Only faint support for a fair lady

The Public Protector Thuli Madonsela, has endured two years of mockery, insults, political isolation, attempts at intimidation, and now character assassination. Despite this week’s throat-clearings of support from government’s highest ranks, life is not likely to get better any time soon.

Sure, on the face of it things are looking up. After a torrid week the attempted smear of the Public Protector as a crook was exposed as baseless.

In response to widespread outrage, the President and the speaker of Parliament have now publicly expressed their support for the Office of the Public Protector and, indeed, all Chapter Nine institutions, set up to underpin democracy. And after two years of inexplicable stalling, it looks as if Madonsela might even get the security detail that her predecessors took for granted.

With her investigation into questionable police property leases — totalling R1.67-billion and pointing to corruption in the highest ranks — the soft-spoken Madonsela has dug sharp heels into some brawny ankles. Unfortunately, those ankles are attached to the hob-nailed boots of ruthless men who appear to be a law unto themselves.

Madonsela has good reason to be worried. The Daily Maverick columnist Chris Vick, who is well-connected in the African National Congress stratosphere, observes that South African politics is increasingly militarised and that it is “naïve not to expect a state that is under pressure to start adopting a more aggressive approach” against those who criticise it, like the Public Protector and the private media.

The police approach is, as he puts it, “if you mess with us, we’ll probably mess with you … by whatever means necessary”.

In March, following the first report on an “unlawful and irregular” R500-million property lease tracked to the door of Police Commissioner General Bheki Cele, two intelligence police officers barged into the protector’s offices demanding to know the source for their information. The cops, operating without warrants, had “traumatised” her staff, Madonsela told Parliament’s portfolio committee, to a generally hostile reception from its ANC members.

MP Jonas Sibanyoni, to the merriment among his ANC colleagues, explained that the protector’s staff could only feel traumatised if they were “thinking of the apartheid era, when [the] police instilled fear in people”. Advocate Patekile Holomisa, also an ANC MP, couldn’t understand why the committee had even been convened to hear Madonsela — “it was not as if the police came with guns blazing and kicking doors”.

Following a public outcry, however, the two officers were suspended, albeit it briefly. They are now back at work with no punitive action against them and no explanation as to who had authorised the illegal raid or why.

In similar vain, Zuma’s terse statement this week of “unwavering support” for chapter nine institutions did not extend to promising an investigation into who had initiated the smear campaign or why. It is unlikely coincidental that the campaign against Madonsela coincided with the scheduled release of the protector’s second report into irregular police leases.

Then there is the curious reluctance in an administration that generously extends government-funded VIP protection even to party luminaries to provide security for Madonsela. It is outrageous that for 18 months the police have been dragging their heels on whether their “security-risk” assessment indicated that she needs protection.

And that Parliament failed to intervene is an indication of how crushingly isolated the Public Protector stands. It is only now, in obvious response to media criticism, that the speaker, Max Sisulu, has arranged to meet with the police minister to discuss threats to Madonsela’s life and her request for bodyguards.

Her predecessor, Lawrence Mushwana, was deferential to the ANC and was rewarded for this by being made head of the South African Human Rights Commission. Five judges of the Supreme Court of Appeal in June unanimously set aside his Public Protector investigation into the Oilgate ANC-funding scandal for being “so scant as to be no investigation at all”.

While clearly not a man to offend anyone, Mushwana had security from day one. Madonsela, in contrast, talks truth to power and actually carries out to her constitutional duty to act without fear or favour.

Given the circumstances, should she get police-appointed “guards”, could she trust them?