To reply to this question, I’m going to use two examples of the numerous prominent recent news reports of state capture.
In neither example has anyone been found guilty of anything in a court of law, but simple logic applied to the undisputed facts of the cases makes it clear that whoever are in control of our state, are not managing it on our behalf, but on behalf of an entirely different set of stakeholders. Stakeholders with interests that run 180 degrees counter to our own. People above the law of our land. Special people. Rulers.
2.1.1 Brian Molefe
In February this year Mr. Brian Molefe was appointed as ANC member of Parliament.[1] In May, he was reappointed as CEO of the State Owned Enterprise, Eskom.[2]
This despite:
-
The Public Protector’s State of Capture report[3] that presents prima facie evidence that Mr. Molefe was deeply involved in state capture, evidence that led to his resignation as Eskom CEO to “to clear his name” and
-
subsequent credible news reports linking him to state capture.[4]
President Jacob Zuma and Eskom CEO Brian Molefe address the media during the president’s visit to Eskom on 6 May 2016. Credit: GCIS.
All of this as if he didn’t owe us, the public (who are supposed to be his actual employers, remember, for both Parliament and Eskom) any explanation at all for the credible allegations that he facilitated the theft of massive amounts of money from us.
That’s clearly because the SA public are not his real employers. What employer in her right mind would re-employ someone who has resigned to clear his name after allegations of massive corruption – and then cleared nothing at all?
But in the eyes of his real employers he was doing just fine, thank you, ripping us off on their behalf. As far as they were concerned, he had to be retained in positions of influence at all costs. In fact, they threw all caution to the wind to return him to Eskom after the failed bid to appoint him as Minister of Finance, risking the public outcry that was sure to follow.
I’m not speaking about whether Mr. Molefe is guilty or not. All I’m referring to are his appointments to positions of influence despite the huge cloud which undeniably hangs over his head. Even the (ANC-led) Parliamentary Committee on Public Enterprises questioned the decision:
“In response to the presentation by Eskom and the Minister of Public Enterprises, the Committee questioned what pressurised such a strategic institution to hire someone where a question mark has not been cleared based on the Public Protector’s State of Capture Report.”[5]
And at long last, the largely captured ANC National Executive Committee (NEC) could also no longer ignore such a clear manifestation of capture.[6]
Could there be any other explanation for this sequence of events than that the interests that Mr. Molefe was deployed to serve were not ours? That he was in fact deployed to harm our interests in favour of those of a small cabal of captors?
2.1.2 Strategic fuel stock
The new Energy Minister recently admitted that her predecessor sold off our strategic fuel stock without authorisation from the Treasury (illegally, in other words, and predictably at below market value), then lied about it.[7]
What makes this interesting is that Pres. Zuma never contradicted the former minister’s denials that she illegally sold the stock, despite the outcry reported in the press at the time.
Former Energy Minister Tina Joemat-Peterssen takes her oath of office, 26 May 2014. According to her successor, she illegally sold off our strategic fuel stock. Credit: GCIS.
Even in the extremely unlikely event that a weak, pliant former minister like Ms. Joemat-Peterssen would decide on her own, without consulting the president, about something as important as our strategic fuel stock (that’s what’s supposed to keep us going in the event of a disruption of fuel supply), there’s no way that the people responsible for keeping the president informed of developments in the news could not have told him about the outcry reported in the press about the sale at the time. No way.
Can there be any other explanation than that he was complicit in the crime of defrauding us by illegally selling off our strategic fuel stock at below market value? That it was not our interests he was serving?
In Part 2.2 I look at how fair it is to conclude that a crime has been committed before there is a court judgement.
Or go back to Part 2.
Footnotes
Click on the footnote number to go back to where you were.
[1] Brian Molefe now an ANC member of Parliament
[2] Brian Molefe set to return to Eskom
[3] https://mg.co.za/article/2016-11-02-breaking-read-the-full-state-capture-report
[4] How Brian Molefe ‘helped’ Gupta Optimum heist, How Lynne Brown misled Parliament
[5] Committee Concerned about State of Governance at Eskom
[6] Mantashe: NEC wants Brown to rescind Molefe’s Eskom appointment
[7] Energy minister admits SA’s strategic fuel stock was sold
CatsBell's Views on the News 