The recent ConCourt judgment predictably precipitated premature celebrations from his political enemies, who misread the ruling. They thought the pronouncement insinuated that the president was guilty regarding the Phala Phala saga. Screaming and kicking from rooftops, they shouted, “Ramaphosa must resign”.
In their myopic approach to the issue, they never knew that the president also had the legal option of taking the “flawed” report on review.
That is the result of shallow thinking flowing out of an education system that was never characterised by critical reflection. That is the outcome of a situation where people do not read. I call it “the reading crisis in the country”.
President Cyril Ramaphosa, just like any other South African, is innocent until proven guilty. He did well by addressing the nation in the spirit of openness and transparency. He bravely stated that he will not resign. Indeed, why should he resign if the keyword in the report is the word “may”, which does not signify certainty? Why should he resign before exhausting all other options that are available to him? - Abe Mokoena, Polokwane
