President Motlanthe has failed in his constitutional duties

The constitution of the Republic of South Africa makes no provision for election of a ceremonial president; but we have observed in the last few months that the country has no executive head of state. Since being sworn into office after the unceremonious departure of Thabo Mbeki, Kgalema Motlanthe has been pandering to the whims of puppeteers in Luthuli House. His purpose in government is not to lead as head of state but to hold fort for the populist leader of the ANC who believes his is a sacred right to lead the country. Some of his followers are convinced of their delusions about Jacob Zuma being the messiah, Jesus Christ himself.

President Motlanthe owes the nation an explanation if we are to be convinced that he is not a puppet of the ANC; that he observes the separation of party from state and his obligations to all citizens of this country as imposed upon him by the national constitution. There are numerous instances which support my view that Motlanthe has failed in his constitutional duties and has relinquished his responsibilities as head of state to his masters in Luthuli House.

After Judge Nicholson passed the much disputed judgment on the legality of charges against Jacob Zuma, in the process making unsubstantiated and dangerous inferences about the political meddling by the executive in this case, Cabinet resolved to challenge this judgment, which effectively suggested it was guilty of criminal conduct. It is now in the media that the ANC has instructed and pressured Motlanthe to withdraw the decision taken by government under Mbeki to challenge the Nicholson judgment. According to the Sunday Times report the ANC National Working Committee (NWC) agreed that the government could not be part of Mbeki’s “personal crusade against Judge Nicholson’s judgment.”

Members of the NWC are Jacob Zuma, Gwede Mantashe, Baleka Mbete, Kgalema Motlanthe, Thandi Modise and Matthew Phosa; the infamous six that has caused all the trouble for the ANC and the country. It is shocking that Motlanthe is reported to have agreed to look into the process to remove government from the appeal process. Why is Motlanthe allowing the NWC to make decisions on behalf of Cabinet if he is in charge of that Cabinet? It is a dereliction of his constitutional duty on part of Motlanthe to allow government to be abused by the ANC in pursuit of personal vendetta against the former president, Thabo Mbeki. It would appear that the decision by Mbeki to exercise his constitutional right to appeal the Nicholson judgment in order to clear his name and that of his Cabinet has irked the vindictive group of six at Luthuli House.

According to the Sunday Times, “In Mbeki’s supporting affidavit, Chikane, acting on behalf of the government, said he had met Motlanthe and new justice minister Enver Surty on October 10, where the decision to appeal against Judge Nicholson’s judgment was confirmed.” It is therefore worrying that the decision taken by head of state would be reversed by the ANC and that particular head of state would succumb to undue pressure to do so.

Not long ago the City Press reported that ANC was concerned about the increased coverage of Motlanthe by the SABC, who was portrayed “more presidential” than Jacob Zuma. In this instance the ANC, according to the SABC source, the national broadcaster should reduce coverage of Motlanthe in favour of Zuma in order to put out a better image of him. According to this reported SABC source, the ANC does not wish Zuma to be shown on television with Julius Malema; that he should be edited out. Decisions taken by the ANC are decisions which Motlanthe is part of; and it is pathetic to think that he would simply roll over and allow his office to be undermined in favour of improving the personal fortunes of Jacob Zuma.

One cannot help but conclude that the decision to “recall” Mbeki was in recognition of the fact that he would not have abandoned his constitutional obligations in order to enhance a tattered image of the president of the ANC; that the ANC needed to ensure it was able to pursue its questionable agenda unhindered by cabinet, which it could not influence in the manner it preferred.

Jacob Zuma in the last few days has been receiving a lot of media coverage making pronouncements on certain issues one would have expected the president of the country to make. On November 27 2008, Zuma condemned the terrorist attacks in Mumbai and appeared to speak on behalf of government when he said: “India and South Africa have a historic bond of friendship and solidarity. What happened in India also affects South Africans who have family and friends in the country … there can be no justification for such senseless violence. Our government will no doubt monitor the situation and advise us on the way forward.”

When Motlanthe was inaugurated, almost half the Cabinet had resigned following the Nicholson judgment that insinuated criminal intent on their part. The constitution confers powers on the president of the Republic to appoint cabinet ministers and their deputies. But Motlanthe, instead of exercising his constitutional prerogative of appointing cabinet ministers of his choice, left it to the ANC to fulfill his constitutional duty and impose their preferred individuals on him. The recent incident is the appointment of the deputy minister of finance, Nhlanhla “chairman” Nene, who according to reports was not Motlanthe’s preferred choice. His preferred choice was reported to be Enoch Godongwana, whom he overlooked because of pressure from left-wing elements who were unsettled by his close relationship with Trevor Manuel. Motlanthe has simply failed to lead!

There was some grandstanding on the part of the ANC before the SADC troika meeting, with Jacob Zuma calling for a hardline stance against Robert Mugabe, but soon after the meeting it was revealed that Motlanthe, chairperson of the ANC, remained quiet for the larger part of the discussion. Shocking that a false expectation was created suggesting that South Africa would adopt a much tougher stance against the octogenarian dictator; but nothing different in approach has been adopted. As chairperson of the SADC, why has the regional body not taken tougher action against Robert Mugabe when he has violated protocols of the SADC, which Zimbabwe is signatory to?

If Motlanthe continues on the ceremonial path he has elected, by elections in 2009 he would have lost all credibility. Certainly all the respect I had for him is slowly dwindling. Mr President please show us leadership!!!