourge of state capture, Ramaphosa should have spoken out.”

Ramaphosa, he said, was “not the right person” to have received the Zondo report because he is implicated.

“His deputy David Mabuza or the Speaker of the National Assembly should have received it – now something his detractors will use against him,” argued Teffo.

Independent political analyst Dr Ralph Mathekga concured: “It will be difficult for him to wiggle himself out of allegations of having been part of the rot while he served as deputy.

“I also think that parliament would have been the right recipient of the Zondo report and not the president.”

ALSO READ: Ramaphosa ‘dead cert’ for second term

Despite much expectation about Ramaphosa acting on the Zondo report, Mathekga cautioned: “We must remember that this is an executive and not a judicial report.

“He may take his time to act on it or not act on recommendations.”

University of Pretoria politics lecturer Roland Henwood said despite Ramaphosa having served in key governance structures of the ANC, there were “many unanswered questions about his role in fighting graft”.

Added Henwood: “What did he know and what did he do to fight what was wrong, when others like Ben Turok, Mcebisi Jonas, Nhlanhla Nene and Pravin Gordhan acted?

“They all paid a price for their decisions. Why not Ramaphosa?

Was it a personal choice or strategy?”

– brians@citizen.co.za