The Issues that the Public Protector of South Africa wanted the Commission to investigate

The first part of the Judicial on inquiry into allegations of State Capture was released on the fourth of January. Hidden on these pages are the heartbreak, loss of income, destruction of lives and the immense losses ordinary people suffered who were just trying to do their jobs. Some of who'll never recover from the continuous and devastating blows they suffered. And whose stories we'll never hear.

 I believe this is only  drop in the ocean of what has been happening and still is happening in my country, South Africa.

These are the issues that the previous Public Protector, Thuli Madonsela, highlighted and wanted to be investigated:

Judicial Commission of Inquiry into allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector including Organs of State Report: Part 1 Vol. 1: Chapter 1 – South African Airways and its Associated Companies Chairperson:Justice R.M.M. Zondo Acting Chief Justice of the Republic of South Africa

 (i) ABOUT THE COMMISSION

1. This Commission was established pursuant to the remedial action taken by the then Public Protector, Adv T Madonsela, in her “State of Capture” Report in October 2016. 

That Report arose from Phase 1 of an investigation she conducted concerning certain complaints she had received which included certain allegations of improper conduct on the part of the then President of the Republic of South Africa, Mr Jacob Zuma, and on the part of certain members of the Gupta family. 

The remedial action included that President Zuma should appoint a judicial Commission of Inquiry to be chaired by a Judge selected solely by the Chief Justice. 

2. After President Zuma had failed in his court application to have the Public Protector’s Report set aside, the High Court, Pretoria, ordered him to appoint the Commission within 30 days. In accordance with the Public Protector’s remedial action, he requested Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng to give him the name of a Judge who would chair the Commission. After obtaining my consent, the Chief Justice gave President Zuma my name and President Zuma announced the appointment of the Commission and my appointment as its Chair on 9 January 2018. The issues that the Public Protector wanted the Commission to investigate 

3. The Public Protector had conducted Phase 1 of the investigation but felt that Phase 2 required a judicial Commission of Inquiry. The issues that she identified as the issues that the Commission should investigate were set out in her “State of Capture” Report. They were: 

(ii) “Alleged breach of the Executive Member Ethics Act, 1998 

(a) Whether President Zuma improperly and in violation of the Executive Ethics Code, allowed members of the Gupta family and his son, to be involved in the process of removal and appointment of the Minister of Finance in December 2015; 

(b) Whether President Zuma improperly and in violation of the Executive Ethics Code, allowed members of the Gupta family and his son, to engage or be involved in the process of removal and appointing of various members of the Cabinet; 

(c) Whether President Zuma improperly and in violation of the Executive Ethics Code, allowed members of the Gupta family and his son, to be involved in the process of appointing members of Boards of Directors of SOEs; 

(d) Whether President Zuma has enabled or turned a blind eye, in violation of the Executive Ethics Code, to alleged corrupt practices by the Gupta family and his son in relation to allegedly linking appointments to quid pro quo conditions; 

(e) Whether President Zuma and other Cabinet members improperly interfered in the relationship between banks and Gupta owned companies thus giving preferential treatment to such companies on a matter that should have been handled by independent regulatory bodies; 

(f) Whether President Zuma improperly and in violation of the Executive Ethics Code exposed himself to any situation involving the risk of conflict iii between his official duties and his private interest or used his position or information entrusted to him to enrich himself and or enabled businesses owned by the Gupta family and his son to be given preferential treatment in the award of state contracts, business financing and trading licences; and 

(g) Whether anyone was prejudiced by the conduct of President Zuma. Awarding of contracts by certain organs of state to entities linked to the Gupta family 

(a) Whether any state functionary in any organ of state or other person acted unlawfully, improperly or corruptly in connection with the appointment or removal of Ministers and Boards of Directors of SOEs; 

(b) Whether any state functionary in any organ of state or other person acted unlawfully, improperly or corruptly in connection with the award of state contracts or tenders to Gupta linked companies or persons; 

(c) Whether any state functionary in any organ of state or other person acted unlawfully, improperly or corruptly in connection with the extension of state provided business financing facilities to Gupta linked companies or persons; 

(d) Whether any state functionary in any organ of state or other person acted unlawfully, improperly or corruptly in connection with exchange of gifts in relation to Gupta linked companies or persons; and 

(e) Whether any person/entity was prejudiced due to the conduct of the said state functionary or organ of state.”

This is only the beginning of the first part of the report.