WHO IS RUNNING SOUTH AFRICA?
Published on Published on December 25, 2016
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 Constitutional Court had this to say about our kleptocratic President.
Impeachment, a fall on the sword or treason charges would, in any sane society,
surely follow.
‘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
29
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‚ defend and 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 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 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.
30
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
warrant. The Bill, by contrast, introduces the requirement that searches must be
31
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."