By: Clyde Ramalaine
The benefactor of this medical parole is less Zuma but Ramaphosa
It was just a matter of time before SA President Ramaphosa would disown the medical parole of Jacob Zuma and his role in such. Well, it all started two Sundays ago when the City Press led with a headline, “Cyril gave the green light for Zuma Parole”.
In such a report, the City Press cites two different sources that confirm its headline. One of the sources who had access to the discussions said: “The old man’s seriously sick. There were three medical assessments conducted by three different doctors, saying that the correctional service medical facilities could not cater to his ailing health issues. This information will be realized once the matter’s heard in court.” [sic]
Another source who was privy to the information shared at last week’s National Executive Committee said Ramaphosa told the participants he had been consulted on the release of Zuma.
He thus had concurred and approved the Correctional Services Commissioner Arthur Fraser’s decision to order the release.
The City Press went on to cite an unnamed ANC KZN Leader that had the following to say, “What we have here is a man [Fraser] taking the fall for the party. There was an instruction from the top to let Zuma out. When he was arrested, we all knew he was going to be released before his time ended. It was all a plan in motion. Obviously, there was lobbying involved, but this plan was decided long before now.” [sic]
It was reported that Ramaphosa told NEC members that he was consulted by the Commissioner when the latter exercised his rightful and qualified decision to place Zuma on medical parole. The decision on the part of Fraser had, as expected, significant opposition from the usual crowds who make a living of Zuma hate.
Then came the moment of first seedlings of disowning and confusion when a journalist asked Minister in the Presidency Mondli Gungubele to explain the role of Ramaphosa in the Zuma medical parole saga. Speaking to the media on Tuesday morning ahead of the three-day Cabinet lekgotla, a visibly annoyed Gungubele point-blank refused to answer the straightforward question on whether Ramaphosa had a role to play in the Zuma parole. His response: “I am not in a position to answer allegations that President Cyril Ramaphosa knew about the medical parole; what we know is that the relevant department dealt with the matter as best as they can.”
Let us pause for a minute here. Why would the Minister in the Presidency choose to refer the question to the president? Ought he not to have known if the president had such a role or not? Instead, Gungubele referred the question back to Ramaphosa. As Gungubele shares this none answer, a journalist is heard in the background lamenting the fact that Ramaphosa speaks alone and is never entertaining questions. On Wednesday, AfriForum, one of the white interest lobby groups who don’t mind splashing its Afrikaner monthly received millions in donations at anything that can work to see Zuma in jail, announced its decision to take the medical parole of Zuma on legal review. AfriForum approached the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria with an urgent two-part application to force National Commissioner of Correctional Services Arthur Fraser to disclose his reasons for granting former president Jacob Zuma medical parole. The objective for AfriForum is to ensure the decision is rescinded. AfriForum’s action follows on the announcement of the DA’s Steenhuisen that it would seek a legal review of the medical parole.
As usual, Ramaphosa did not attempt to take SA in confidence on this important matter in any proactive sense. He was going to see how the proverbial chips fall on this one. Some will say he always plays the long game, yet he often is not even starting. On Saturday, while visiting Soweto seeking votes for the upcoming elections, he and his party were told in no uncertain sense, they are not welcome since the only time the ANC cares is when it’s election time. During his walkabout in launching the ANC elections campaign, he was approached by a journalist on the same question of Zuma’s medical parole and his role in such. Ramaphosa in a vintage style wholly disowned any role in the Zuma parole debacle. His response was, “He [Fraser] took the decision as he did after receiving the report, and I got to hear [about it] once the decision was taken. He took the decision as he is entitled to … as he is the Commissioner.” [sic]
Anyone who follows Ramaphosa knows by now that this is not strange for this media super-sensitive politician, always wanting people to sing his praises and pursuing those who critique him. A political actor whose morning and night conversations are often diametrically opposed anytime he senses his image in public life is under threat. For some reason, Ramaphosa believes he is trusted and automatically believed in by South Africa. He somehow assumes he is more accepted than any other, and therefore out of that misappropriation, he is super sensitive to be endeared.
So, what really happened between the most recent NEC sitting and last Friday’s disowning? How does one explain this about-turn? Ramaphosa will tell you that he never said he was consulted or part of the decision. He will, in all probability, tell you he is shocked to hear that the decision to grant Zuma medical parole was discussed with him and that he proved acceptable for such. Why would Ramaphosa, in the first instance, inform NEC members that he was consulted?
Well, it is simple, the Zuma incarceration was more than an albatross around the neck of the Ramaphosa leadership. He knows Zuma refused to meet him despite all his efforts, including dispatching from Malema to contacting Zuma’s children. He knows Zuma does not trust him. He also knew that should anything unfortunate happen to Zuma while incarcerated, what occurred in July may revisit SA on a magnified scale. He also knew all of that would be laid squarely on his shoulders. The latter is what Ramaphosa, at all costs, seeks to avoid. He wants to be the hero, not the villain.
Ramaphosa needed a proverbial get out of jail card for himself less for Zuma, especially since he was about to go to the streets to seek voter support. He has been told how angry the people are at his leadership and its misplaced focus on the vindictiveness of Zuma supporters. His administration is so out of touch with the needs of the people, and only a walkabout seeking votes will expose how the party under his leadership is detested. Thus, he claimed he was consulted and approved the medical parole, as shared with the NEC, claiming that Zuma was free because he intervened to endear him to the Zuma supporters, which keeps him directly accountable for Zuma’s jail sentence.
Upon seeing the responses from those who make up his natural constituency meaning whites who are necessarily outside the ANC but in this season dictates, Ramaphosa decided to disown the consultation and engaging. It is a given that when Arthur Fraser decided to take the decision, the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services Ronald Lamola knew. Furthermore, such engaging came to Ramaphosa, and he thus became part of the decision. His disowning any role in the decision and hoping to get a clean bill in hiding behind Fraser is typical of Ramaphosa’s lack of leadership.
Unfortunately, the ANC’s president is characteristically incapable of being principled about anything, regardless of how smooth he may appear in words. South Africa’s president simply lacks principle. When the WHO Secretary Tedros Adhanom accused South Africa of committing murder due to allowing the PPE corruption, Ramaphosa deflected this to the ANC in a letter he penned telling the ANC it is corrupt. Again, Ramaphosa did not own up to what happened under his watch. He is notorious for lack of leadership combined with a penchant never to own up to what happened on his watch. Particularly an era where increasingly claims are levelled of corruption as more rampant as measurable over the last 3-4 years of his leadership.
Shall we ever forget how his incessant need to be seen as ‘Mr. Clean’ found him comfortable to deceive SA for the duration of the entire three years of State of Capture Commission hearings? That deception was to have everyone believe former Eskom CEO Brian Molefe was appointed in a corruption complex by his predecessor Zuma. Ramaphosa did this knowing it was he who tabled Molefe’s name for consideration by Zuma. He is the kind of guy who does not mind being silent when others fall for his actions or inactions. Equally so, he will take the honour for what he often didn’t produce.
Zuma’s medical parole warrants no ducking and diving, at least not from an ANC and SA president who knows he needed Zuma out of jail since the latter’s ongoing imprisonment has a direct bearing on any ANC campaign in this election season. Zuma’s medical parole is justified on the incapability of the correctional services department to offer him as former president the medical attention he requires. Why can Ramaphosa not find the courage and say this boldly? Who is it that he always has to consider, or why should everything always have his personal interest in the image at the epicenter?
Why must he always obfuscate and complicate straightforward questions? We saw this recently when he was asked as to why he, nine years after the Marikana massacre, is yet to visit the scene of a crime his ‘concomitant action’ instruction cannot be divorced from. Listen to how Ramaphosa exonerates himself in this non-saying on why he has not gone to Marikana as yet: “It’s very complex, it’s very emotional and needs to be dealt with insensitivity. These are the issues at play. They are not easy. There are so many; I live in the hope that answers will be found, even beyond just the socio-economic issues.”
Zuma’s medical parole saves the ANC and Ramaphosa from much more than embarrassment, yet this parole is considered a political football by an ANC president. The fact that some, and let us be clear, whites who have built an economy around Zuma hate are unsettled and displeased does not automatically equate to them being correct. They do not need to direct and dictate what the ANC says to its former president. When the African National Congress is briefed on the medical parole by Ramaphosa and welcomes the decision as legally fit and administratively in sync with all the requirements as finalized by Commissioner Arthur Fraser, why would Ramaphosa disown the decision and seek to disassociate himself from such end? Where is the ANC leader informed by principle and a constitutional meridian that defends his fellow cadre and owns up to the decision as to the right thing regardless of what it may cost him in image value? What then to make of Ramaphosa’s most recent disowning of a legally proper decision in which Lamola and he were engaged?
Politically speaking, the Zuma medical parole is a godsend for Ramaphosa and serves his interest, yet he will disown it for his image among whites obsessed with demonizing Zuma. It is fair to say the ANC has no leader in the one who, for any and every reason, places his image above all. Another reason why Ramaphosa should never be afforded a second term. If he blows hot and cold on a Zuma medical parole, he is true to a lifelong practice, that of placing his interest as central.
*Clyde Ramalaine, ANG Political Analyst
