An open letter to Zuma

Mr President, sir. The country is in panic mode as speculation grows that you are about to invoke the prerogative powers and responsibilities vested in you by the Constitution (84,2J) by virtue of you being head of state — your power to pardon. At the root of the rumours is the recent meeting you had with Mr Eugene de Kock at his jail cell as well as the recent confirmation from your office that Mr Schabir Shaik has indeed applied for your pardon.

Now, let me put my cards on the table. I do not believe the rumours. The “evidence” being presented in support of the suggestion that you are about to pardon these gentlemen is rather flimsy and thin. Visiting De Kock is no sin. Nor is Mr Shaik barred from applying for presidential pardon. There is something sick about those who seem to derive pleasure merely in the suffering of Mr Shaik. But until you, Mr President, state your intentions or make the announcement yourself, I shall believe in your “innocence” and your wisdom as far as this matter is concerned. For that reason, I have defended the integrity, honour, responsibilities and rights of your office at coffee shops, in shebeens, at lectures, in newspaper columns, on air, on the ground and in the blogosphere. Indeed, the only good thing to have come out of the rumours is the debate that has been taking place. My defence of the prerogative powers of your office has been especially necessary because, in the panic mode in which we find ourselves regarding Shaik and De Kock, some have come to the conclusion that some of the section 84 powers of the president ought to be taken away, regulated by legislation and be made more “transparent”. I disagree vehemently with the attempts to temper with the responsibilities and powers of your office as indicated in the Constitution. The wisdom on which these constitutional provisions are built is sound and enduring — having been tested over hundreds of years in dozens of constitutions in the world.

All of these aside, I actually believe in your wisdom and your ubuntu, Mr Jacob Zuma, and I am not alone in this. There are millions of South Africans who do the same and more.

Nor do I believe, Honourable President that you would include either Shaik or De Kock in your file of “Possible Pardons”. You see, some believe that the confirmations and denials coming from your office are all calculated to gauge the “national temperature” on these matters and in that way “prepare” the nation for a strategically timed announcement of pardons for Shaik and De Kock. Talking about strategy, it is also feared and therefore alleged — quite astonishingly — that your advisers have calculated that while the pardoning of Shaik would be welcome in one half of the nation, the pardoning of De Kock would be welcome in the other half of the nation, thus balancing out the national sentiment. This suggestion is preposterous and I am horrified that the rumour-mongers have tried to link it to your office and your advisers.

I realise that given the strong sentiment among some of your (legal) advisers that the charges mounted by the NPA against you for over five years were trumped up, it is possible for the same advisers to suggest that Mr Shaik was merely a victim of a larger conspiracy against you. To the extent that there may be truth in the conspiracy theory, it is possible that at some level or another, Mr Shaik was a “victim” — aren’t we all? But victim is not all that Mr Shaik was. He has been convicted of fraud, not for being a victim of fraud but for being an agent of fraud. It is crucial Mr President that, in the same way that your detractors must distinguish between Mr Jacob Zuma the private citizen and Mr Jacob Zuma the state president, you too must clearly distinguish between your erstwhile role as friend and financial-advisee of Mr Shaik and your current role as state president of our beloved country. The very possibility that some may doubt your objectivity in granting a pardon to Mr Shaik should be reason enough for you to leave the matter of presidential pardons for Shaik to your successor and his/her successors. Mr President, you are a wise man. You have vast experience in leadership under the most difficult situations. You know that sometimes wisdom lies not in the use of available power but in the strategic refusal to use power just because it is available. On the matter of a possible presidential pardon for Mr Shaik, I urge you, nay; I know that you will choose the path of wisdom. It will not be you who grants that pardon for Mr Shaik. Not because you cannot, (of course you can) but because you know that it would be most unwise to do so.

The former colleagues of Mr De Kock speak of a psychopathic man to whom they (not the media) gave the name “prime evil”. They call him a “killing machine”. One moment he could be a gentleman and the next moment he could explode into a murderous rage, they say. I have listened to all the rational arguments as to the possible reasons why De Kock may or should be pardoned. The TRC provided the platform for the most eloquent legal and political arguments in favour of amnesty and pardon for De Kock. While he was able to get amnesty for some of his crimes, even the TRC could not grant him amnesty for others. The TRC enabled Mr De Kock to meet with some of the widows of some of the men he killed — at his request. Almost all of them responded positively to his plea for forgiveness.

But the most eloquent advocate for the pardoning of Mr De Kock comes from an unlikely quarter, psychologist Prof Pumla Gobodo-Madikizela and former member of the TRC. We all know of her interviews with De Kock, especially her famed touching of his “leprous” killer hand. She, who has found it hard to forgive former president Mbeki for his HIV/Aids policies, has nevertheless been consistent in asking not only you, Mr President, but your predecessor to grant De Kock a presidential pardon. I urge you not to listen to her and her like. Not only is it too early for a presidential pardon to be granted to De Kock but the arguments in favour of his pardon are not persuasive. They say he was only a foot-soldier. This is an oversimplification of his role. But if he was a foot-soldier and the generals and political leaders are known, arrest them and let them go share a cell with him. They say he has shown remorse. Maybe. De Kock is no fool after all; he would know where and when to show remorse and to whom. For his show of remorse he has been forgiven by many including some of the widows who met with him. But that does not mean he must skip his jail term. They say that behind “die brille” (his other nickname to personify his coldness) there is a loving heart. Well, that loving heart allowed him to have a lovely “braai” with his friends straight after a murderous act. They say his crimes were politically motivated. But what are the politics of bludgeoning a captured and defenceless young man to death with a spade?

Mr President, I have written all of these things to you because I believe in the integrity of your office. There is no doubt in my mind, that in time, you will demonstrate your wisdom to all South Africans as they sure will soon see, that you will not grant presidential pardons to Eugene de Kock and Schabir Shaik. I write to you in the name of the millions of South Africans who believe in your office, Mr President. Sterkte!