When, in April 2009, Mokotedi Mpshe, then Chief Prosecutor of South Africa, decided to abruptly drop the 783 count charges of alleged corruption, fraud and racketeering on Jacob Zuma, many keen watchers of events in South Africa knew the decision was more political than legal.
In 2004, Zuma, as Vice President, was charged with corruption in connection with his financial advisor’s bribery case. While Shaik – his advisor – was promptly convicted and sentenced to 15 years in prison, Zuma, with the aid of his lawyers, kept putting several obstacles on the way of successful prosecution of the case and succeeded in having the cases postponed. However, before then, he had been fired as Vice President by Thabo Mbeki. Bizarrely, Zuma went ahead to defeat Mbeki in the tussle for the ANC leadership and consequently used his influence to recall Mbeki. After much legal and political wrangling, the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) agreed to drop the case in April 2009 and a month later, Zuma acceded to the presidency.
However, on April 28, 2016, Justice Ledwaba ruled that Mpshe’s decision to abandon the charges had been misguided and that the then Chief Prosecutor had acted under pressure. “Considering the situation in which he found himself, Mr Mpshe ignored the importance of the oath of office which commanded him to act independently and without fear and favour,” said the judge. The decision to drop the case had been “inexplicable” and “irrational… Mr Zuma should face the charges as outlined in the indictment,” Ledwaba ruled.
Zuma, the South African President, has always been associated with corruption, cronyism and scandals. Yet, none of these was enough to stop his political ascendancy to the presidency. In 2005, for instance, he was charged with the rape of a deceased friend’s daughter whom he knew to be HIV positive. During the trial, Zuma admitted to having unprotected sex with his accuser and took a ‘shower’ afterwards to cut the risk of contracting HIV. Luckily for him, the courts ruled that the act was consensual.
But if anyone thought that Zuma’s ascendancy to the presidency would curb his tendency to swim in scandals, that thought was extinguished following the Nkandala scandal shortly after his assumption of office in 2009 and his blunt refusal to refund part of the money – up to $16 million – spent on renovating his rural home as ruled by the country’s anti-corruption agency.
Recently also, there were reports that the Guptas – a powerful business family of Indians with close affinity to Zuma – had offered to arrange cabinet positions for politicians. Last year, Zuma summarily replaced a respected finance minister with a political hack and only backtracked after a national outcry and possible investor backlash. A government official later revealed that the Guptas offered him the finance minister’s post. In a way, Zuma could be described as a cat with nine lives.
However, recently, his skills for political survival appear to be waning. In March, the Constitutional Court ruled that Zuma had violated the Constitution by refusing to pay back millions that the government spent improving his home. The court in its ruling said the President had “failed to uphold, defend and respect the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.” But instead of honourably resigning his position, Zuma chose instead to apologise and remain firmly in his position. Then came Justice Ledwaba ruling last month that the corruption charges against Zuma should be reinstated.
Already, Zuma had faced an impeachment vote in parliament with prominent ANC members and anti-apartheid leaders openly calling on him to resign. Recently also, he was heckled endlessly in parliament by opposition MPs and was variously called “looter-in-chief” by opposition figures. Security forces had to be employed to forcibly remove opposition MPs from parliament to protect the President. Zuma still insists on his innocence and will prefer to go through the entire gamut of trial as President than resign his position to save the country and the Presidency.
It is clear that Zuma’s continued stay in power is no longer tenable. But, like the classical African politician, he will never willingly resign no matter the damage his continued stay in office will do to the country and its institutions. In a way, this speaks to the nature of politics and political competition in Africa where competition for political office is seen as a war of survival and of relevance. And in such war there is no space for voluntarily handing over power once it is captured.
Like Zuma in South Africa, Bukola Saraki in Nigeria is causing equal or greater damage to the institution of the Senate by his refusal to resign even after all his attempt to prevent his trial at the Code of Conduct Bureau has failed. His travails could have been orchestrated by some of his party members over his insolence of contesting and defeating the party’s candidate for the Senate Presidency, but Saraki needs to realise the greater danger his continuing in office will do to the institution of the Senate and the country at large. His continued stay in office risks destroying any legitimacy previously enjoyed by the Senate and the National Assembly, and worse, it will weaken the ability of the National Assembly to perform its oversight function or check the excesses of the executive – a function sorely needed at this time in Nigeria to prevent a descent into authoritarianism.
Christopher Akor
