The Special Browse Mole Report: The veiled truth within

When the Special Browse Mole Report (the report) was initially leaked to Cosatu, those implicated in clandestine activities to undermine the rule of law and overthrow the government swiftly moved to discredit the origins of the report and attempted to render its contents invalid. The SACP secretary-general, Blade Nzimande, addressed a letter of complaint to the chairperson of the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence (JSCI) as the SACP believed the detail and nature of the report could be politically explosive and also have the potential to create intense, acrimonious and divisive political conflict.

The report alleged that Nzimande facilitated a meeting between Jacob Zuma and the Libyans; a meeting where $5 million was exchanged in order to mobilise mass support at street level against the status quo in SA and in support of Zuma’s presidential campaign. These are serious allegations of criminal disloyalty to one’s country. It is not unsurprising that Nzimande and the SACP moved with such haste to quash the report.

The investigation by the JSCI, chaired by Siyabonga Cwele, who is now the minister of intelligence, did not address the veracity of allegations contained in the report but rather dealt with the source(s) and compilers of the report, including their intentions and the relevant networks. The terms of reference issued by the then president, Thabo Mbeki, to the directors general of the National Security Council appear to have been deliberately not intended to investigate the allegations.

The JSCI concluded that the report was the dubious work of apartheid information peddlers who were driven by the need to create division within the ruling party; as though there were no existing divisions within the ruling party. The director-general in the Presidency, Frank Chikane, dismissed the report as the product of a campaign to destabilise South Africa and the region. It appears there has been a concerted effort by the authorities to side-step dealing with the allegations made by these so-called “information peddlers”, who remain nameless in the JSCI report to parliament.

It is important we interrogate some aspects of the report to establish if there might be any truth to the allegations made. The questions we need to ask is why Angola and Libya would want to fund and support the Zuma presidency?

Colonel Moammar Gadaffi has had an ambitious and grandiose vision for Africa — the fulfilment of Kwame Nkrumah’s dream of the United States of Africa. Gadaffi envisions Africa having a single military force, a single currency and a single passport and perhaps a “capital city”, his birthplace, the desert city of Sirte. He has perfected cheque-book diplomacy in his dealings with African leaders and utilises it effectively to serve his own narcissistic interests. He recently convened a gathering of more than 200 desperate and corruptible African kings and traditional leaders in Benghazi where they crowned him Africa’s king of kings. His next mission was to head to the AU Summit in Ethiopia, where he was elected chairperson in the final push towards becoming the grand ruler of Africa.

Gadaffi is well aware that his plan for Africa has not received much continental support as evident in the Accra Declaration, especially not from South Africa which is seen as the economic powerhouse of the continent. In the Accra Declaration, African political leaders decided how to proceed with political and economic integration and though some African heads of state agree that integration is in Africa’s best interest, as muted by “His Royal Majesty”, the source of discontent emanates from the approach preferred in realising this grand plan.

South Africa, along with other countries, suggested that the formation of the United States of Africa follow a bottom-up approach, while Libya and those heads of state in Gadaffi’s pocket prefer a top-down approach. To Gadaffi’s disfavour, the AU Summit in Ghana decided unanimously to support “building the House of Africa from its foundation upwards, constructing one floor at a time”. Former president Mbeki said that “the entire process must be people-driven and not leader-driven. It must be the voice of the masses that determine Africa’s ultimate destiny”. It is not a declaration that Gadaffi would have taken kindly to.

When he was elected chairperson of the AU, “His Royal Majesty” reiterated the urgency with which work towards achieving this United States of Africa should commence. In order to realise this ideal, Gadaffi needs on his side corruptible leaders who can easily be seduced by petro-dollars. Colonial masters were skilful in courting such corruptible characters who would be installed as leaders that would be manipulated to serve the interests of the West.

Patrice Lumumba was replaced by a corrupt colonel, Joseph-Desire Mobutu (later known as Mobutu Sese-Seko). He ruled Zaire (formerly the Congo and later known as the Democratic Republic of Congo) for more than 30 years, safely under the protection of the US and Belgium, countries which raped Zaire of its mineral resources, particularly uranium, a key ingredient in the production of nuclear weapons.

Zaire at the time produced 50% of the world’s uranium supply, unsurprisingly, most of which went to the US. The colonial powers had taken it upon themselves to eliminate, by any method, any African nationalist (mostly considered communist) whose purpose was to liberate Africa from the clutches of colonial influence and free African people from degrading conditions.

It does not defy logic that Gadaffi would want South Africa on his side in order to pursue his narcissistic agenda. It is clear from the Accra Declaration that South Africa, under Mbeki, was not going to be courted by Gadaffi. Therefore, the allegations of him supporting and bankrolling Zuma’s presidency are not far-fetched. Zuma’s propensity to accept financial favours from old friends is well-documented and with Gadaffi’s penchant for buying influence it does not require rocket scientists to conclude of the possibility that the allegations contained in the report could be true.

With regard to Angola, it was alleged that President Jose Eduardo Dos Santos had in 2005 tasked his chief of intelligence services, General Fernando Miala, with identifying and reporting on ways Angola could support Zuma and further his presidential aspirations. It was in that year that the Cosatu general secretary, Zwelinzima Vavi, warned that any effort to stop Zuma from becoming the ANC’s next president would be like “trying to fight against the big wave of a tsunami”.

According to the report: “There exist elements within the Security and Intelligence Services that appear to be considering the subversion of the apparatus of state in favour of the Zuma presidency.” The report also states that the SA intelligence services appear to be dangerously infiltrated by the Angolan agents. The report further alleges that Zuma had business interests in Angola, in particular oil concessions he received as favours for overriding a court order to secure the release of an Angolan TAG aircraft in 2005 that was grounded and impounded in South Africa.

More allegations contained in the report suggest that a meeting was held in early 2006 where a military coup was discussed together with representatives from the Great Lakes region, where Zuma had been a mediator. The disgruntled former chief of the military, Siphiwe Nyanda, is alleged to have been present at that meeting and a select group of former Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) leaders. Speaking in Lethabong in 2007, Zuma urged former MK members to be active at ANC branch level and on 16 December last year, the ANC, after many years, held a rally, addressed by Zuma, to celebrate the MK’s 47th anniversary.

It is important to examine why allegations of this nature could be levelled against Angola. The pre-eminence of South Africa as a regional superpower will not sit well with leaders who seek to usurp that position. The Angolan government has in recent years embarked on an aggressive diplomatic initiative across the Gulf of Guinea and other SADC states, Zimbabwe in particular, expressing its wish to be regarded as a regional power. Angola, whose economy has grown more than 24%, and has become Africa’s largest oil producer, has reason to be threatened by South Africa’s established influence in the region and across the continent. With corruption being a pervasive phenomenon in Angola, Mbeki’s push for clean governance throughout the continent must have unsettled long-serving kleptomaniacs.

A South Africa led by Zuma would serve the interests of countries such as Angola and Libya well. The fact that in March last year Zuma went on a four-day visit to Angola accompanied by Ayanda Dlodlo (general secretary of the MK Military Veterans’ Association), Ebrahim Ebrahim (chairperson of the ANC’s international affairs department) and Billy Masetlha (former director-general of the National Intelligence Agency [NIA]) and that they were chartered in Dos Santos’ private jet; that Mbeki was recalled and the fact that the charges against Zuma were dropped — necessitated by the miraculous existence of the so-called “conspiracy tapes” — certainly does add credence to claims contained in the report.

We are still in limbo as to how Zuma and his lawyers obtained state intelligence from the NIA. Having a former director of the NIA as his trusted lieutenant and alleged links to the Angolan intelligence services, anything is possible. The nation has further been denied answers as to why a coup was launched against Mbeki’s government seven months before his term ended.

Events that unfolded since the emergence of the Special Browse Mole Report have indeed proved to be intense, acrimonious and caused divisive political conflict as feared originally. The quashing of the report has left many questions unanswered and Zuma seems to believe that his ascendancy to the office of the president exonerates him from liability to the nation. He has numerous answers to provide if we are to hold him in confidence. Corruption allegations still hover above his head and we demand the truth behind all these allegations! Who do we trust if we cannot trust the president not to sell the country to the highest bidder?