<p>It all started with a wedding. A 200 plus entourage of friends and family landed their private aircraft at the Waterkloof Air Force Base in April 2013.</p>

<p>What South African&rsquo;s didn&rsquo;t know was that the country had already entered a new era of corruption that was to have a myriad negative consequences. Now, after years of legal obfuscation, political manipulation of &lsquo;captured&rsquo; state institutions and prosecutorial agencies, Cyril Ramaphosa&rsquo;s victory to succeed Jacob Zuma as president of the ruling African National Congress has opened up the possibility that an age of impunity will be replaced with a new era of public accountability.</p>

<p>Since the Gupta&rsquo;s extravagant family wedding at Sun City a slew of revelations have come out. These range from the &ldquo;State of Capture report&rdquo; of the former Public Protector Thuli Madonsela, to the damning Gupta-leaks uncovered by investigative journalists AmaBhungane. All helped South Africans come to understand the shocking extent of the systemic corruption inextricably linked to the Gupta name.</p>

<p>Despite all these revelations, the country&rsquo;s prosecutorial bodies have remained silent. So when the Asset Forfeiture Unit of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) confirmed its intention to serve summons on members of the Gupta family and their cronies on January 15 this year ordering them to preserve assets to the tune of R1.6 billion, the first question that sprung to mind was &ldquo;why now&rdquo;?</p>

<p>The answer lies with Ramaphosa&rsquo;s election on a &ldquo;change&rdquo; and &ldquo;reform&rdquo; ticket. His victory in December has shifted the balance of power against the Zuma faction.</p>

<p>A second factor is that the ANC is concerned about its electoral future, with the 2019 national election on the horizon. Zuma has cost the ANC almost 16% of its electoral majority &ndash; some 3 million votes. With opposition parties scrambling to form coalitions, and voting trends suggesting a further decline in the ANC&rsquo;s share of the vote, there is now a very real prospect of the ANC being voted out of power in 2019. An ANC majority is no longer a foregone conclusion &ndash; unthinkable until recently.</p>

<p>It seems denial in the ANC has been replaced by a sense of fear. The party is trying to show the voting public that it can clear up the mess that it has made.</p>

<p><strong>Chickens come home to roost</strong></p>

<p>The NPA&rsquo;s announcement suggests that the chickens seem finally to be on their way home to roost on the <a href="https://www.iol.co.za/business-report/swift-sale-of-gupta-family-empire-in-south-africa-raises-eyebrows-10955847">Gupta empire</a>. The NPA&rsquo;s Asset Forfeiture Unit has applied to the High Court for an order that the Gupta&rsquo;s must &ldquo;preserve&rdquo; R1.6 billion worth of assets. This power is granted under Section 38 of the <a href="https://www.gov.za/sites/www.gov.za/files/a121-98.pdf">Prevention of Organised Crime Act</a>. The provision empowers the NPA to make an ex parte application to the High Court to</p>

<blockquote>
<p>prohibit any person&hellip; from dealing in any manner with any property.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The court must grant the order if there are reasonable grounds to believe that property is the &ldquo;instrumentality of an offence&rdquo; or &ldquo;is the proceeds of unlawful activities&rdquo;. This must be read in light of the rest of the Act which allows the state to confiscate property that is the proceeds of unlawful activities.</p>

<p>The rationale of the preservation order is, therefore, to prevent such a person or suspect from disposing of assets that are proceeds from unlawful activities which would render a confiscation order fruitless.</p>

<p>An analysis of the act makes it clear that, if a preservation order is requested, the intention of the NPA must be to arrest and charge the Guptas and their associates. A preservation order could only be made if a confiscation order is ultimately envisaged. In turn, a confiscation order can only be made after a criminal conviction.</p>

<p>The logical conclusion is that the NPA, assuming that they are acting in good faith, are intent on arresting and prosecuting the Guptas.</p>

<p><strong>Dilemma facing Ramaphosa and the ANC</strong></p>

<p>The problem for the ANC is this: if its intention is to make the Guptas the sole-scapegoats in the state-capture saga, they will be in a good deal of trouble. Of the published Gupta scandals, the evidence strongly suggests that they were not acting alone. The Guptas themselves may represent only the tip of the iceberg.</p>

<p>Top government officials are reported to have been involved in almost all instances.</p>

<p>For example, Mining Minister Mosebenzi Zwane, is heavily implicated in the Sun City wedding affair, while whistle-blowers Mcebisi Jonas and Vytjie Mentor implicate Zuma as a participant in the Guptas offering them (for undue reward) the positions of ministerial positions.</p>

<p>Zuma&rsquo;s son, Duduzane, is also heavily implicated in corrupt activities related to the state power utility Eskom, as well as the finance minister debacle.</p>

<p>The NPA will struggle to prove its case against the Guptas, at least the full extent of it, without implicating those that drove or condoned their misdemeanours. It seems clear therefore that the ANC cannot restore its reputation while letting its leaders who looted the country&rsquo;s resources drift off into the wilderness.</p>

<p>This presents Ramaphosa with an acute political dilemma given that he&rsquo;s pledged to rebuild unity in the ANC.</p>

<p>Hence, we are likely to see a very high level and multifaceted blame game. But any attempt to restore its credibility will probably prove counter productive unless the party accepts that some of its biggest fish must be prosecuted too.</p>

<p>And it goes without saying that private sector players such as Trillian and KPMG who were willing enablers of the abuse of state procurement processes must also be held to account. If necessary they must pay the ultimate price of corporate collapse as Bell Pottinger did.</p>

<p><strong>Just the beginning</strong></p>

<p>The NPA&rsquo;s announcement represents no more than a good start after years of prosecutorial negligence and incompetence &ndash; or dishonesty &ndash; and costly inaction.</p>

<p><img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/90395/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" width="1" />In terms of accountability it&rsquo;s indeed time to catch up and restore the legitimacy of important institutions. But the stakes are very high &ndash; for the implicated politicians and their business cronies, for Ramaphosa and the ANC&rsquo;s electoral future, and for the credibility of South Africa as a trustworthy destination for much needed investment.</p>

<p>This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" rel="nofollow" target="blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-the-net-about-to-close-on-zuma-and-his-gupta-patronage-network-90395" rel="nofollow" target="blank">original article</a>.</p>

<p><em>(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)</em>&nbsp; &nbsp;</p>


Of the published Gupta scandals, the evidence strongly suggests that they were not acting alone. The Guptas themselves may represent only the tip of the iceberg.

It all started with a wedding. A 200 plus entourage of friends and family landed their private aircraft at the Waterkloof Air Force Base in April 2013. What South African’s didn’t know was that the country had already entered a new era of corruption that was to have a myriad negative consequences. Now, after years of legal obfuscation, political manipulation of ‘captured’ state institutions and prosecutorial agencies, Cyril Ramaphosa’s victory to succeed Jacob Zuma as president of the ruling African National Congress has opened up the possibility that an age of impunity will be replaced with a new era of public accountability. Since the Gupta’s extravagant family wedding at Sun City a slew of revelations have come out. These range from the “State of Capture report” of the former Public Protector Thuli Madonsela, to the damning Gupta-leaks uncovered by investigative journalists AmaBhungane. All helped South Africans come to understand the shocking extent of the systemic corruption inextricably linked to the Gupta name. Despite all these revelations, the country’s prosecutorial bodies have remained silent. So when the Asset Forfeiture Unit of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) confirmed its intention to serve summons on members of the Gupta family and their cronies on January 15 this year ordering them to preserve assets to the tune of R1.6 billion, the first question that sprung to mind was “why now”? The answer lies with Ramaphosa’s election on a “change” and “reform” ticket. His victory in December has shifted the balance of power against the Zuma faction. A second factor is that the ANC is concerned about its electoral future, with the 2019 national election on the horizon. Zuma has cost the ANC almost 16% of its electoral majority – some 3 million votes. With opposition parties scrambling to form coalitions, and voting trends suggesting a further decline in the ANC’s share of the vote, there is now a very real prospect of the ANC being voted out of power in 2019. An ANC majority is no longer a foregone conclusion – unthinkable until recently. It seems denial in the ANC has been replaced by a sense of fear. The party is trying to show the voting public that it can clear up the mess that it has made. Chickens come home to roost The NPA’s announcement suggests that the chickens seem finally to be on their way home to roost on the Gupta empire. The NPA’s Asset Forfeiture Unit has applied to the High Court for an order that the Gupta’s must “preserve” R1.6 billion worth of assets. This power is granted under Section 38 of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act. The provision empowers the NPA to make an ex parte application to the High Court to prohibit any person… from dealing in any manner with any property. The court must grant the order if there are reasonable grounds to believe that property is the “instrumentality of an offence” or “is the proceeds of unlawful activities”. This must be read in light of the rest of the Act which allows the state to confiscate property that is the proceeds of unlawful activities. The rationale of the preservation order is, therefore, to prevent such a person or suspect from disposing of assets that are proceeds from unlawful activities which would render a confiscation order fruitless. An analysis of the act makes it clear that, if a preservation order is requested, the intention of the NPA must be to arrest and charge the Guptas and their associates. A preservation order could only be made if a confiscation order is ultimately envisaged. In turn, a confiscation order can only be made after a criminal conviction. The logical conclusion is that the NPA, assuming that they are acting in good faith, are intent on arresting and prosecuting the Guptas. Dilemma facing Ramaphosa and the ANC The problem for the ANC is this: if its intention is to make the Guptas the sole-scapegoats in the state-capture saga, they will be in a good deal of trouble. Of the published Gupta scandals, the evidence strongly suggests that they were not acting alone. The Guptas themselves may represent only the tip of the iceberg. Top government officials are reported to have been involved in almost all instances. For example, Mining Minister Mosebenzi Zwane, is heavily implicated in the Sun City wedding affair, while whistle-blowers Mcebisi Jonas and Vytjie Mentor implicate Zuma as a participant in the Guptas offering them (for undue reward) the positions of ministerial positions. Zuma’s son, Duduzane, is also heavily implicated in corrupt activities related to the state power utility Eskom, as well as the finance minister debacle. The NPA will struggle to prove its case against the Guptas, at least the full extent of it, without implicating those that drove or condoned their misdemeanours. It seems clear therefore that the ANC cannot restore its reputation while letting its leaders who looted the country’s resources drift off into the wilderness. This presents Ramaphosa with an acute political dilemma given that he’s pledged to rebuild unity in the ANC. Hence, we are likely to see a very high level and multifaceted blame game. But any attempt to restore its credibility will probably prove counter productive unless the party accepts that some of its biggest fish must be prosecuted too. And it goes without saying that private sector players such as Trillian and KPMG who were willing enablers of the abuse of state procurement processes must also be held to account. If necessary they must pay the ultimate price of corporate collapse as Bell Pottinger did. Just the beginning The NPA’s announcement represents no more than a good start after years of prosecutorial negligence and incompetence – or dishonesty – and costly inaction. In terms of accountability it’s indeed time to catch up and restore the legitimacy of important institutions. But the stakes are very high – for the implicated politicians and their business cronies, for Ramaphosa and the ANC’s electoral future, and for the credibility of South Africa as a trustworthy destination for much needed investment. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: How Gupta brothers build up an empire of corruption

<p>The Zuma years are over. He kept fighting almost to the very end. But South Africa&rsquo;s scandal-ridden President Jacob Zuma finally accepted the inevitability of his political fate late last night when he resigned with immediate effect. By doing so he cut short his second and final term as president of Africa&rsquo;s largest economy with over a year still to run.</p>

<p>Even then he toyed with his audience. In a 30-minute address that began close to 10.30pm local time, Zuma appeared to be veering towards requiring the ruling African National Congress (ANC) to use its majority in parliament to remove him by way of a no confidence motion.</p>

<p>With an ardent defence of the constitution &ndash; ironic given the many findings of constitutional transgression made by the courts in recent years against him &ndash; Zuma argued that the most appropriate way for a president to be removed from office would be by one of the two constitutional mechanisms &ndash; a vote of no confidence pursuant to section 102 or impeachment under section 89 &ndash; rather than by his party.</p>

<p>But the implication that to bend to his party&rsquo;s will would represent a subjugation of the will of the people was a typical example of Zuma&rsquo;s misrepresentation or misunderstanding of South Africa&rsquo;s system of government. While the head of government is the president, the system is essentially a parliamentary one, The president is elected by parliament and not directly by the electorate.</p>

<p>So this was not regime change as Zuma implied. It was a palace coup, very similar to the one Zuma had overseen when Thabo Mbeki was removed from office ten years ago in September 2008.</p>

<p><strong>Last throw of the dice</strong></p>

<p>At the start of a dramatic week in South African politics, on Monday the ANC&rsquo;s National Executive Committee concluded a marathon 13-hour meeting by deciding that Zuma should be &ldquo;recalled&rdquo; and replaced by Cyril Ramaphosa. Ramaphosa was Zuma&rsquo;s deputy in government after winning a closely-contested race to succeed him as ANC president at the party&rsquo;s five-yearly national elective conference in December.</p>

<p>A former trade union leader and, later a successful businessman, Ramaphosa won on a &lsquo;change&rsquo; agenda. He promised to end the culture of impunity that has been the hallmark of the Zuma years and to arrest the self-enrichment project of &ldquo;state capture&rdquo;. This has seen key state institutions, such as the SA Revenue Service and PRASA, hollowed out, causing great harm to the interests of millions of the most vulnerable citizens.</p>

<p>Earlier in the day Zuma had waged war against his own party when in an exclusive interview with the South African Broadcasting Corporation he defied the ANC&rsquo;s leadership, claiming that he had not done anything wrong. He also claimed that the party had failed to specify the reason for its decision to recall him.</p>

<p>At one point in the interview Zuma appeared to be threatening instability in the organisation that he has served his whole life &ndash; a last roll of the dice for a fearless politician for whom the usual rules of political engagement never seemed to apply.</p>

<p>But Ramaphosa did not blink and preparations for the vote of no confidence continued. Zuma calculated that the game was up and fell, finally, on his sword.</p>

<p>Under the country&rsquo;s constitution, the deputy president of the country Ramaphosa takes over as interim president immediately. The National Assembly is nevertheless likely to be convened shortly to elect a new president. This will enable Ramaphosa to deliver the State of the Nation Address that was postponed last week.</p>

<p><strong>Victory for the rule of law</strong></p>

<p>Given the history and context of post-colonial Africa in which numerous heads of state have clung onto power for decades, yesterday&rsquo;s turn of events could be seen as a victory for South Africa&rsquo;s democracy. It has proved to be resilient in the face of the Zuma-enabled project of state capture.</p>

<p>The rule of law and an independent judiciary has held firm despite the pressures of an unrelenting line of politically-charged cases. Along with opposition parties, civil society organisations, such as Section 27 and the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution, have used the constitution to challenge Zuma.</p>

<p>Now Zuma, along with Gupta family and many others &ndash; including several members of the current cabinet &ndash; must face the prospect of being held to account. The process is already underway. Yesterday began with the startling news that one of the Gupta brothers had been arrested and the family&rsquo;s compound in Saxonwold, Johannesburg had been searched.</p>

<p>And a judicial inquiry into the involvement of the Guptas in state capture will soon commence. This will include their relationship to both cabinet ministers and the leadership of certain key state owned enterprises, such as beleaguered energy utility Eskom.</p>

<p>And one of Ramaphosa&rsquo;s first appointments will be a new national director of public prosecutions. The courts have already ruled that they must proceed with the prosecution of the 783 corruption charges that were unlawfully dropped against Zuma just before he first became president in April 2009.</p>

<p>Whether Zuma is convicted and imprisoned remains to be seen. But his early ousting from power is a salutary lesson. Those implicated in the corruption that has increasingly undermined investor confidence in South Africa in recent years will be quaking in their boots.</p>

<p>The winds of change are blowing through the corridors of power.</p>

<p><strong>Ramaphosa&rsquo;s big challenges</strong></p>

<p>Having dealt with the unavoidably messy and awkward business of removing a sitting head of state, Ramaphosa can turn to the even bigger and important challenges that face the country. These include a fiscal crunch with tough public expenditure choices to be wrestled with in next week&rsquo;s budget. These include high unemployment and inequality; and rebuilding integrity in state institutions and agencies.</p>

<p>With Zuma out of the way, Ramaphosa can expedite his pursuit of a socio-economic &ldquo;new deal&rdquo; unencumbered by Zuma&rsquo;s obstructive tendencies and personal interests. These have included a rumoured deal with President Vladimir Putin to purchase nuclear power plants from Russia.</p>

<p><img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/91910/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" width="1" />Ramaphosa, and South Africa, now have a clear run at addressing the many urgent problems that have hindered economic growth and confidence in recent years. They have given themselves an opportunity to rebuild the lost social compact of the Mandela years. And recover from the draining swamp of Zuma&rsquo;s rule.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" rel="nofollow" target="blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/zuma-finally-falls-on-his-sword-but-not-before-threatening-to-take-the-house-down-with-him-91910" rel="nofollow" target="blank">original article</a>.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p><em>(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)</em>&nbsp; &nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>


Now Zuma, along with Gupta family and many others – including several members of the current cabinet – must face the prospect of being held to account.

The Zuma years are over. He kept fighting almost to the very end. But South Africa’s scandal-ridden President Jacob Zuma finally accepted the inevitability of his political fate late last night when he resigned with immediate effect. By doing so he cut short his second and final term as president of Africa’s largest economy with over a year still to run. Even then he toyed with his audience. In a 30-minute address that began close to 10.30pm local time, Zuma appeared to be veering towards requiring the ruling African National Congress (ANC) to use its majority in parliament to remove him by way of a no confidence motion. With an ardent defence of the constitution – ironic given the many findings of constitutional transgression made by the courts in recent years against him – Zuma argued that the most appropriate way for a president to be removed from office would be by one of the two constitutional mechanisms – a vote of no confidence pursuant to section 102 or impeachment under section 89 – rather than by his party. But the implication that to bend to his party’s will would represent a subjugation of the will of the people was a typical example of Zuma’s misrepresentation or misunderstanding of South Africa’s system of government. While the head of government is the president, the system is essentially a parliamentary one, The president is elected by parliament and not directly by the electorate. So this was not regime change as Zuma implied. It was a palace coup, very similar to the one Zuma had overseen when Thabo Mbeki was removed from office ten years ago in September 2008. Last throw of the dice At the start of a dramatic week in South African politics, on Monday the ANC’s National Executive Committee concluded a marathon 13-hour meeting by deciding that Zuma should be “recalled” and replaced by Cyril Ramaphosa. Ramaphosa was Zuma’s deputy in government after winning a closely-contested race to succeed him as ANC president at the party’s five-yearly national elective conference in December. A former trade union leader and, later a successful businessman, Ramaphosa won on a ‘change’ agenda. He promised to end the culture of impunity that has been the hallmark of the Zuma years and to arrest the self-enrichment project of “state capture”. This has seen key state institutions, such as the SA Revenue Service and PRASA, hollowed out, causing great harm to the interests of millions of the most vulnerable citizens. Earlier in the day Zuma had waged war against his own party when in an exclusive interview with the South African Broadcasting Corporation he defied the ANC’s leadership, claiming that he had not done anything wrong. He also claimed that the party had failed to specify the reason for its decision to recall him. At one point in the interview Zuma appeared to be threatening instability in the organisation that he has served his whole life – a last roll of the dice for a fearless politician for whom the usual rules of political engagement never seemed to apply. But Ramaphosa did not blink and preparations for the vote of no confidence continued. Zuma calculated that the game was up and fell, finally, on his sword. Under the country’s constitution, the deputy president of the country Ramaphosa takes over as interim president immediately. The National Assembly is nevertheless likely to be convened shortly to elect a new president. This will enable Ramaphosa to deliver the State of the Nation Address that was postponed last week. Victory for the rule of law Given the history and context of post-colonial Africa in which numerous heads of state have clung onto power for decades, yesterday’s turn of events could be seen as a victory for South Africa’s democracy. It has proved to be resilient in the face of the Zuma-enabled project of state capture. The rule of law and an independent judiciary has held firm despite the pressures of an unrelenting line of politically-charged cases. Along with opposition parties, civil society organisations, such as Section 27 and the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution, have used the constitution to challenge Zuma. Now Zuma, along with Gupta family and many others – including several members of the current cabinet – must face the prospect of being held to account. The process is already underway. Yesterday began with the startling news that one of the Gupta brothers had been arrested and the family’s compound in Saxonwold, Johannesburg had been searched. And a judicial inquiry into the involvement of the Guptas in state capture will soon commence. This will include their relationship to both cabinet ministers and the leadership of certain key state owned enterprises, such as beleaguered energy utility Eskom. And one of Ramaphosa’s first appointments will be a new national director of public prosecutions. The courts have already ruled that they must proceed with the prosecution of the 783 corruption charges that were unlawfully dropped against Zuma just before he first became president in April 2009. Whether Zuma is convicted and imprisoned remains to be seen. But his early ousting from power is a salutary lesson. Those implicated in the corruption that has increasingly undermined investor confidence in South Africa in recent years will be quaking in their boots. The winds of change are blowing through the corridors of power. Ramaphosa’s big challenges Having dealt with the unavoidably messy and awkward business of removing a sitting head of state, Ramaphosa can turn to the even bigger and important challenges that face the country. These include a fiscal crunch with tough public expenditure choices to be wrestled with in next week’s budget. These include high unemployment and inequality; and rebuilding integrity in state institutions and agencies. With Zuma out of the way, Ramaphosa can expedite his pursuit of a socio-economic “new deal” unencumbered by Zuma’s obstructive tendencies and personal interests. These have included a rumoured deal with President Vladimir Putin to purchase nuclear power plants from Russia. Ramaphosa, and South Africa, now have a clear run at addressing the many urgent problems that have hindered economic growth and confidence in recent years. They have given themselves an opportunity to rebuild the lost social compact of the Mandela years. And recover from the draining swamp of Zuma’s rule. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: South Africa sees the end of President Jacob Zuma and Gupta brothers' tyranny

<p>Jacob Zuma is a natural born political survivor. Yesterday South Africa&rsquo;s president <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/08/jacob-zuma-survives-no-confidence-vote-south-african-president">overcame</a> an eighth no confidence vote, despite the mountain of evidence of corrupt conduct that has emerged in recent months.</p>

<p>But it may prove to be a Pyrrhic victory &ndash; for him and most certainly for his party, the African National Congress (ANC). <a href="https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/national/2017-08-08-zuma-supporters-celebrate-his-win-outa-considers-legal-action/">&ldquo;Hollow&rdquo;</a> was the word that one opposition leader, Bantu Holomisa, used afterward, while the Economic Freedom Fighter&rsquo;s leader Julius Malema employed a well-known Africa proverb: &ldquo;When you want to eat an elephant you do it bit by bit&rdquo;.</p>

<p>Zuma&rsquo;s political death is proving to be a protracted affair. There was an air of expectation yesterday that recent allegations of &ldquo;state capture&rdquo; &ndash; attested to by a welter of evidence from the so-called <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.za/2017/06/01/the-new-gupta-emails-are-a-lot-heres-what-they-say-in-5-quick_a_22120706/">#guptaleaks</a> &ndash; would be enough to persuade a sufficient number of the members of the ruling ANC to support an opposition-sponsored no confidence vote.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>On the previous seven occasions that the opposition has tabled no confidence votes since Zuma&rsquo;s power began in 2009, the ANC has remained steadfast in its support for its beleaguered president.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=On the previous seven occasions that the opposition has tabled no confidence votes since Zuma?s power began in 2009, the ANC has remained steadfast in its support for its beleaguered president." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>In the event, after a fractious two-hour debate scarred by ugly banter across the floor of the National Assembly, the motion fell short of the 201 votes required to remove Zuma and his cabinet. But yesterday was remarkably different. On the previous seven occasions that the opposition has tabled no confidence votes since Zuma&rsquo;s power began in 2009, the ANC has remained steadfast in its support for its beleaguered president. Yesterday&rsquo;s vote was a watershed for the liberation movement that brought an end to apartheid in 1994: around 30 of the 223 ANC MPs who voted yesterday sided with the opposition.</p>

<p>As the ANC&rsquo;s chief whip, Jackson Mthembu, ruefully observed afterward, this is true pause for reflection for the ruling party. Never before has such a significant number of the parliamentary caucus rebelled and defied the party whip.</p>

<p>Zuma&rsquo;s streetwise political skills are well-known. So too is his adeptness at using executive patronage to secure the loyalty of party members as has been made clear in the revelations <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-22513410">arising from his links to the Gupta family</a>.</p>

<p><strong>The secret ballot saga</strong></p>

<p>But the back story to the unprecedented rebellion within his own party was the method of voting as much as Zuma&rsquo;s political skullduggery. For the first time, Parliament was compelled to allow MPs <a href="https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/national/2017-08-07-mbete-allows-secret-ballot/">to vote in secret</a>. This followed a <a href="http://www.702.co.za/articles/251722/bantu-holomisa-explains-parly-rules-on-secret-ballot">legal challenge</a> to the rules by Holomisa&rsquo;s United Democratic Movement.</p>

<p>In its 22 June <a href="https://www.timeslive.co.za/politics/2017-06-22-read-in-full-concourt-ruling-on-secret-ballot/">judgment</a>, the Constitutional Court &ndash; an institutional beacon of excellence and integrity in the context of the &ldquo;capture&rdquo; of other state bodies &ndash; had held that the speaker of the National Assembly had the discretion to order a secret ballot in exceptional circumstances.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The ANC shot itself in the foot when one region of Zuma&rsquo;s home province, KwaZulu-Natal, demanded that disciplinary proceedings be brought against Khoza after she had called for Zuma to go.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The ANC shot itself in the foot when one region of Zuma?s home province, KwaZulu-Natal, demanded that disciplinary proceedings be brought against Khoza after she had called for Zuma to go." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>Since the ruling, a number of ANC MPs have gone public with a testimony of intimidation and even <a href="http://ewn.co.za/2017/07/12/makhosi-khoza-s-daughter-receives-death-threats">death threats</a> in the case of Makhosi Khoza. In turn, the ANC shot itself in the foot when one region of Zuma&rsquo;s home province, KwaZulu-Natal, demanded that disciplinary proceedings be brought against Khoza after she had called for Zuma to go. The intervention served to underline the need to depart from the generally established principle of open voting.</p>

<p>Accordingly, speaker Baleka Mbete had a little legal choice but to opt for a secret ballot, even though it would encourage dissenting voices among the ranks of the ANC caucus. Politically, she had probably done the political mathematics and, as the national chairperson of the ANC was confident that regardless of the shield that she said was necessary to protect ANC MPs so that they could vote with their conscience, the numbers would still work out in Zuma&rsquo;s favor.</p>

<p>And so it proved: 177 MPs voted for the motion, and 198 against (with 9 abstentions). Since the opposition has 151 MPs, at least three of whom were absent through illness, it means that that at least 29 and possibly as many as 35 ANC MPs jumped ship.</p>

<p><strong>Win-win for the opposition</strong></p>

<p>But it was a win-win situation for the opposition. Afterward, in the unseasonably balmy winter&rsquo;s evening outside the parliament in Cape Town, one after another of the leaders of the opposition spoke cheerfully about the political future and of the health of South Africa&rsquo;s democracy.</p>

<p>They may have lost the battle, but they feel confident that they will win the war. After all, it is clear that Zuma is now their greatest electoral asset, with <a href="http://www.biznews.com/leadership/2017/05/31/ipsos-poll-zuma-unpopular/">several polls </a>(including the respected <a href="https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2016-05-19-afrobarometer-trio-of-polls-show-shifting-attitudes-but-voters-would-still-opt-for-anc/#.WYo8na17Gi4">Afrobarometer</a>), showing that across race and class, trust in Zuma has collapsed since he was returned to power for a second term in 2014.</p>

<p>Last year, the ANC suffered its first major electoral setbacks since the advent of democracy in 1994 when it <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-revolt-of-south-africas-metropoles-a-revolution-of-rising-expectations-64617">lost control</a> of three major city governments in Pretoria, Johannesburg and Port Elizabeth. Now, it&#39;s political management skills appear to be in disarray as factionalism and deep, painful divisions dominate internal party politics. This is all unfolding in the run-up to what is likely to be a bloody five-yearly <a href="http://www.anc.org.za/content/venue-anc-54th-national-conference">national elective conference</a> in December, at which the ANC will elect a new President of the party to succeed Zuma.</p>

<p>That may or may not mark the start of a new era of renewal for the ANC. But Zuma&rsquo;s term as President of the country is only due to end in 2019. A lot more damage could be done to the country&rsquo;s economy and its prospects for growth.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>ANC will face the prospect of losing its majority in the national polls for the first time since Nelson Mandela&rsquo;s historic victory in 1994.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=ANC will face the prospect of losing its majority in the national polls for the first time since Nelson Mandela?s historic victory in 1994." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>The consequence of that, however, is that the ANC will face the prospect of losing its majority in the national polls for the first time since Nelson Mandela&rsquo;s historic victory in 1994.</p>

<p>Yesterday may have been a victory for Zuma. But in the longer term, it is likely to come to be seen as a major defeat for the ANC.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/no-confidence-vote-a-victory-for-zuma-but-a-defeat-for-the-anc-82244">original article</a>.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>


Yesterday may have been a victory for Zuma, but in the longer term, it is likely to come to be seen as a major defeat for the ANC.

Jacob Zuma is a natural born political survivor. Yesterday South Africa’s president overcame an eighth no confidence vote, despite the mountain of evidence of corrupt conduct that has emerged in recent months. But it may prove to be a Pyrrhic victory – for him and most certainly for his party, the African National Congress (ANC). “Hollow” was the word that one opposition leader, Bantu Holomisa, used afterward, while the Economic Freedom Fighter’s leader Julius Malema employed a well-known Africa proverb: “When you want to eat an elephant you do it bit by bit”. Zuma’s political death is proving to be a protracted affair. There was an air of expectation yesterday that recent allegations of “state capture” – attested to by a welter of evidence from the so-called #guptaleaks – would be enough to persuade a sufficient number of the members of the ruling ANC to support an opposition-sponsored no confidence vote. On the previous seven occasions that the opposition has tabled no confidence votes since Zuma’s power began in 2009, the ANC has remained steadfast in its support for its beleaguered president. × In the event, after a fractious two-hour debate scarred by ugly banter across the floor of the National Assembly, the motion fell short of the 201 votes required to remove Zuma and his cabinet. But yesterday was remarkably different. On the previous seven occasions that the opposition has tabled no confidence votes since Zuma’s power began in 2009, the ANC has remained steadfast in its support for its beleaguered president. Yesterday’s vote was a watershed for the liberation movement that brought an end to apartheid in 1994: around 30 of the 223 ANC MPs who voted yesterday sided with the opposition. As the ANC’s chief whip, Jackson Mthembu, ruefully observed afterward, this is true pause for reflection for the ruling party. Never before has such a significant number of the parliamentary caucus rebelled and defied the party whip. Zuma’s streetwise political skills are well-known. So too is his adeptness at using executive patronage to secure the loyalty of party members as has been made clear in the revelations arising from his links to the Gupta family. The secret ballot saga But the back story to the unprecedented rebellion within his own party was the method of voting as much as Zuma’s political skullduggery. For the first time, Parliament was compelled to allow MPs to vote in secret. This followed a legal challenge to the rules by Holomisa’s United Democratic Movement. In its 22 June judgment, the Constitutional Court – an institutional beacon of excellence and integrity in the context of the “capture” of other state bodies – had held that the speaker of the National Assembly had the discretion to order a secret ballot in exceptional circumstances. The ANC shot itself in the foot when one region of Zuma’s home province, KwaZulu-Natal, demanded that disciplinary proceedings be brought against Khoza after she had called for Zuma to go. × Since the ruling, a number of ANC MPs have gone public with a testimony of intimidation and even death threats in the case of Makhosi Khoza. In turn, the ANC shot itself in the foot when one region of Zuma’s home province, KwaZulu-Natal, demanded that disciplinary proceedings be brought against Khoza after she had called for Zuma to go. The intervention served to underline the need to depart from the generally established principle of open voting. Accordingly, speaker Baleka Mbete had a little legal choice but to opt for a secret ballot, even though it would encourage dissenting voices among the ranks of the ANC caucus. Politically, she had probably done the political mathematics and, as the national chairperson of the ANC was confident that regardless of the shield that she said was necessary to protect ANC MPs so that they could vote with their conscience, the numbers would still work out in Zuma’s favor. And so it proved: 177 MPs voted for the motion, and 198 against (with 9 abstentions). Since the opposition has 151 MPs, at least three of whom were absent through illness, it means that that at least 29 and possibly as many as 35 ANC MPs jumped ship. Win-win for the opposition But it was a win-win situation for the opposition. Afterward, in the unseasonably balmy winter’s evening outside the parliament in Cape Town, one after another of the leaders of the opposition spoke cheerfully about the political future and of the health of South Africa’s democracy. They may have lost the battle, but they feel confident that they will win the war. After all, it is clear that Zuma is now their greatest electoral asset, with several polls (including the respected Afrobarometer), showing that across race and class, trust in Zuma has collapsed since he was returned to power for a second term in 2014. Last year, the ANC suffered its first major electoral setbacks since the advent of democracy in 1994 when it lost control of three major city governments in Pretoria, Johannesburg and Port Elizabeth. Now, it's political management skills appear to be in disarray as factionalism and deep, painful divisions dominate internal party politics. This is all unfolding in the run-up to what is likely to be a bloody five-yearly national elective conference in December, at which the ANC will elect a new President of the party to succeed Zuma. That may or may not mark the start of a new era of renewal for the ANC. But Zuma’s term as President of the country is only due to end in 2019. A lot more damage could be done to the country’s economy and its prospects for growth. ANC will face the prospect of losing its majority in the national polls for the first time since Nelson Mandela’s historic victory in 1994. × The consequence of that, however, is that the ANC will face the prospect of losing its majority in the national polls for the first time since Nelson Mandela’s historic victory in 1994. Yesterday may have been a victory for Zuma. But in the longer term, it is likely to come to be seen as a major defeat for the ANC. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

No confidence vote: a victory for Zuma, but a defeat for the ANC

Author

Zee News Rajasthan

Editor

Richard Calland

Home

Live Tv

Latest

World

India

Business

Entertainment

Sports

Opinions

Videos

Photos

Gravitas

Lifestyle

Science

Tech

Rajasthan News in Hindi: In-depth coverage of Rajasthan Crime, Political News, Education, Rajasthan Weather Update and Latest Rajasthan News on Zee News Rajasthan.