PRESIDENT Jacob Zuma’s private compound in Nkandla will be one of the stories of this year’s election. It was already the story of 2013. But it is not the first time South Africa has experienced such outrage concerning presidential homes. In 2006, then-president Thabo Mbeki was also subject to intense media and political scrutiny when it was revealed that about R22m would be spent on security for his private home.
It is worth looking at the reactions of many who, today, are highly critical of every detail surrounding Nkandla and the reasoning behind the R200m spent there on security. Their position on Mbeki often stands in stark contrast with the principles involved.
Likewise, it is worth noting the united front the African National Congress (ANC) put up in defence of its president. That, too, contrasts with the divided set of responses that have come out of the party and the ruling alliance on Nkandla and Zuma.
Here is how that story unfolded.
The story about Mbeki’s retirement home in Houghton, Johannesburg, first broke in the September 2006 edition of Noseweek magazine, which claimed that the cost of providing security at the property had escalated to R22m and that the Department of Public Works was "overseeing" the whole development.
The story was written partly tongue-in-cheek and said, among other things, that the house’s special features "are like something out of a James Bond movie. Next door to Mbeki’s first floor office is the siege room, encased by steel shutters which drop down in the event of an attack. And, it is rumoured, in case things get too hot and evacuation is the only option, there’s to be a secret underground escape tunnel!"
Later it stated: "Overseeing everything is the Department of Public Works, which indicates that the tab for the small farmhouse will be picked up by the taxpayer. With an original budget of around R8m, the cost has now soared to an estimated R22m and still rising."
It noted that Motheo, a black economic empowerment construction group, was doing the building. The group had previously done work for the Gauteng provincial government.
The Democratic Alliance (DA) was the first to respond, releasing a statement at midday on Thursday August 31 that set out a detailed parliamentary question and urged the Presidency and the department to "respond to this report, deny it if it is untrue and urgently put the correct facts into the public domain".
The statement said: "If it is indeed true that the taxpayer is footing the bill for the president’s personal residence, then the public has a right to know how and why that money is being spent."
By Thursday afternoon the media began to run with the story. At this stage a number of people had tried to contact the Department of Public Works to try to establish the facts. A spokesperson for the department initially answered calls. However, 30 minutes later all calls to that spokesperson were diverted to a secretary who said she had been instructed to take messages.
By 3pm the press was starting to phone the DA and ask for the address of the residence. Both SABC radio news and television called with the same request. But it was Matheo that provided it to the DA, upon enquiry. The party announced it intended to visit the property, to "go and see for ourselves", which, it argued, was what Helen Suzman had always exhorted parliamentarians to do.
At about 5.30pm on Thursday evening, the party issued a media alert that it intended to visit the site the next day. The media went into something of a frenzy. The News24 group had a car in the area, as did SABC television, both driving around Houghton trying unsuccessfully to find the house. The DA did give the location to News24 as an exclusive, and its reporters got to the property and took a photograph that was published the next morning in the Beeld and Die Burger.
That, however, did not stop about 40 journalists arriving for the DA’s visit to the property on Friday morning. DA chief whip Douglas Gibson led the delegation. Everyone was there — both the SABC and e.tv news channels, a full print contingent, photographers and many radio stations. Security at the property said all parties were not allowed inside. The DA obliged and questioned the construction firm outside the house. At this point a neighbour invited the media to photograph the property from her residence. They climbed the walls and balustrades to get the pictures.
That day and the next, the story ran prominently on radio and television and in all the newspapers. The Weekender ran a big story and picture; so did the Citizen and Beeld. The Independent Group ran a front-and inside-page story on the issue. (The Saturday Star even commissioned a helicopter to take an aerial photo.)
By Sunday, however, the media had started to turn. The Government Communications and Information System (GCIS), the ANC and Zanele Mbeki all had released statements attacking the DA on Friday evening (none of these stated how much public money was being used) and the Sunday media began to go after the DA.
The ANC said: "(The ANC) condemns in the strongest possible terms the irresponsible and bizarre behaviour of DA officials who took journalists to a site in Johannesburg where the home is being built."
The South African Communist Party said: "We find this action extremely distasteful, opportunistic and smacks of racist poking into the privacy of the leadership of our country and movement."
Independent Democrats leader Patricia de Lille said: "Quite frankly, I couldn’t care less how much the house cost, as long as the money comes from the Mbekis. The provision of security for a retired head of state is their right."
Even the deputy president at the time, Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, weighed in, saying Gibson’s conduct "was indefensible and lacked all forms of common decency and (was) unbecoming of a senior parliamentarian". This political focus on Gibson seemed to result in the press conveniently forgetting their own role in the affair.
As a result, among other critical stories, the Sunday Times labelled Gibson its "mampara of the week", saying "little Dougie’s opportunism does call to mind certain phrases, including ‘half cocked’, ‘invasion of privacy’ and, oddly enough, ‘Napoleon’".
The next week, the media shifted their emphasis from the story and the money spent to gaze on the DA. The party was accused of cheap publicity, of invading privacy, of being racist, of failing to use the proper channels. Business Day wrote an editorial attacking the DA, as did The Citizen and many other papers. Op-ed and opinion pieces openly attacked the DA throughout the week.
The ANC, sensing an opportunity to hurt the official opposition, drove the whole thing home in Parliament. It called for a debate on the visit and Gibson’s censure, which it duly sanctioned, but before then, it used the first sitting of Parliament after the incident, on September 5, to round on the DA. It was a feeding frenzy, and the DA and Gibson were the chum.
An ANC caucus statement, leading into the sitting, had set the tone: "An attempt to invade the private residence and make false claims regarding the cost of the house in order to score cheap political points is an act of extreme political desperation and lunacy."
Here follow some of the comments made about the DA during that session:
• Public works minister Thoko Didiza: "I want to say, honourable members, without any equivocation that we, as members of the house, owe Mrs and Mr Mbeki an apology for the way in which one of us has acted."
• ANC MP Fezile Bhengu: "The callous action by the DA … reminds me of scavengers which, after gnawing every piece of rot on their way, turn to the living, mercilessly killing them and feast (sic) to satiate the genetic abnormality of being destructive."
• Bantu Holomisa, leader of the United Democratic Movement: "It shows a lack of ownership and pride in this country and its institutions as much as it shows a complete disregard for the right to privacy of every citizen."
• Kenneth Meshoe, leader of the African Christian Democratic Party: "This, we believe, is a disrespectful approach and it is unfortunate. It is the ACDP’s opinion that the DA should, at the very least, apologise to the president and his wife."
• Pan Africanist Congress MP Temba Godi: "On behalf of the PAC, I wish to join those who are sufficiently sane in condemning the conduct of the DA on this matter before the house. This whole tragic episode is the intention of besmirching the standing of the country’s president. We condemn this callous lack of respect for leaders of the liberation movement by remnants and defenders of the old order. We condemn! We rebuke! We censure!"
• Azapo MP Pandelani Nefolovhodwe: "Azapo believes that this is a racist attitude and there is no question of it not being a racist attitude. This attitude must be wiped off from our democracy and we must work tirelessly to reform some of the members of this Parliament."
In the following days, a slew of editorials and opinion pieces damned the DA. Pretoria News, Business Day, The Citizen, Natal Witness and the Daily Dispatch all climbed into the DA and Gibson:
• Vuyo Mvoko, a Business Day columnist, wrote: "There can be no doubt about Gibson’s intent. It was a cheap, self-serving and publicity-seeking stance."
• Zingisa Mkhuma, writing for the Saturday Star, asked, "I can’t help wondering: if the president were John Vorster, would Gibson have ever come close to the house, let alone bring the media in tow?"
• Vukani Mde, a political columnist for The Weekender, wrote: "Wednesday, September 6, marked the 40th anniversary of the killing of former apartheid prime minister Hendrik Verwoerd by Dimitri Tsafendas, a deranged parliamentary clerk. A few days before that anniversary, on Friday, September 1, South Africa was treated to the spectacle of thuggish, Verwoerdian-style politics by Douglas Gibson, a deranged parliamentarian."
• Suzman herself waded in, saying that "Gibson should have exhausted every avenue of parliamentary procedure to obtain the information he legitimately sought concerning the involvement of taxpayers’ money in the construction of the house. He also deliberately misinterpreted my advice to MPs to ‘see for themselves’."
When the debate on Gibson’s proposed censure did eventually arrive, on September 20, it followed a month of hostility towards the DA. Curiously, however, there still was no real clarity on the amount being spent or the justification for it. Nevertheless, the outrage was hyped up further still in the National Assembly. Only one or two parties were brave enough to support Gibson.
Here follows a selection of comments from that debate:
• Inkatha Freedom Party chief whip Koos van der Merwe: "There is no acceptable evidence to challenge Mr Gibson’s version. Therefore, we cannot find him guilty of the ANC’s emotional charges against him. Under these circumstances, we will not support the ANC motion."
• ANC MP Sylvia Sigcau: "Whilst the honourable Gibson denies that he spearheaded the invasion of the first family’s privacy, his tight-rope walk, just barely within letter of the law, was undeniable in other contravention of the spirit of the law."
• De Lille: "I think we have to respect her view and I agree with Helen Suzman that Douglas Gibson must apologise."
• ANC MP HP Maluleka: "The DA went on a wild, senseless, meaningless and absurd campaign to try to bring into the question the integrity of our president. You still have to tell us why you did this, Mr Gibson."
• Freedom Front Plus chief whip Connie Mulder: "I take it that you (ANC chief whip Mbulelo Goniwe) take the constitution seriously. You take it seriously. Fine, now let me quote to you. You used the following: ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of association and also the right to freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief and opinion.’ Do you think that Mr Gibson is also entitled to that? He is entitled to that. So he exercised exactly that and now you want to misuse your majority to censure for him for exactly that. You are not doing Parliament a favour."
• Minority Front MP RB Bhoola: "It can easily be equated to Satan’s vindictive attempts and the misleading to the fire of hell. Honourable Gibson might not have the horns, but he certainly has the knack. The MF will support the motion."
Goniwe closed proceedings by saying: "What the honourable Gibson did, he knows in his heart of hearts was incorrect, was bad judgment and was on the spur of the moment. Of course, for a party actually in this country, we can tell without fear of contradiction that there is no opposition here. The opposition here — the practical opposition in this country — is the media. That’s why he needs the media. Every time they’ll do anything to get a sound bite in the media; they’ll do anything to draw the attention of TV cameras. But this time around, I think, you have overstepped the boundaries."
Gibson was duly censured but refused to apologise. There was no further interrogation of the public money spent on Mbeki’s house.
- BDLive
No comments:
Post a Comment