Misjudgement of Shakespearean proportions

“Nothing in his life became him like the leaving it.” – Malcolm in Macbeth, Act 1, Scene 4

THOSE are the words of one of William Shakespeare’s Scottish noblemen, commenting on the death of the rebel Thane of Cawdor, whose title is given to Macbeth, which spurs his ambition to become king.

The eponymous play is exactly 400 years old next year, but it remains the Politics 101 primer of all time, with its depiction of unbridled ambition, dastardly deeds to achieve the highest office, and how high hopes are often dashed.

But the quote could just as easily refer to the death of Macbeth himself.

So, too, the departure of President Cyril Ramaphosa from South African political life. For Ramaphosa is already a dead man walking, whether he resigns this week, is ousted by his party in a fortnight, impeached by Parliament next year, or hangs in doggedly until the 2024 general election.

The last scenario is the least likely. The odds are that he will be the third ANC president in a row not to finish his term of office.

How different it could have been. After the trauma of the Zuma years, Ramaphosa was embraced by much of the public and most commentators for his most obvious quality: being a decent human being.

After a decade of state looting and brazenly corrupt governance, many were willing to take him at his word. He would root out corruption, punish the criminal comrades and attend to the dysfunction that existed in every sphere of state control.

He did nothing of sort. For all the stores of goodwill that were his to draw on, as well as his frequently proclaimed fine intentions, he has disappointed greatly. Even among his staunchest supporters, virtually the only argument proffered in defence of Ramaphosa is that his replacement is likely to be far, far worse.

They’re almost guaranteed to be right on this. At worst, the so-called Radical Economic Transformation (RET) forces – a scurvy collection of thieves and scumbags, driven not by social justice as the name might suggest, but the desire for one final turn at stripping the pantry – will take power.

At best, there will be some pallid clone of Ramaphosa, mouthing the same bland assurances, but tolerant of corruption, albeit reduced and less blatant.

The argument from Ramaphosa’s supporters has been that he is about to be brought down for what seems to be an inconsequential technicality – not reporting the theft three years ago of some R8 million of his own money from the sale of his own buffalo on his own Phala Phala game farm.

That is especially so since the RET faction behind the revelations has looted a vastly greater amount of R1.5trillion – taxpayer money – with apparent impunity.

However, the report of the Section 89 Independent Panel, appointed by Parliament and headed by former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo, puts a different complexion on the matter that is deeply unflattering of Ramaphosa.

Ultimately, the panel not only concluded that there is prima facie evidence of “serious violations” of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act and the Constitution of the Republic, but suggests, in effect, that the president is lying.

The finding essentially amounts to a recommendation that Ramaphosa face a hearing in Parliament that could lead to his removal if two-thirds of MPs vote against him.

In light of the panel’s shredding of Ramaphosa’s explanation of what happened at Phala Phala, it is difficult to imagine him submitting himself to the humiliation of the same process taking place in Parliament, before the entire nation.

There also lies ahead the hurdle of possible criminal charges, since the allegations are being investigated separately by the Hawks, the Reserve Bank, the Revenue Services, the Financial Intelligence Centre, the Department of Home Affairs, and the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance.

The sad truth of the Ramaphosa years is that he brashly promised to bring to justice the looters and plunderers of the previous administration. Instead, he only ensnared himself.

One question remains. What is the real story behind the Phala Phala money?

Columnist Jonny Steinberg flighted as credible an explanation as any as to why a billionaire president might be dabbling in murky money. He suggests that the money was part of Ramaphosa’s war chest to contest the ANC’s December leadership election.

If that’s true, Ramaphosa made a misjudgement of epic, Macbeth-like proportions.