Moyane, Duduzane are the architects of their own dramas

One of the most insidious phenomenons in society is the conflation of legitimate pursuits of justice with the pursuits of self-interests by quasi-revolutionaries, often fuelled by their venal benefactors.

It would reflect badly on our democracy if an individual, political party or fringe formation succeed in having their narrow interests elevated above the national interest. However, in some instances, this absurdity seems entrenched.

Lawlessness, counternarratives and deceitful assertions are the weapons of choice for those facing accountability and justice. This tendency is then refracted in the minds of those who are under their spell.

In desperation, “whataboutism” has also become the defence strategy of apologists seeking to deflect attention away from those they sympathise with. Such a stratagem may yield some media attention, but it rarely sways judicial processes. It is plainly absurd.

For example, suspended SA Revenue Service (Sars) commissioner Tom Moyane is ensnared in disciplinary proceedings in which President Cyril Ramaphosa asserts a “deterioration in public confidence in the institution [Sars] and in public finances being compromised”.

Allegations levelled against Moyane include “profound lack of judgement”; misleading Parliament; acting irrationally; and “gross dereliction of duty”. In short, Ramaphosa has lost confidence in the individual tasked with managing the nation’s purse.

A damning affidavit, deposed by former Sars commissioner and erstwhile finance minister Pravin Gordhan, undergirds Ramaphosa’s allegations against Moyane.

Moyane contends the “apparent oddity” in that Ramaphosa has elected not to depose any affidavit himself, but relies on Moyane’s former boss and nemesis’ aversions.

Compounding Moyane’s woes are revelations of Sars’ complicity in allegations of state capture. Strangely, Moyane’s disciplinary proceedings run parallel to the commission of inquiry into tax administration and governance at Sars.

In fairness to Moyane, it would strain credulity to suggest that Ramaphosa, a complainant and initiator of both processes, couldn’t conceivably comprehend the potential crossover of crucial testimony between Moyane’s disciplinary hearings, an adversarial process, on the one hand, and the unfolding inquiry, an investigative process, on the other.

Nevertheless, Moyane needs to stop blaming “ulterior motives” and rebut damning testimonies.

Whatever the reason, the timing and haste with which the inquiry was initiated – while the disciplinary process was under way – is unhelpful.

Ramaphosa has wisely acceded to submissions made to him by Moyane’s legal team to consider suspending one of the processes, most likely the commission, until the conclusion of the disciplinary hearing, which is scheduled to wrap up much sooner.

Contrary to Moyane’s claims, this is not a sign that Ramaphosa has blinked, but a sign of wisdom and strength. It is inconceivable that Moyane will survive the axe.

However, therein could also lie the risk of the commission facing possible delays in the event that Moyane challenges any unfavourable outcomes in his disciplinary process.

The nexus between Moyane and his legal team’s political associations is well established. This seems to be part of a grand strategy to portray Moyane as a victim of implied Ramaphosa and Gordhan plots aimed at ejecting Moyane from Sars.

The Economic Freedom Fighters, whose chairperson Dali Mpofu heads Moyane’s legal team, has abandoned any pretence of disinterest in Moyane’s legal woes.

Meanwhile, Moyane has embarked on a tepid public relations exercise intended to deflect attention from the gravity of the charges he faces. Moyane’s apparent lack of shame is only matched by the apparent nonchalance and petulance he has displayed throughout. Moyane has reportedly rejected Ramaphosa’s offer to resign and spare further embarrassment and costs.

Another example involves former president Jacob Zuma’s son Duduzane, who is shuttling between two courts over corruption and culpable homicide charges.

Unsurprisingly, Duduzane’s woes have also attracted political opportunists in our body politic. These quasi-revolutionaries, under the spell of the lunatic Black First Land First (BLF), use any tactics to subvert democratic processes and the pursuit of justice.

The BLF claims to be a vanguard for the downtrodden and opposed to a chimerical “white monopoly capital”.

Zuma junior is accused of stealing from the poor in cahoots with the Guptas and of causing the death of poor black women. The irony of Duduzane briefing white lawyers to defend him seems completely lost on the BLF.

A double dose of irony is that the BLF castigates white supremacist organisation AfriForum for reaching out to the poor black families of the women allegedly killed by Duduzane’s Formula 1 driving tendencies.

Most of these incendiary theatrics are diversions intended to portray politically exposed culprits of malfeasance and general wrongdoing as victims of hidden forces and political subterfuge.

Let us ensure public attention is not deflected from the need for Moyane and Duduzane to account for their transgressions. They are the architects of their own drama, and each deserves his own karma.

One of the most insidious phenomena arising out of unfolding public discourses is the conflation of legitimate pursuits of justice, with the banality of the pursuit of self-interests by quasi revolutionaries in our midst, often fuelled by their venal benefactors.

It would not be a good reflection on our democratic order when an individual, political party or fringe formation succeeds in having their narrow interests elevated above national interests.

Sadly, in some instances, this absurdity seems all but entrenched.

Let me explain.

Lawlessness, counternarratives and mendacious assertions seem to be the weapons of choice by those facing accountability and justice. This phenomenon is refracted in the consciousness of those who are under its spell.

Yielding to apparent desperation, “whataboutism” has also become the defense strategy by apologists seeking to deflect attention away from those they sympathise with. Such stratagem may yield some media attention, but it hardly ever sways judicial processes. It is plain absurd.

Let us, for a moment, consider a duo of scenarios as I advance my argument.

In the first instance, suspended SA Revenue Service (SARS) commissioner Tom Moyane is ensnared in disciplinary proceedings in which President Cyril Ramaphosa asserts a “deterioration in public confidence in the institution [SARS] and in public finances being compromised.”

Allegations levelled against Moyane include “profound lack of judgement”; misleading Parliament; acting irrationally and “gross dereliction of duty”.

In short, Ramaphosa has lost confidence in the individual tasked with lording over the nation’s purse.

A damning affidavit, deposed by former SARS commissioner and erstwhile finance minister Pravin Gordhan, undergirds Ramaphosa’s allegations against Moyane.

Moyane contends the “apparent oddity” in that the complainant, Ramaphosa, has elected not to depose any affidavit himself, but relies on Moyane’s former boss and nemesis’ aversions.

Compounding Moyane’s woes are revelations of SARS’ complicity in allegations of state capture, with some of these allegations deposed under oath in unrelated matters.

Strangely, Moyane’s disciplinary proceedings run parallel to the unfolding judicial commission of inquiry into tax administration and governance by SARS, headed by retired judge Robert Nugent.

In fairness to Moyane, it would strain credulity to suggest that Ramaphosa, a complainant and initiator of both processes ensnaring Moyane, couldn’t conceivably comprehend potential crossover of crucial testimony between Moyane’s disciplinary hearings, an adversarial process on the one hand, and the unfolding inquiry, an investigative process on the other.

Nevertheless, Moyane needs to disabuse himself from blaming “ulterior motives” and rebut damning testimonies adduced at the commission and his disciplinary hearing.

Whilst it would be absurd to suggest political subterfuge by Ramaphosa is behind Moyane’s woes, the timing and haste with which the inquiry was initiated – while the disciplinary process was underway – is unhelpful. This doesn’t seem fair to Moyane though, nor does it advance the interests of justice.

Apropos, Ramaphosa has wisely acceded to submissions made to him by Moyane’s legal team to consider suspending one of the processes, most likely the commission, until the conclusion of the disciplinary hearing which is scheduled to wrap up much sooner.

Contrary to Moyane’s claims, this is not a sign that Ramaphosa has blinked, but a sign of wisdom and strength. Most legal pundits opine that it is inconceivable that Moyane will survive the axe.

However, therein could also lie the risk of the commission facing possible delays in the event Moyane were to challenge any unfavourable outcomes pursuant the disciplinary process.

Making a determination either way is a litmus test for Ramaphosa’s political resolve and dexterity.

Weary and clearly exasperated members of the fourth estate have castigated Moyane and his legal team for adopting what they deem to be a “Stanlingrad” defence strategy. Moyane’s legal team vehemently deny this assertion.

The nexus between Moyane and his legal team’s political associations is well established. This seems to be part of a grand strategy to portray Moyane as a victim of implied Ramaphosa and Gordhan’s Machiavellian ploys aimed at ejecting Moyane from SARS.

The Economic Freedom Fighters, whose chairperson advocate Dali Mpofu heads Moyane’s legal team, has abandoned any pretences of disinterest in Moyane’s legal onslaught. Last Thursday, the party issued a statement

Meanwhile, Moyane has embarked on a tepid public relations exercise intended to deflect attention on the gravity of the charges he faces, as he also elicits public sympathy – an absurd improbability!

Moyane’s apparent lack of shame is only matched by the apparent nonchalance and petulance he has displayed throughout. Moyane has reportedly rejected Ramaphosa’s offer to resign with full emoluments, and thus spare himself and the public further embarrassment and costs.

The second instance involves former president Jacob Zuma’s son, Duduzane, who currently shuttles between two courts over corruption and culpable homicide charges.

Undoubtedly mimicking his moral exemplar dad, Duduzane’s woes have also attracted political opportunists and sojourners in our body politic.

These quasi revolutionaries, under the spell of the lunatic Black First Land First (BLF), act like mutating genes that show up in both covert and overt tactics intended to subvert democratic processes and the pursuit of justice, most acutely within the black community.

BLF claims to be a vanguard for the downtrodden and opposed to a chimerical “white monopoly capital”.

Zuma junior is accused of stealing from the poor in cahoots with the Guptas, as well as death of poor black females. The irony of Duduzane briefing white lawyers to defend him seems completely lost to BLF.

A double dose of irony is that BLF castigates AfriForum, a white supremacist organisation, for reaching out to the poor families of the casualties of Duduzane’s Formula1 driving tendencies on public road.

BLF’s misplaced hysteria and revolutionary voyeurism would be incomplete without customary invectives aimed at the Oppenheimers and the Ruperts.

Most of these incendiary theatrics are plain diversions intended to portray politically exposed culprits of malfeasance and general wrongdoing as victims of chimerical forces and political subterfuge.

Scrounging around for “procedural unfairness” and bias – were none exists – doesn’t serve public interests, nor does it advance the pursuit of justice by victims Moyane and Duduzane’s misdeeds.

Public attention will never be deflected away from the need for Moyane and Duduzane to account for their transgressions.

Moyane and Duduzane are the architects of their own drama, and each deserves his own karma.

TALK TO US

Are Moyane and Duduzane’s deflection tactics working? SMS us on 35697 using the keyword DRAMA and tell us what you think. Please include your name and province. SMSes cost R1.50