Tapes and Presidents

Richard Nixon, America’s 37^th president, faced a similar conundrum to Jacob Zuma, democratic South Africa’s 4^th president.  They both preferred that the public not hear their tapes!

Of course the circumstances are quite different.  Nixon lost the presidency over his tapes, and it was the emergence of Zuma’s tapes that basically saved his run for the presidency in 2009.

Nixon’s tapes showed him trying to interfere with the FBI’s investigation of the Watergate break-in.  Of course they contained many conversations with other heads of state as well -  none of whom knew (officially) that they were being recorded!  So he could say that the tapes should not be released for national security reasons.  It’s not much different from Zuma’s lawyer’s current excuse - that he is withholding them “on the basis of confidentiality”.

Another big difference is that when Nixon’s fellow Republicans were confronted with the truth about his actions, they announced that they would vote to impeach him in Congress.  This caused Nixon to resign – before they could do so.  Meanwhile, Nixon had erased 18.5 minutes of his tapes.  This was seen as betrayal - even by his own party.

Whereas even Zuma supporters are still in the dark about why the charges against him were dropped by the National Prosecuting Authority just before his bid for re-election.  (Not really re-election… because he didn’t enter the presidency by winning an election.  It was rather by party appointment - replacing the ejected Thabo Mbeki).

In American democracy, it was transparency and the rule of law that toppled a president.  Whereas the people of South Africa are being denied transparency, while the president seeks yet another term in office!  It is pretty obvious that he does not want these tapes released before the leadership conference next month in Manaung.  Maybe not even before the next elections in 2014? 

Two sets of Zuma tapes

It is easy to lose track of the fact that the NPA’s decision to drop its prosecution of Zuma was based on intelligence that emerged in two stages…

First, Zuma and his attorney Michael Hulley came into possession of “spy tapes” – but they have never disclosed from what source.  So no one knows if the evidence was admissible, but once the NPA heard them, they made two contacts looking for “legal” corroboration:

• The National Intelligence Agency (NIA)
• SA Police Force’s crime intelligence division

It is suspected that the second source may have been the one that “leaked” the spy tapes to Zuma and his lawyer in the first place – they have never said.

Meanwhile the NIA responded to the NPA that it had intercepted corroborating intelligence, while investigating another case.  Mpshe of the NPA explained:

“NIA indicated that it was able to share these legally with the NPA for the purposes of the investigation and for reaching a decision in this matter.  Thus the NPA was able to make transcripts of the relevant portions of the recordings for this purpose and NIA has declassified these transcripts as they are not relevant to its own investigation.”

The key phrase is “the relevant portions”.  The tapes were not declassified – only transcripts were… and only of “relevant portions”.  The rest remains in the dark – and you can bet that it’s a LOT more that Nixon’s 18.5-minute black-out!

During his press briefing, Mpshe confirmed that the withdrawal of charges against Zuma had nothing to do with the merits of the case or the fairness of the trial.

The Loyal Opposition has been pushing for full disclosure.  But the NPA felt obliged to show Zuma’s lawyer Hulley a full transcript first, in case he had any objection to it being disclosed to the DA.  Guess what?  Hulley has objected and says that Zuma will go to court to prevent the DA from having access – although these are not even the tapes that were leaked to him in the first place!  They are the second set that emerged later, after the NPA went scrounging around for a “legal” version of what they had heard on tapes from an undisclosed source.

Triumphalists vs. Constitutionalists

I cannot think of a better example of this new drum that C4L is beating!

There are Constitutionalists in all parties – including the ANC.  This is not about partisan politics.  There are those who champion transparency, the rule of law, non-racialism and accountability (even of presidents) to the Constitution.

There are also Triumphalists galore!  This does not break out along the usual fault lines of race – for example Zuma’s lawyer Michael Hulley is not black.  It is about who is in control – who is reaping the benefits - and about keeping it that way.  Transparency, the rule of law, non-racialism and accountability are basically inconveniences.

Just as we may sense revulsion at the prospect of McCarthy, Ngcuka, Mzi Khumalo and others discussing the timing of Zuma’s case - back in the days when president Mbeki had “released” his vice-president… it is equally  repulsive to see Mpshe, Hulley and Zuma shutting down the Loyal Opposition’s attempt to get what is in darkness out into the light.

History suggests that behaviours like these will boomerang.  Ask Richard Nixon!

Post-script

 

C4L finds itself embroiled in a similar fiasco.  In early 2012, we entered a Joint Venture, only to find that our co-hosts are Triumphalists par excellence.  The more C4L has to say about transparency, the Service Level Agreement, non-racialism or giving account - the more they try to marginalize us!  But in our view, performance is not enough, without integrity.