Points of interest in Zondo report

Chief Justice Zondo made several major findings regarding President Cyril Ramaphosa and how the ANC as an organisation and its individual members cashed in on the looting of state-owned enterprises (SOEs). He also made some strong recommendations.

FILE IMAGE: Findings indicate wholesale looting.
FILE IMAGE: Findings indicate wholesale looting. (Veli Nhlapo)

Chief Justice Zondo made several major findings regarding President Cyril Ramaphosa and how the ANC as an organisation and its individual members cashed in on the looting of state-owned enterprises (SOEs). He also made some strong recommendations.

We flag some of them:

  • Ramaphosa should have known [about looting of SOEs] and done better as the deputy president of SA and the ANC.

“The president readily acknowledges the existence of state capture as a co-ordinated project and has made much of his drive to right the wrongs of state capture. However, the question of what he knew is still somewhat opaque,” Zondo said.

“Ramaphosa must have believed that the ruling party would not defend him in such a case and that the ANC would have protected a president who fired his deputy president for the crime of confronting corruption.” 

  • Ramaphosa and former president Jacob Zuma stood by while the Passenger Rail Agency of SA (Prasa) was looted.

“This board was on its own fighting corruption at Prasa. The then president Jacob Zuma gave it no support. The then deputy president of the ANC and of the country, now President Cyril Ramaphosa, gave it no support. Indeed, all the top six officials of the ANC gave it no support. The parliamentary portfolio committee on transport was openly hostile to this board.”

  • Zuma must have known about the landing of the Gupta aircraft at the Waterkloof Air Force base.

“Given how the Guptas flaunted [their] friendship with president Zuma, it is extremely unlikely that they would not have informed him about those plans and attempted to secure his support for their implementation.”

  • The Hawks must investigate former spy boss Arthur Fraser, a move that was dropped at the insistence of former intelligence minister Siyabonga Cwele.

“The resumption of the investigations should be reconsidered by the Hawks. It might be whoever were (sic) involved, including Mr Fraser, get absolved, but the investigations should be allowed to take their normal course.”

  • The Free State government should get legal advice on whether it should sue its former premier, Ace Magashule, and agricultural MEC Mosebenzi Zwane for money lost in the Vrede Dairy Farm Project.

“It is necessary that there be consequences for people who fail to do their job. Otherwise this corruption and these acts of state capture are going to continue forever, to the detriment of the country and all people.”

  • Zwane and Magashule be criminally investigated regarding the Vrede Dairy Farm Project

 “The project failed in its first two years of operation, not because of the media enquiries or the National Treasury investigation, as suggested by [former Free State agricultural department head Peter] Thabethe, but because of Thabethe’s incompetence or because he was carrying out the agenda of the Guptas and cared less about the taxpayers’ money and the black farmers.

“Apart from anything else, Thabethe must be held both criminally and civilly liable for his role in causing the department to lose millions of rand in taxpayers’ money.”

  • The SABC must try to recover the R4.2m it spent on broadcasting the Guptas’ The New Age breakfast briefings.

“At the very least, the investigating and prosecuting authorities should attempt to recover all the monies spent through unlawful and improper actions, if that can still be done. For instance, the R11m ‘success fee’ should be recovered from Mr Motsoeneng.”

  • Former communications minister Faith Muthambi should be investigated.

“Her said actions should be referred to the NPA if this has not yet been done. Her actions are in conflict with Section 96 of the constitution and also in conflict with her office. There is also sufficient evidence on record to consider charges in terms of sections 3, 4, 7, 21 and 34 of [the] Prevention and Combatting of Corrupt Activities [Act].”​

 


Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.

Comment icon