The ANC’s conundrum on recalling Zuma

It started with fathering a child out of wedlock with Sonono Khoza, a daughter of his friend, Irvin Khoza, who is an Orlando Pirates Football Club and the Premier Soccer League (PSL) chairperson. Nevertheless, the ANC stood by him and he survived the scandal.

Three years later, he made the headlines when the Gupta family, which owns the TNA Media and do business with his son, Duduzane, landed a private plane at the Waterkloof Air Force Base, located in Pretoria. Again, the party stood by him and he survived the scandal, despite a public outcry. However, his support is dwindling. He does not have the groundswell support of the party anymore.

This became clear when he fired Nhlanhla Nene as finance minister last year and replaced him with a political nonentity, Des Van Rooyen. Most bizarrely, he transferred Van Rooyen to Cooperate Governance and Traditional Affairs Ministry three days later and then reappointed Pravin Gordhan as finance minister. The blunder has cost the country’s ailing economy the billions of Rands, sparking a call for the ANC to recall him. This has, thus far, fallen on deaf ears. The question, therefore, begs itself as to how long would the ANC ignore it?

Understandably, it finds itself in an unprecedented conundrum. It is not the same as when it recalled Thabo Mbeki in 2008. Mbeki had lost a presidential contest to Zuma. Therefore, it was easy to recall him without any hurdle. More so, given that Mbeki did not contest the decision, although it did not meet any of the constitutional thresholds.

From the country’s Constitutional perspective, the National Assembly (NA) can remove the President under two accounts. First, if he had violated the Constitution or the rule of law, is unable to perform his obligations, or had committed a serious misconduct, the NA can remove him. This, however, requires a two-thirds majority vote.

Second, the NA can remove the President on a motion of no confidence in him, which requires a fifty per cent votes. Mbeki did not violate the Constitution or the rule of law, was not unable to perform his obligations, or had committed a serious misconduct. Nor did any of the opposition table a motion of no confidence in him and met the required threshold. As I have alluded to that, by resigning, Mbeki made it easy for the ANC to recall him. If he had refused to resign and with the support of the ANC Members of Parliament (MPs) and the opposition parties, he could have stayed on as the President.

It is a different story with Zuma. He is the ANC President and still commands considerable support within the party and its tripartite allies, the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) and the South African Communist Party (SACP), despite his costlier blunders. In fact, some members’ careers depend on him. If he falls, they do. Therefore, they would do everything possible to ensure that he stays in power until his term ends in 2019, even if the situation dictates otherwise.

Others, such as a Basic Education Minister Angelina “Angie” Motshekga, have adopted a cautious approach to determine on which side of the scale their careers tilt. During Zuma’s first term, Motshekga supported him at all costs. She defended him, but not anymore. She is now focusing on her ministry to convince his successor that she is a fitting incumbent for the portfolio.

The ANC’s constitution, as amended and adopted at its fifty-third national congress, does not make provision to fire Zuma. Nor does it make provision for the party to convene a special congress if a need arises to fire him. It only makes provision in case of his death or permanent incapability, then his deputy president, Cyril Ramaphosa, would step in as the president until the party holds a national congress, which is the highest decision making body. This happens after every five years.

If the Constitutional Court (CC) makes adverse findings on whether Zuma had erred in law or deliberately defied a Public Protector Thulisile “Thuli” Madonsela’s remedial action to repay a portion of R246 million splurged on non-security upgrades at his private home, and he resigns as the State President, he stays on as the ANC’s one. This would create two centres of power and is the conundrum the ANC finds itself in. It does not have a constitutional provision to fire him.

On the other hand, keeping Zuma until his term ends would further cause the ANC an irredeemable reputational damage. The only person who has gotten the ANC into this conundrum and can help it to overcome it is none other than Zuma himself. As I propound in my book, The Thoughts of an Ordinary Citizen, and Bantubonke “Bantu” Holomisa, a United Democratic Movement (UDM) leader, has repeatedly called for; the ANC should seek a win-win solution on this conundrum. Ask Zuma to resign as both the ANC and the State President on the conditions that he does not repay the money splurged at his private home and drop his criminal case.

Keeping Zuma until 2019 would be costlier than the R246 million splurged at his private home and any criminal cases. He would not only leave us in a financially dire situation, same as the ones Greece and Zimbabwe are in, but also with a failed state. In the country’s best interests, we should close the Zuma chapter and move on.

This opinion piece was originally written and submitted by Molifi Tshabalala, author of the book, The Thoughts of an Ordinary Citizen.