Speaker 1The discussion that we should be having in South Africa is what happens when the people who must implement the recommendations of a commission's report are themselves a problem. If it were up to me, I wouldn't have commissions. These commissions cost a lot of money. They are great for theatre. What we need is this very strong, independent, well-functioning criminal justice system.
Speaker 2Meanwhile, there has been astonishing drama at the bail hearing of suspended Deputy National Commissioner General Shadrach Sabir. It's not looking good. Is it, sorry?
Speaker 1No, that man has got three monsters of his own creation looking him in the face.
Speaker 3I'm Alec Hogg, and here's what BizNews Premium gets you. The Economist, the Financial Times, and South Africa's top commentators curated. Our portfolios, 24-7, 365. And a live, interactive update once a month. Membership of any or all of our 19 individual WhatsApp interactive premium groups. And my daily newsletter, live to your inbox every weekday. That's BizNews Premium. Tap on the link to subscribe.
Speaker 2The illusion of change. Lean up, commissions. That is the topic of today's discussion with political commentator Solly Nguyen.
Speaker 1Welcome, Solly. Hello, Chris. Always lovely to see you.
Speaker 2You too. There are increasing concerns that certain people will not appear before the McLangor Commission of Inquiry. There are also concerns, if they were to appear, what President Cyril Ramaphosa would do with the report once he gets it.
Speaker 1Yeah. It is very worrisome. You know, look, this commission, unlike all the other commissions that came before it, including those on the commission, has created a lot of excitement, but positive, you know, how to say, interest and trust of the public, that it would lead to something. It would lead to something. So it's important that the commission also, of course, it doesn't call people to testify under public pressure. If there's potential evidence that will help it achieve its mandate. But, irrespective of who that person must be, who must be called, it has to call those people. It cannot just, you know, give us peripheral evidence from the branches of a tree, if you want, while the core evidence that sits in the trunk of the tree is not called because there might be some political sensitivities around such evidence. I think it's really, really important that this commission realizes that one of the biggest favors and pains in Salavika is the dropped level of public confidence in the government, in public institutions. And it has a big role to play. It's almost like Siakodisi, in a very strange way, who can make us believe again, and the team, the box team, that we can still, as a united, diverse country, do amazing things despite the odds. This commission also must serve not only to say, this is what's been happening, but that there will be consequences for the stuff that's coming out there. And nobody's going to be spared simply because there might be political. Sensitivities are on that person.
Speaker 2How would you have liked President Cyril Ramaphosa to have handled the Sondo commission report?
Speaker 1Look, I think the institutions that we currently have are not helpful because in terms of section 84.2 of the constitution, the president appoints the commissions of inquiry and he determines the terms of reference thereof. But the problem is that when the president. Okay. The president. The president is a deployed member of the political party. In this case, he's a deployed member of the ANC. Now, if the evidence that ends up with the commission points to the party, the most powerful party, to the people to whom the report must be handed with recommendations, then I think the chairperson of the commission, in this case, Sondo, maybe he could have come up with a way to recommend. Of course, he can create structures that don't exist, but he could have made it. I think it's a very strong recommendation that maybe an independent multidisciplinary body that is led by an independent person gets given the responsibility to ensure that the reports, the recommendations are properly implemented, not selectively, not politically managed. But in the case that we have, it means that it goes to the president. And the president. We have to be supremely naive to think that the president doesn't go back to the. To the party that deployed him to the top leadership, say, of the ANC, and just look at who sits around the table in that party, to say, guys, here's a report. What do you do? What do we do about it? So, the things that we. How do we safeguard the institutions of the commission's integrity as whether this one or future commissions, if you continue in this. To ensure that if, just like Tudit Madonsena did, you know, Tudit said, look, wait a minute, what's his name, Zuma cannot be the person to name the chairperson of what became the Zunda commission, and he cannot be the one to determine the term of reverence. And the high court supported her, which was very good. Zunda should have taken a leave out of Tudit Madonsena and said, wait a minute, all the evidence that is being placed before me points to Zuma as the central figure, to the Guptas. To Zani Zuma and all of those people. We have not seen consequences. It's gone back to the political party that's responsible, that is at the center of the troubles that this country is facing. So, we need to have those conversations. We cannot have a republic and its institutions relying on the goodwill or the good health of the men and women in politics. We can't. We need to change something, strengthen the checks and balances, and ensure that when commissions are held, and especially given the money that gets invested in these commissions, the public is not just given entertainment. This is not another generations on TV, ha ha ha, did you see who did what? It should be done. What happens afterwards?
Speaker 2Which other commissions of failure stand out for you, Zoni?
Speaker 1Well, remember there was the Seriti commission on the arms commission, on the arms deal. I think there was a commission on what happened at ESCOM, for instance. So, these things, you end up with reverence. And then, you know, the corporations are being made in public that there are some powerful political figures who are benefiting from the corruption, but they never get named. So, it's all the small minions who get named and go, "Oh, we applaud, we applaud." Their stuff gets taken. And then, they come back to say, "Yeah, the SIU cannot act, by the way, without the so-called presidential decree," which is, in my view, nonsense. I think we should have the criminal justice system that doesn't require a politician. Say, you can go after that one, you can't go after that one, because it becomes seductive. If the needed investigation comes too close to the political figures involved, then it's not going to happen. Okay, so, it's very easy for these, in the current system, for the public to be thrown peanuts and be like, "Oh, yeah, yeah, yes, things are happening." But the key honchos get away with a lot of stuff because of political management, of the evidence that comes of the commissions. For instance, if you look at the current commission now, the name of Humwaide Maumela has been mentioned. It was mentioned by Kit Makala, he did say that he introduced him to the taxi-to-bus Jotham Sebi, and the whole stuff that happened with the Ede Te Misa hospital. So, surely, if this guy's name is mentioned, two things must happen: either he gets called to come and clear his name, one. Or two, the commission must say to South Africans, "Well, his name has been mentioned, but it's not material enough, the evidence placed before us is not material enough for us to be called." Because people are asking the question, "Why is this guy not being called?" You cannot, they can't just silently sweep it away and say, "But we've given you Sebiya, we've given you Makala, we've given you all these other names, but we're not giving you that one." Okay, because the suspicion that he goes to the president, okay, the president has said, "No, he's not looking." "Oh, he's not close to me, he's just a far relation of mine." We've seen pictures of them, they know each other at least, okay? I think the commission, and Malzanga, who is highly respected, must, for his own sake and for his own legacy, explain to South Africans why he's not calling this man. Oh, he must call him. But silence on this man is not good. My lemma was also mentioned, I think we have these conversations before, and I repeat, I don't think any commission should just, you know, call people because, just to please, to entertain the public, or under public pressure. But if there's sufficient evidence that individuals must be called to testify, they must be called to testify. And my last point on this is, there must be a clear mechanism of implementation. It must not go back to the same political bosses who are not too peripheral, if you want, to the stamp that gets placed in front of the commissions. It's not a waste of money, just a waste of money. We're just hearing, we get entertained, a lot of money, peripheral people get called in, but the core people, are not called in. Their statistics are not called in. It's not good.
Speaker 2And this week again, we saw the non-appearance of General Feroz Khan, the SACD Deputy Chief of Crime Intelligence. The first time because he was shot. The second time because a relative was assassinated. Not only is he desperate not to appear, but others are also desperate for him not to appear.
Speaker 1Yeah, yeah. It seems like his appearance is going to touch on a lot of seemingly powerful figures out there who are going to be exposed by. Look, he was shot the first time and it seems like he was really shot. He ended up in hospital. He had to be given the space to heal or to get to a sufficient level of having healed in order to come back. And now his uncle was killed. His uncle-in-law was killed a day or the night before. He was to appear again. But he had also disregarded a legal subpoena to appear before the commission. The commission had made all the arrangements for him to appear in camera for his own safety, for whatever reason. He disregarded that. So it seems like there's a balance that must be had between protecting his health and his safety, his life, but also ensuring that the law is not pissed upon because of these things. The Saladkin population, the public needs to hear what has happened. And this man and the commission has done everything to create conditions for him to appear and he didn't. So now here's a reason. There's a family bereavement, family-in-law bereavement, as it were. The commission still needs to come back to us and say, okay, here's a new date. We're creating the same conditions for him to be able to appear and testify in camera. But again, we need transparency. We need to know what's going on. We don't want to end up with, you know, testimony being given in camera and the public never knowing what really happened, the consequences or the report of it being politically managed. Saladkin needs to know what's going on. But we also need to know there will be consequences. So this guy cannot be allowed to get away. And whoever is linked to him, whoever might be fitting sense, you know, how to say, vulnerable because of what might come out of his mouth, that's not the problem. That shouldn't be. That's not the problem with the Saladkin public. We need to get to a point where we see that the law, the justice system really works irrespective of the rank and the identity of who is involved in messing things up.
Speaker 2Is it any wonder that the public feels that commissions are just a political trick, high-level political trick to play for time?
Speaker 1Yeah, look, if it were up to me, I wouldn't have commissions. I think what we need is this very strong, independent, well-functioning criminal justice system. We know that we haven't had that. If there is any suspected criminal activity, the justice system must go investigate and do everything that it must to extract, you know, whatever evidence there is to bring people to court, for them to be judged, convicted, if they are wrong or not, or set free if they are not. They are great for theater. They are great for, for, for, for entertainment, as it were. But I think that the best way to save, to use public money, you know, effectively, is to have an independent criminal justice system that goes against, towards everybody who's suspected of committing crime. Right now, especially in the current political setup, like I said earlier, really, we are all at the beck and call, or the system is at the beck and call of the political principles. It is not a good thing that the president is a decoyee, a messenger of a political party, especially if the political party becomes a problem. So we need to have a system where if we continue with, with, with, with coalitions and commissions rather, they get to report to a multidisciplinary body that is not controlled by any one political party. And if anyone has been named adversely in anything that came out in such commissions, they should automatically not be allowed to be part of deciding, you know, deciding what happens to the report that comes out of it. Right now, we keep doing things the same way over and over again and expect different outcomes. It's bad. Is it? Sorry. One, the stuff that came out of the, the Madelunga commission to, for which he must still account. Two, he's facing disciplinary hearing in the, in the, in his, you know, within his, um, employment system. The SA fears, uh, three, the, the, the, the now current charges that he's facing for, which is sitting in jail, uh, of with accusations, of course, there's, there's still to be tested that he sexually abused a minor groom chair. And you know, I, I don't know what's going on. I don't know what's going to happen, but this, the thing that we should worry about is that he's holding a very important position is okay. Still not yet this, uh, this dismissed yet. And like, can we still have to go into non hearings and, you know, but look in terms of the law, of course there must be evidence and his criminal could, you know, the allegations that are criminal, there must be clear evidence that he did what it must be tested and he must be convicted. But in terms of, of the internal disciplinary hearing, of course, this employer, the SAPS, uh, doesn't have to have the same test. If you want, his conduct is already unbecoming of somebody who, who, who occupies the position that he holds. We need to get to a point where there are consequences and where there are correct people are appointed to replace these people. And I think maybe we should also have a conversation about as a country about who gets to appoint the people and how can it all? Always be the public that appoints these people, but the politicians, the system, we should, we've had this system for 32 years, the current system. Okay. We have seen over the past 32 years, the weaknesses thereof. It's, it has proven over and over again to be vulnerable, to be repurposed, weakened and repurposed to serve the interests of criminals. We should have a conversation. Should we continue this way into the future? Okay. We can't say, yeah, this president is nice. He's cool or she's cool. He should, do things the right way. We can't rely on that. We should say what happens if this president who comes in cool, speaking good English, dressing nicely, someone you want to have suddenly become ghost rogue on the system on South Africa. How do we ensure that the system kicks them out or weakens them or takes the power away from them immediately? Let's go back to the case of Torema Doncella. What she did with Zuma was correct. We should have a system that entrenches that kind of thing. That says, well, Mr. President, you can't be the one who makes this decision because you're the problem. We're not there yet. We should get there very soon.
Speaker 2Thank you. That was Solly Nguyen, political commentator on BizNews with me, Christine. Thanks, Solly. It's a pleasure,
Speaker 1Chris. Always a pleasure.
Speaker 3Our portfolios, 24/7, 365, and a live, interactive update once a month. Let's get started. Solly Nguyen, political commentator on BizNews with me, Christine. Thanks, Solly. Thanks, Solly. Thanks, Solly. Thanks, Solly. Fast and free. Subscribe now.
PodcastTranscript AI