WHO RULES
Who is running South Africa?
Civil Society and the Judiciary seem to be the last bulwarks against rampant kleptocracy in South Africa. Almost every Executive action or order has to be scrutinized to ensure that the best interest of our country, South Africa, is being served. The President of South Africa has been reproached by the highest court in the land in the most scathing and derogatory manner and yet he stills governs with impunity. In a country of fifty four million people he persists in running South Africa as if it is his and his crony’s personal fiefdom.
The Concourt had this to say about our kleptocratic President. Impeachment, a fall on the sword or treason charges would, in any sane society, would surely have followed.
‘There is no doubt that the judgment delivered major body blows to Zuma and the ANC in Parliament and sent shockwaves through the political stratosphere. Mogoeng could have been more delicate and nuanced, but he is the chief guardian of the Constitution. In an era of madness and confusion, he decided to swing the sharp and mighty sword of constitutionalism, accountability and the rule of law.
He wanted to chop the ugly head of impunity off its stiffened neck. And he did.
Mogoeng described what the President of our Republic ought to be and then spelt out how Zuma failed in his responsibilities.
“The President is the Head of State and Head of the National Executive. His is indeed the highest calling to the highest office in the land. He is the first citizen of this country and occupies a position indispensable for the effective governance of our democratic country. He is a constitutional being by design‚ a national pathfinder‚ the quintessential commander-in-chief of State affairs and the personification of this nation’s constitutional project.”
But Jacob Zuma is not that president.
“The President thus failed to uphold‚ to defend and to respect the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. This failure is manifest from the substantial disregard for the remedial action taken against him by the Public Protector in terms of her constitutional powers.” He might have been following wrong legal advice, Mogoeng said, ‘”but that does not detract from the illegality of his conduct”.
Go figure out how the hell, after that dressing down, he is still in power free to interfere with legislation that will curb money terrorism, money laundering, corruption, tax evasion, shifting the proceeds of ill-gotten gains offshore and selling the country to kleptocratic cohorts.
Are we a nation of fifty four million sub-servient cowards?
Fica referral sets the country back, says Registrar of Banks
Carol Paton
24 December 2016
Kuben Naidoo criticises President Jacob Zuma’s decision to send the bill, which will result in enhanced scrutiny of politicians and their family members, back to Parliament
Foreign banks could cancel their correspondent relationships with SA banks after President Jacob Zuma sent the Financial Intelligence Centre Amendment (FICA) Bill back to Parliament, says the Registrar of Banks Kuben Naidoo.
Naidoo and Reserve Bank governor Lesetja Kganyago on Thursday filed affidavits in the High Court in Pretoria in response to the application by Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan for a declaratory order confirming that he does not have the authority to intervene in relationships between banks and their clients.
The FICA bill will result in enhanced scrutiny of all politicians and their family members — described as politically influential people — when they transact through the banking system. It is part of SA’s international commitments to the multilateral Financial Action Task Force that the legislation be updated. The amendment was passed by Parliament in May.
Zuma was lobbied by the Progressive Professionals Forum, headed by Mzwanele Manyi, not to sign the Bill, on grounds that it was unconstitutional. He eventually sent the Bill back to Parliament on November 28 after sitting on it for more than six months.
In his affidavit, Naidoo says that the "referral sets the country back in fulfilling its international obligations to the Financial Action Task Force ... SA’s failure to bring the FIC Amendment Bill into operation will likely result in a negative statement from the FATF that our country’s framework for addressing money laundering and combating financing of terrorism does not meet international standards.
"The statement will require other FATF member countries to re-evaluate the risk of dealing with SA financial institutions given their non-adherence to international standards," he said.
The FATF is due to review SA’s progress in February.
Naidoo also implied that Zuma’s reasons for sending the bill back to Parliament were questionable as the amendment bill placed stricter limitations on warrantless searches than did the original Act passed in 2001. "Ironically, the current version of Fica provides that all inspections under section 45B of the Act will take place without a warratn. The Bill, by contrast, introduces the requirement that searches must be undertaken with a warrant and only in exceptional circumstances, will warrantless searches be permitted," reads the affidavit.
Kganyago’s affidavit provides details of repeated requests from Oakbay CE Nazeem Howa for intervention by the Reserve Bank to reverse the decision of the banks to close its accounts.
"Howa asked for my help ‘to end the deadly stranglehold’ that the banks had placed on Oakbay business. He implied that because the Reserve Bank has the ultimate responsibility to regulation the financial sector, it should intervene with the banks."
But, continues the affidavit: "Mr Howa is wrong. The Reserve Banks regulation of the financial sector does not extend to relationships between the banks and their clients."
DA seeks Zuma documents on Fica bill referral
Linda Ensor 12
December 2016
The DA has made a Promotion of Access to Information Act (Paia) application to the Presidency, asking for documents underpinning President Jacob Zuma’s decision to refer the Financial Intelligence Centre Amendment (Fica) Bill back to Parliament.
These would include all the legal opinions and other documents on which Zuma relied.
DA finance spokesman David Maynier lodged the application last week and its receipt by the Presidency has been confirmed. He said the documents would allow him to "properly understand the process that led to the suspicious delay" by Zuma in dealing with the bill, which was passed by Parliament in May.
It was only on November 28 that Zuma referred the bill back to Parliament despite repeated pleas for him to tackle it so that SA could comply with the international requirements of the Financial Action Task Force that was set up to combat money laundering and terrorism financing.
We are out of step with the democratic world. We were re-admitted into the international fold a short twenty two years ago. Since then we have mortgaged our South African identity and future to unpatriotic kleptocrats through the greed and stupidity of a former goat herder.
SA faces warning over Fica delays
Even a mild rebuke from the task force could have significant consequences for SA, say banking industry sources.
Linda Ensor
January 2017
SA will need to explain itself to the Financial Action Task Force plenary meeting in February and could be slapped with a warning for failing to sign into law amendments to the Financial Intelligence Centre Act, said Treasury deputy director-general Ismail Momoniat in an interview on Monday.
Even a mild rebuke from the task force could have significant consequences for SA, say banking industry sources, as it would raise concern among foreign regulators and banks about SA’s commitment to vigilant financial regulation. This in turn would have a ripple effect throughout the economy since correspondent relationships between banks are vital to effect payment for exports and imports.
The international task force, which monitors compliance with antiterrorism and money-laundering regulations, at its June meeting gave SA an extension from September to February to finalize the bill, failing which the organisation could issue a public statement against SA, Momoniat said.
The family that owns number one
15 December 2016
Like instalments of a national soap opera, the news flow about the Guptas’ influence over the president and public corporations held the country agog. But signs are the Zupta chapter is coming to an end
Poor Atul Gupta. He is the ingratiating one of the three Gupta brothers. He is the good cop. He was the guy who had to do all the apologizing to the nation after the Guptas had, with President Jacob Zuma’s covert approval, landed a party of wedding guests at an SA Air Force base, Waterkloof, near Pretoria in 2013.
On Sunday, the Sunday Times published its annual rich list which this year showed that Atul is the richest black man in SA. It is the last thing he needs right now, what with him and his family accused of looting the state, with Zuma’s active assistance. To make it worse, it is almost certainly not true.
The Rich List merely calculates the value of shares that individuals own on the JSE and the listed Gupta Company, Oakbay, is probably worth only a fraction of its official market capitalization. It is barely traded and the share price is artificially maintained.
The brothers — Ajay, Atul and Rajesh Gupta – may have their reasons for holding the Oakbay price at around R20, but it isn’t clear (nothing about them is clear). But it could not possibly have been part of the plan to win the Sunday Times’s front-page-lead space at the weekend. The Guptas are in enough trouble already.
That is why the Financial Mail has selected them as winners in the politics category of its Newsmakers of the Year for 2016. It couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of people.
Basically, the Gupta story is well known. Atul arrived in SA at the dawn of our democracy. The myth is that he started small and, with his family, built up a business empire.
The reality is that the Guptas very quickly spotted the ease with which ANC leaders, newly in power but always short of cash, could be flattered and manipulated.
And it was former president Thabo Mbeki’s friend and gatekeeper, Essop Pahad, who first drew them into close contact with the ANC leadership. The Guptas were later to buy Pahad a house and started a monthly magazine for him to edit for his trouble.
They were quick to spot Zuma as a business asset and, to be fair to them; they backed him after Mbeki fired him as deputy president in 2005. They put their aircraft and their pilots at Zuma’s disposal so he could get around the country easily and discreetly. They would have played a big part in the Zuma campaign to wrest the leadership of the ANC from Mbeki in Polokwane in 2007.
They put their arms around Zuma and have never really let go. They employed two of his children and one of his wives. They started a national newspaper explicitly to support the ANC and Zuma and then did the same again with a TV channel. On one now-infamous state visit Zuma paid to India, the Guptas literally ran the show, ushering Zuma away from official functions to meet Gupta associates and potential business partners.
They own Jacob Zuma to this day and it is a significant political achievement.
Obviously it must be costing them money but we don’t know how much or how it is paid. However, as Zuma and the Guptas are put under pressure, details of their business and political web have begun to emerge.
They have used their political leverage in two ways. One is direct — they make acquisitions using funds made available to them by state-owned institutions. Both the Industrial Development Corp and Eskom have advanced the Guptas money to buy mining assets.
The second method is more subtle. Directly through their ownership of Zuma, they are able to influence — in fact, to dictate — the composition of the boards of directors of major state firms. Eskom is one. Transnet, Denel and Broadband Infraco are others. What happens is that the ministers of public enterprises are instructed, either directly by the Guptas or by Zuma, to make certain appointments, and they have done this.
Most often, their nominees are involved in the board subcommittees of procurement. This way they are either able to sell laptop computers to, say, Eskom, and, as investigative journalists have recently revealed, are also able to "secure" contracts for certain suppliers to, in one case, Transnet, for a handsome commission which is dressed up and laundered through the Gupta companies before making its way out of SA.
It is a disgrace but the good news is that the Gupta/Zuma years are coming to an end.
It is impossible to say how much money the family has made in SA and impossible to know what they have done with it. A new R400m home in Dubai is one clue. But a net is closing around them that they will not easily escape, even if they now spend a lot of time outside SA. Money laundering is under pressure from the world’s major governments and any ill-gotten gains here will be found and frozen.
In addition, they have seriously damaged Zuma, their prize possession, by crassly trying to make cabinet appointments themselves. Some, like mineral resources minister Mosebenzi Zwane and co-operative governance & traditional affairs minister David Des van Rooyen, have agreed, but others, like deputy finance minister Mcebisi Jonas, have blown the whistle on them.
The Guptas are impervious to public scorn but Zuma isn’t. He will have to take responsibility for what he has done, but it is clear the Guptas have tricked him into trusting them. Zuma genuinely thinks they are legitimate businessmen.
Part of the net is straight compliance. The big SA banks have closed Gupta accounts and instead of taking them to court, the Guptas are trying to get Zuma to do their dirty work for them. So Zuma is threatening a public inquiry. Unless the "inquiry" is to be somehow fixed in advance, the Guptas and their associates could not withstand any genuine examination of their years in SA.
National treasury, the object of serious Gupta attention, has released a list of reportable Gupta transactions worth more than R6bn. They may all be legitimate and the fact that they were reported does not make them illegal, but the last thing the Zuptas want is any more digging.
The former public protector, Thuli Madonsela, in her final weeks in office turned in a report on this state capture by the Guptas. Focusing on the way Zuma had, at the Guptas’ behest, marshalled his minerals minister to harass the owner of a big Eskom-linked coal mine off the property so the Guptas (in partnership with Zuma’s son) could buy it, and then the way Eskom bent over backwards to ensure the Guptas could raise the funds to secure a change of control in the final hours, Madonsela claimed the scalp of Eskom CEO Brian Molefe.
She reported a long chain of phone calls between Molefe and Ajay Gupta. The Eskom board is anyway packed with Gupta proxies but the depth of the Molefe link was shocking. Molefe resigned soon after the report was published.
As Zuma enters his final year as ANC president, the true source of his political clout, the Zupta chain of command and the web of influence and graft it supports, will quickly fray: 2017 will be about who succeeds him at the December party elective conference in Kimberley. There are only three candidates with a real chance: Zuma’s choice, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma (his ex-wife); deputy president Cyril Ramaphosa; and ANC treasurer-general Zweli Mkhize.
None has anything to offer the Guptas. There may have to be deals struck with local rent-seekers but any association with the Guptas would be fatal. So the Guptas will be gone soon, to Dubai. Of course, if the opposition wrestles the ANC down to below 50% of the national vote in 2019, things could change dramatically.
The Guptas might even be back but that would be because a new SA government had successfully extradited them and would be putting them on trial.
Corruption and the Decline of Rome
‘To Roman moralists the empire was always in decline, ever since some imagined state of republican virtues in the dim past. It is small wonder that most modern historians have shunned as hopelessly misleading the whole vague notion of 'moral decline'. But MacMullen, looking steadily into this blind zone and assembling plenty of evidence, has traced a neglected but very influential process in the political and social changes that eventually permitted the dismemberment of the Western empire. This is an important book which will initiate a long debate.
His thesis is that a sea-change occurred in the dominant ethic of government and civil life. The earlier Principate operated not through impersonal administration, but rather through favour, patronage, recognised ties of family, kinship, class, city and guild membership, and so on. This network of mutual obligations was stable and pervasive enough to mesh with government in managing, more or less effectively, the huge empire: that is, providing for basic security, rule of law and the conditions of economic livelihood.
Bribery and abuses always occurred, of course. But by the fourth and fifth centuries they had become the norm: no longer abuses of a system, but an alternative system in itself. The cash nexus overrode all other ties. Everything was bought and sold: public office including army commands and bishoprics, judges' verdicts, tax assessments, access to authority on every level, and particularly the emperor. The traditional web of obligations became a marketplace of power, ruled only by naked self-interest.
Government's operation was permanently, massively distorted. Imperial authority was of course upheld, since it was precisely the source of illicit gain. But its power was dissipated into thousands of private channels in a way that did not happen in the earlier empire. The very officials charged by emperors with investigating corruption would simply use their authority as hugely profitable protection rackets. Military commanders habitually avoided serious fighting, preferring armed extortion from civilians, embezzlement of army supplies, and the lucrative sale of exemptions from irksome duties all down the ranks. After all, they had to recoup the enormous sums they had borrowed to purchase their commands originally.
On the real size of the armies, MacMullen in not just skeptical but outright dismissive of even the 'paper' numbers – about half a million men – derived from the Notitia ("that dream book"). As well as being near-useless, the actual forces were a tiny fraction of this. The great gulf between paper and reality is explained by a century or more of inflated rosters, by legions of dead men’s' pay and rations.
What is new in MacMullen's argument is not the existence of this corruption but its sheer scale and long-term global effects. Just how important a cause was this process in bringing things to the deplorable state they had visibly reached by the time of Honorius and Stilicho? How did it interact with other known factors, including attempts to curb it?
There certainly were honest and energetic commanders, prefects and emperors, pace Ammianus, who knew of this debilitating venality only too well. Yet while we hear of plenty of individuals being sacked (and often executed), we rarely hear of whole military units being disbanded and hence deprived of valuable supplies.
How much of the military ineffectiveness was due to ghost legions still absorbing resources, and how much to the steady deterioration of the limitanei, the static border militia condemned to neglect and isolation by Constantine's apparently deliberate preference for defence of the throne, over defence of the frontiers?
If we accept the evidence that the total tax demands increased perhaps several-fold even after the already high levels of the Tetrarchy (when they had supported genuinely enlarged armies winning real victories on several frontiers simultaneously) then the later loss of real control must have amounted to virtual paralysis in many areas of the empire.
The official tax assessments were not arbitrary inventions, nor was their collection just random plunder. Legal warrant, however grossly abused, still counted: after all, the purely abstract units of tax liability, iuga and capita, were a commodity that was occasionally auctioned. But how were the assessments made, how many people calculated them, collected them, milked them and disbursed them, at what stages in the fiscal chain? The vastly elaborated fourth-century machinery of taxation and civil bureaucracy, however apparently necessary originally, may itself account for much of the eventual arteriosclerosis of government, even without the decay of the earlier service ethic.
Kerby Anderson
Introduction
One of the more popular Probe radio programs has been "Decline of a Nation." I would like to return to this important theme by summarizing the significant work by Jim Nelson Black in his book When Nations Die. When we look at three thousand years of history, we observe that civilizations rise but eventually fall and die. The history of the world is the history of nations that are conquered by other nations or collapse into anarchy.
Social Decay
In his book When Nations Die, Jim Nelson Black lists three aspects of decay: social decay, cultural decay, and moral decay. Three important trends demonstrate social decay. They are "the crisis of lawlessness," the "loss of economic discipline," and "rising bureaucracy."
History provides ample illustrations of the disastrous consequences of the collapse of law and order. "In ancient Greece, the first symptoms of disorder were a general loss of respect for tradition and the degradation of the young. Among the early symptoms was the decline of art and entertainment. The philosophers and pundits distorted the medium of communication. Rhetoric became combative and intolerant; intellectuals began to deride and attack all the traditional institutions of Hellenic society."
New thinkers in the society argued for "fundamental change" and called for giving the youth a "voice in society." Without traditional guidelines, the young men grew wild and undisciplined destroying the old order. Slowly Greece devolved into a disreputable and lawless nation. The Romans conquered Greece in 146 B.C. By placing everything under military authority, they were able to restore order and bring back the rule of law.
In a study of the French Revolution, José Ortega y Gasset noted that "Order is not pressure which is imposed on society from without, but an equilibrium which is set up from within." The Roman Empire, as well as other great civilizations, understood that discipline and custom were essential to stability.
A similar story can be found in ancient Egypt during the fourth century B.C. Lawlessness and violence crippled the economy, and the nation was in chaos. When Alexander the Great invaded the country in 333 B.C., his first task was to restore order and institute martial law (which he did in a ruthless manner). With the death of Alexander, Egypt returned to its old ways until the Roman Empire brought peace to the region through conquest and martial law.
Carthage was once called "the eternal rival of Rome" but its pre-eminence and impact waned as it "sank into debauchery and dissipation as a result of great wealth and luxury." Law and order were destroyed from within. Moreover, the rich young men of Carthage no longer wanted to serve in the military so they hired mercenaries to do their fighting. But when the army came into fierce conflict with Rome and other adversaries, the mercenaries ran and left the nation defenceless. Carthage fell to Rome in 146 B.C., and the first act of the Roman legions was to restore law and order.
In these and many other examples, social decay led to the decline and fall of a great civilization. If we are to prevent a repeat of history, then we must learn from these lessons of history.
Cultural Decay
Four important trends demonstrate cultural decay. They are the "decline of education," the "weakening of cultural foundations," the "loss of respect for tradition," and the "increase in materialism."
In his study The Civilization of Rome, Donald Dudley says that no single cause, by itself, would have brought the empire to its knees. Instead, the fall came through "a number of weaknesses in Roman society; their effects may be variously estimated, but in combination they must have been largely responsible for the collapse."{5}
The cultural decay of a nation leads inexorably to social and cultural decline. And the patterns are similar from one civilization to another. Samuel Eisenstadt wondered if the similarities were apparent or if they were historical and legitimate. After studying the work of a half dozen historians, he concluded that the similarities were actual. He concluded that "despite the great difference in cultural background–most of these empires have shown similar characteristics, and that these characteristics provide the key to an understanding of the processes of their decline."
In describing the decadence of the Roman Republic, historian Polybius wrote that this preoccupation with luxury led to carnal indulgences. "For some young men indulged in affairs with boys, others in affairs with courtesans." They paid a talent (roughly a thousand dollars) for a boy bought for sexual pleasure and three hundred drachmas for a jar of caviar. "Marcus Cato was outraged by this and, in a speech to the people, complained that one might be quite convinced of the decline of the republic, when pretty boys cost more than fields and jars of caviar cost more than ploughmen."
As we look at our society today, we too find ourselves in a world where values have been inverted and where citizens pursue hedonistic pleasures without counting the cost. Our nation would be wise to learn the lessons of the past.
Moral Decay
Three important trends demonstrate moral decay. They are the "rise in immorality," the "decay of religious belief," and the "devaluing of human life."
The classic study of Roman civilization, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, written by English historian Edward Gibbon was published in that famous year of 1776. He "observed that the leaders of the empire gave into the vices of strangers, morals collapsed, laws became oppressive, and the abuse of power made the nation vulnerable to the barbarian hordes."
British historian Catherine Edwards demonstrated that our current examples of immorality are not a modern phenomenon. In her study of the "politics of immorality" in ancient Rome, she says that contraception, abortion, and exposure were common ways to prevent childbirth in Rome. Husbands refused to recognize any child they did not believe to be their own. "Until accepted by its father, a Roman baby did not, legally speaking, exist."
Life became cheap in the latter days of the Roman Empire. Burdensome regulation and taxes made manufacturing and trade unprofitable. Families were locked into hereditary trades and vocations allowing little if any vocational choice. Eventually, children were seen as a needless burden and abortion and infanticide became commonplace. In some cases, children were sold into slavery.
Moral Decay and Excess
Bryan Britton
October 2010
The Fall from Grace of Solomon, the Fall of the Roman Empire, the Fall of Apartheid and the Fall of the African National Party all owed their decline and eventual demise to excess. Pride begets all of the other six deadly sins starting with greed. That dreadful green eyed monster is central to all moral decay.
Every now and then, when ministers are challenged in Parliament, we hear them say: “Don’t tell me what I have done wrong, tell me what I should have done”. This is not a humble request for assistance but an arrogant challenge to the detractor not to criticize, but to contribute.
To that end here is an initial contribution.
King Solomon, son of King David, ruled Israel between 970 BC and 930 BC, and demo