Publications
Partners
About 29 days after then public protector Thuli Madonsela released the Nkandla report, Pravin Gordhan found himself standing in front of very inquisitive group of students in a round table debate at the University of Johannesburg main campus.
Like now, Gordhan was then fresh from a trip in Washington in the US, where he was, as usual, selling South Africa’s economic prospects to investors.
Safe to say that his return back to our shores at that time was not as abrupt as it happened on Monday, when President Jacob Zuma recalled him from the UK.
As expected, the first question Gordhan got from the UJ floor was from a brave young man who wanted a peek into Gordhan’s view on the Nkandla report.
I waited patiently for Gordhan’s reply, because whatever answer he gave was likely to turn my story into a candidate for tomorrow’s first page.
Nkandla was the subject on everybody’s lips at that time.
We waited, as several other students took turns to ask other questions on various issues.
When the time came for Gordhan to indulge us on how offended he was that state funds were abused with such impunity, he chose to castigate the young man for referring to the president as “Zuma”, instead of “President Zuma”.
You would have expected Gordhan to be upset about the mess that was Nkandla and, as the finance minister, speak firmly without mincing his words.
But he seemed more upset that Zuma was called “Zuma”.
Even so, a few other Sasco-types had already picked up on that issue – and harped on it – clearly in a bid to take the sting out of the Nkandla question.
So it may not have been necessary for Gordhan to focus on what was generally not contended – that we should all respect the office of the president as well as the incumbent regardless of how we felt about him.
However, in that way, Gordhan managed to avoid giving an answer on Nkandla, only saying that it was not his place to comment.
He brushed aside the elephant in the room and, like many in the ANC, continued like it was business as usual.
Fast-forward to April last year. There was Gordhan, again, sitting among a group of ANC members of Parliament who were about to vote against the motion by the Democratic Alliance to impeach Zuma.
The motion was defeated by 233 votes to 143.
Once again, an opportunity had presented itself for those in the ANC who aligned with “clean governance” to take a stand and they failed, including Gordhan.
Take note that there was already a precedent, where an ANC MP, Ben Turok, decided to defy his party when he did not agree with its position on the controversial Protection of State Information Bill.
It was therefore not unreasonable then, and even now, to expect Gordhan and his ilk in the ANC to take a principled stance when justice required them to do so.
Instead, they cowered.
These thoughts came back as I tried to come to terms with life after Gordhan because Zuma seems undeterred in his bid to axe him from the finance ministry.
What do we really stand to lose if Gordhan goes? After all, his commitment to principle, like many others in the ANC, seems selective, at best.
Recently, he did not even come down hard on the scrupulous bankers as evidence of currency manipulation emerged.
All he could do was promise to “stamp out” collusion wherever it happened. No sense that he was deeply aggrieved.
Can we reliably, at all times, count on Gordhan to take a stand when the country needs him? I am not convinced.
 |
| ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
