News / National
Zuma arms deal persecution is weird, says Thuli Madonsela
05 Nov 2024 at 09:30hrs | Views
Former public protector Prof Thuli Madonsela has dropped a bombshell that former president Jacob Zuma's prosecution regarding the controversial arms deal is a mystery.
Her remarks came during a capacity-building workshop with members of the Portfolio Committee on Public Works and Infrastructure in Parliament on October 7, aimed at equipping MPs to hold government leaders accountable for service delivery and corruption prevention.
As the workshop's presenter on ethical leadership and transparency, Madonsela faced probing questions from MPs about the ethical considerations surrounding incumbent President Cyril Ramaphosa.
Committee member Vivian Reddy of the MK Party sought Madonsela's opinion on Ramaphosa's pre-government involvement with corporate giants that provided him with free shares long before he took over political power.
"It became known in business circles that certain individuals from the ANC would occupy leadership positions in the country.
"The leader of government business at the time was Ramaphosa. And we found that prior to 1994, he was offered shares in many of the established white-owned companies," Reddy said.
"My question to you is that, knowing that he was going to come into government and serve a critical role, do you think that his acceptance of these shares was an ethical decision?"
Madonsela responded by noting that evaluating the ethics of past benefits given to future leaders is inappropriate. She emphasised that individuals in power are only vulnerable to unethical conflicts of interest if they benefit while holding an office that can dispense
those benefits.
The discussion then shifted as Reddy questioned the rationale behind charges against Zuma, who at that time was a KwaZulu-Natal MEC for economic affairs and tourism, with corruption linked to the arms deal.
In 1998, then president Nelson Mandela and his deputy Thabo Mbeki, parliament, and cabinet, approved the Defence Review Report, which outlined the need for large-scale defence procurement. Consequently, the multi-billion rand Strategic Defence Package, popularly known as the arms deal, was signed in late 1999 following approval from Mbeki's cabinet, specifically defence minister Joe Modise and finance minister Trevor Manuel. The supplier was French company Thales.
Reddy highlighted that Shabir Shaik, connected to the arms deal, allegedly provided Zuma with financial support prior to the deal.
"Former president Zuma is currently facing charges but at the time he was the MEC of economic [affairs] in KwaZulu-Natal. So, he had no direct influence over the award of that particular tender," Reddy said.
"I want us to see some consistency here, and I want us to be clear about what this ethical leadership is that we speak about.
"A man in the street will say, ‘We have a president who is conflicted in this regard, and we have a former president who is being taken to court when he does not fit that definition of what we call unethical leadership.' I just thought you could clarify this for me."
Surprisingly, Madonsela declared her confusion over why Zuma, who was not involved in the national government when he started receiving the alleged bribes, faces prosecution.
"The fact that you got a freebie from somebody and then eventually you are in charge of them through the lottery of life does not mean we can ascribe a
conflict of interest to your conduct then retrospectively.
"I have never understood why president Zuma was prosecuted for the arms deal. And there are many things that I've disagreed with him on. On the issue of state capture, I stand my ground, but on the issue of the arms deal, you are right that he was a minor player, and it really doesn't make sense," she said.
Madonsela further elaborated that she remains perplexed by Zuma's prosecution, particularly when those directly involved in the transaction have not faced similar legal scrutiny.
"With the people involved in the actual transaction having not been prosecuted, it remains weird that he was prosecuted, but it's not my place to deal with that.
"It's up to those who deal with law enforcement to deal with that."
Zuma faces charges of corruption, fraud and money laundering related to the arms deal. The trial is scheduled to commence on April 14, 2025, following numerous delays and appeals.
Zuma faces charges of corruption, fraud, and money laundering related to the arms deal. The trial is scheduled to commence on April 14, 2025, following numerous delays and appeals. He is accused of accepting bribes from Shaik since October 1995.
Her remarks came during a capacity-building workshop with members of the Portfolio Committee on Public Works and Infrastructure in Parliament on October 7, aimed at equipping MPs to hold government leaders accountable for service delivery and corruption prevention.
As the workshop's presenter on ethical leadership and transparency, Madonsela faced probing questions from MPs about the ethical considerations surrounding incumbent President Cyril Ramaphosa.
Committee member Vivian Reddy of the MK Party sought Madonsela's opinion on Ramaphosa's pre-government involvement with corporate giants that provided him with free shares long before he took over political power.
"It became known in business circles that certain individuals from the ANC would occupy leadership positions in the country.
"The leader of government business at the time was Ramaphosa. And we found that prior to 1994, he was offered shares in many of the established white-owned companies," Reddy said.
"My question to you is that, knowing that he was going to come into government and serve a critical role, do you think that his acceptance of these shares was an ethical decision?"
Madonsela responded by noting that evaluating the ethics of past benefits given to future leaders is inappropriate. She emphasised that individuals in power are only vulnerable to unethical conflicts of interest if they benefit while holding an office that can dispense
those benefits.
The discussion then shifted as Reddy questioned the rationale behind charges against Zuma, who at that time was a KwaZulu-Natal MEC for economic affairs and tourism, with corruption linked to the arms deal.
In 1998, then president Nelson Mandela and his deputy Thabo Mbeki, parliament, and cabinet, approved the Defence Review Report, which outlined the need for large-scale defence procurement. Consequently, the multi-billion rand Strategic Defence Package, popularly known as the arms deal, was signed in late 1999 following approval from Mbeki's cabinet, specifically defence minister Joe Modise and finance minister Trevor Manuel. The supplier was French company Thales.
Reddy highlighted that Shabir Shaik, connected to the arms deal, allegedly provided Zuma with financial support prior to the deal.
"I want us to see some consistency here, and I want us to be clear about what this ethical leadership is that we speak about.
"A man in the street will say, ‘We have a president who is conflicted in this regard, and we have a former president who is being taken to court when he does not fit that definition of what we call unethical leadership.' I just thought you could clarify this for me."
Surprisingly, Madonsela declared her confusion over why Zuma, who was not involved in the national government when he started receiving the alleged bribes, faces prosecution.
"The fact that you got a freebie from somebody and then eventually you are in charge of them through the lottery of life does not mean we can ascribe a
conflict of interest to your conduct then retrospectively.
"I have never understood why president Zuma was prosecuted for the arms deal. And there are many things that I've disagreed with him on. On the issue of state capture, I stand my ground, but on the issue of the arms deal, you are right that he was a minor player, and it really doesn't make sense," she said.
Madonsela further elaborated that she remains perplexed by Zuma's prosecution, particularly when those directly involved in the transaction have not faced similar legal scrutiny.
"With the people involved in the actual transaction having not been prosecuted, it remains weird that he was prosecuted, but it's not my place to deal with that.
"It's up to those who deal with law enforcement to deal with that."
Zuma faces charges of corruption, fraud and money laundering related to the arms deal. The trial is scheduled to commence on April 14, 2025, following numerous delays and appeals.
Zuma faces charges of corruption, fraud, and money laundering related to the arms deal. The trial is scheduled to commence on April 14, 2025, following numerous delays and appeals. He is accused of accepting bribes from Shaik since October 1995.
Source - online
