Is Zondo’s Anti-Graft Crusade Political Grandstanding?

Prof. Bheki Mngomezulu

Former Chief Justice Raymond Zondo recently surprised many South Africans when he miraculously turned his back against President Cyril Ramaphosa on corruption and ethical conduct. His main concern was that it pained him to swear in Ministers he had made findings against while he was chairing the State Capture Commission. This was seen as an indictment of both Ramaphosa and the ANC.

But was Zondo genuine when he raised this concern, or was he grandstanding so that he could regain public trust following accusations that he was not objective in executing his mandate – something that resulted in the 2021 unrests in KZN and Gauteng?

The answer to this question depends on whether one holds former Chief Justice Zondo in high regard or perceives him as someone who used his position as the chairperson of the Commission to either settle political scores or fight other people’s battles.

To get a better sense of the context of Zondo’s public statement, we need to go back into the history of the Zondo Commission and related matters.

In January 2018, former President Jacob Zuma was instructed by a court of law to comply with Advocate Thuli Madonsela’s recommendation that a Commission of Inquiry should be appointed to investigate the state of capture. She went further to propose that the person to chair this Commission must be appointed by the Chief Justice, not Zuma. This was done.

Many things went wrong during the Commission’s sitting. Zondo was accused of lacking impartiality. A case in point was his cordial interaction with President Ramaphosa, which was different from his engagement with Zuma. When Zuma felt ill-treated during his first appearance, he refused to return to the Commission. Zondo took the matter to the Constitutional Court, which tried Zuma in absentia and sent him to jail for fifteen months. This resulted in the July 2021 unrest.

Another concern was when Zondo promised people like Lucky Montana and others that they would be allowed to present their side of the story. This never happened. The same happened with Arthur Fraser, who was accused of stealing what was first said to be R9 billion but later changed to R9 million. These are just some of the many things that went wrong in the Commission. 

After some extensions and additional funding, which pushed the Commission’s budget to close to R1 billion, the first report was submitted to Ramaphosa on January 4, 2022, with Part 2 being submitted on June 22, 2022. About 1400 individuals were implicated in the report, rightly or wrongly so. Seven years after the Commission was appointed in 2018, the implementation of its recommendations has not been completed.

In October 2022, Ramaphosa published his response to the Commission’s report, which contained 60 action items. By November 2023, of that number, 29 items or 48% were said to have either been completed or substantially completed. Another 14 items or 23% were said to be on track, with the remaining 17 items or 29% still requiring attention and processing.

When the next update report was tabled at the end of March 2025, it made for an interesting read, stating that the completion rate stood at 18%. Items which were said to have been completed but still needed further action stood at 30%. Items that were reported to be on track remained at 23% while those that still required further action stood at 7%.

The success or failure of the Zondo Commission is assessed from different vantage points. The report stating that an estimated $605 million or R11 billion has been recovered following the Commission’s findings saw some patting themselves on the back and being over the moon for a huge success. But those who look at the overall figure, which is sometimes estimated to be a trillion rand, argue that the figure mentioned above is a drop in the ocean.

Why is Zondo suddenly finding his voice? Is he genuine when he raises his concerns, or does he hope to rewrite his history? Is he trying to compete with his predecessor, former Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng, by trying to leave behind a good legacy? Should his public statements be seen as his subtle way to demonstrate the independence of the judiciary, thereby nullifying the perception that it has lost credibility? Put differently, should Zondo’s seeming attack on Ramaphosa be perceived as an attempt to redeem his image or that of the collective in the judiciary? These are all pertinent questions.

If the argument is that there are things Zondo could not say while he was in office, it would be plausible to advance the argument that it is only now that he can do so. However, even this line of argument cannot be sustained. Zondo retired on August 31, 2024. Surely, he had ample time since then to honestly reflect on his term as the Chairperson of the State Capture Commission and the frustration he endured when he had to swear in Ministers he had made findings against.

Surely, Zondo did not make any finding against Ramaphosa on the Phala Phala matter. But from an ethical point of view, did he ever feel uncomfortable having to swear in Ramaphosa as the country’s President with the Phala Phala matter hanging over his head? By extension, are Zondo’s concerns confined to Cabinet Ministers, or do they extend to ordinary Members of Parliament who also had thick clouds hanging over their heads?

Importantly, did Zondo have the same feeling when he had to swear in Ministers and MPs who were only accused during the sitting of his Commission but were never allowed to present their side of the story? If the answer is in the affirmative, I would be extremely worried. His concern would amount to staged authenticity. However, if his answer is in the negative, then his newly found conscience would indeed be genuine. 

In a nutshell, there is more to Zondo’s public statement than meets the eye!

* Prof. Bheki Mngomezulu is Director of the Centre for the Advancement of Non-Racialism and Democracy at Nelson Mandela University.

** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.