By: Clyde N.S. Ramalaine
Having in the previous installment engaged the two arms of the State imminent in the Executive and Judiciary as plausibly wholly captured as their actions attest, I now will move to contend the Legislature under Speaker Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula may qualify as captured too.
It is a given that the controversial Nqakula arrived in the Speaker’s office under strange circumstances of a cabinet reshuffle in the aftermath of the KwaZulu Natal, July 2021 unrests. She was promoted from a cabinet position when she dismally failed to do her rightful part to avert the crisis that ultimately saw 350 black lives destroyed. Instead of firing Mapisa-Nqakula, Bheki Cele, Zizi Kdowa, and Ayanda Dlodlo, except Cele received promotions. Nqakula had an active investigation against her that evaporated into thin air. Anyone who knows how Ramaphosa operates will tell you that to get you to do what he wants. He holds things against you to unleash investigations and even the NPA against you.
In her new position, she would continue the work started by her predecessor Thandi Modise, a royal swop with one aim to get Ramaphosa into a second term. Mapisa-Nqakula would be helpful to continue the impeachment of the Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane, her vital mission. It is a known fact that Mkhwebane continues to investigate serious allegations against Ramaphosa. He is seeking a means to offload her even though he is severely compromised, not in one instance but a number. To realize this objective, he needs the Legislature to deal with the Public Protector.
In our constitutional scheme, the Speaker is supposedly the custodian of good governance, which encompasses upholding high ethical standards. The Speaker represents an ideal public servant who is beyond reproach and is not supposed to be viewed as only representing the ruling party’s view. But partisan ANC state capture culture has severely compromised the current Speaker to a point where she has lost the essential quality of the Speaker, which is ‘impartiality’ and, at least, the appearance of being non-partisan in her actions. The Constitutional Court expressly informed Mapisa-Nqakula that the Public Protector was entitled to legal representation at all stages of the impeachment proceedings.
READ ALSO: Part 002: Ramaphosa’s Second Term, the Nexus of a captured SA State
Despite her knowledge that Advocate Mkhwebane was denied all these rights, the Speaker caved in to pressure by Ramaphosa to expedite the impeachment proceedings and to insist that Parliament forges ahead even though the Public Protector still had applications pending before the Courts, including the Constitutional Court. To paraphrase the Concourt, pointed out that the Constitution requires the Public Protector to be effective and identifies the need for her to be assisted and protected to create a climate conducive to independence, impartiality, dignity, and effectiveness shows just how potentially intrusive her investigative powers are and how deep the remedial powers are expected to cut. The climate conducive to the Public Protector’s independence, impartiality, dignity, and effectiveness was effectively destroyed when the Public Protector was subjected to personal and political attacks based on judicial decisions on matters still sub judice.
The Speaker deliberately flouted her obligation to assist and protect the Public Protector to ensure her dignity and effectiveness by ignoring Parliament’s own Rule 89, which prohibits members from “reflecting” on matters sub judice. The Public Protector was denuded of her dignity and effectiveness when an interloper whispered to the Speaker’s lawyers that the outcome of the Concourt application was already predetermined. It was, after all, unprecedented that a President could arrogate to himself the power to reshuffle a Speaker whom Parliament duly elected during a normal cabinet reshuffle.
For the first time, I hypothesize that South Africa attests full-blown state capture with Ramaphosa, Zondo, and Mapisa-Nqakula in their designated offices as representing the State in its three arms are captured.
Shall we accept that South Africa lives in a captured state for the first time?
– What are the implications for South Africa as a democratic society when its State, in all facets uniquely associated with its representative heads, defines a captured group?
– Is democracy not under threat by those at the helm of state representation? South Africans warrant asking these penetrating questions :
– Why are the political interest and ambitions of Ramaphosa confused with that of a nation?
– Why is his lust for a second term superseding the needs of the poor, the landless, and the economically disenfranchised?
– What are the ramifications of sacrificing the independence of the Legislature for the political interest of a politician?
– Why is the office of the Public Protector destroyed because of CR22 interest?
– Why is the Judiciary held hostage by a political operator who acts as the last line of defence for Ramaphosa’s interest?
– Is Ramaphosa or any other politician worth sacrificing our democracy? If so, why?
*Clyde N.S. Ramalaine
Political Analyst & Freelance Writer
