Durban — Dr Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma was hailed as a hero by the opposition and many people on social media who commended her bravery and principle for standing up against President Cyril Ramaphosa over the allegations of corruption.
Dlamini-Zuma was the first to set the tone for other ANC members who wanted to break ranks with the party despite threats by the ANC top brass to take action against those who would not toe the party line.
The second MP to voice their defiance was Mervyn Dirks. He was followed by two other Ramaphosa critics, Supra Mahumapelo and Mosebenzi Zwane.
There was confusion about Tandi Mahambehlala’s vote. When her name was called, she stood up and said she was toeing the party line, thereafter said yes. But after voting was complete she stood up and said she meant she was voting against the report but her vote counted as yes, with that of the opposition.
The absence of two presidential hopefuls, Dr Zweli Mkhize and Lindiwe Sisulu, was conspicuous. Sisulu was said to have vanished on the eve of voting. Both their campaigners had promised to issue statements but had not done so at the time of publishing.
Mkhize has been all over the country trying to woo ANC delegates to his cause. He has made significant inroads in various provinces, eroding Ramaphosa’s influence in the process.
ANC chairperson Gwede Mantashe said those members who defied the party directive would be taken through the party processes to explain themselves.
Speaking after the vote results, where the ANC defeated the opposition by 214 to 148, EFF leader Julius Malema said that as the opposition winning over a senior and old member of the ANC like Dlamini Zuma was a great achievement.
He said that her support for the opposition equalled 100 votes against the “spineless ANC members who shielded the president from accountability”.
During the debate Malema reminded the president that it was himself who, with Nelson Mandela, held their hands high after the adoption of the same Constitution which he had now violated and disrespected.
The EFF announced it would soon file papers in court to take the Speaker’s refusal to allow a secret vote on review, which it said was irrational and unconstitutional.
ATM’s leader, who had been also vocal on the Phala Phala saga, said that by voting against the report the ANC members were telling the public that Ramaphosa was above the law, arguing that was a bad precedent since all officials would do as they pleased knowing they would not be held accountable.
The DA, which also voted for the adoption of the report, said the ANC had proved once that the ANC has not changed its undemocratic behaviour in the wake of state capture and the Zondo report.
Party leader John Steenhuisen said: “The ANC we saw in the House today is the same ANC that leapt to the defence of the corrupt former president Jacob Zuma in half a dozen motions of no confidence as well as an impeachment vote.
“Despite all the solemn pledges to do better and to honour their oath of office following the scathing rebuke delivered by Justice Raymond Zondo in his final report into state capture, the ANC fell at the very first hurdle,” said Steenhuisen.
Professor Bheki Mngomezulu, University of the Western Cape Political Studies lecturer, said of the outcome of the impeachment process held in Parliament on Tuesday: “It didn’t come as a surprise that the majority of the ANC MPs voted against Ramaphosa’s impeachment.
“The ANC NWC and NEC had directed its MPs to vote against it, so they did exactly what they were told to do – except for Dr Nkosana Dlamini Zuma, Lindiwe Sisulu, Bongani Bongo, Supra Mahumapelo, Mervin Dirks and Mosebenzi Zwane, who wanted to vote with their consciences, but were threatened if they did. Dlamini Zuma, Dirks, Mahumapelo and Zwane are the only ones who were gutsy enough to say a big ‘yes’ to the motion, showing that they are not afraid of the outcome for following their consciences.
“The exception is Mahambehlala, who had initially wanted to vote ‘yes’, but later had to change her vote because she was compelled by other ANC MPs not to vote against the majority.
“The total number of those who voted ‘no’ is only a small margin, which shows that, given different circumstances, they would have voted for the impeachment of the president. A lot of them wanted to vote with their consciences, but could not because they were threatened.
“Ramaphosa’s parliamentary impeachment process outcome is a disgrace to the country. An injustice.
“All Ramaphosa had to say was admit that he has done something wrong instead of him taking the report on review.
“By doing so he has dented his political image. If he wins the coming elective conference, that will give his political enemies and detractors more weapons to fight him.
“In fact, this impeachment outcome is a gift to the opposition. It is not only the ANC members who vote during the elections, but everybody in the country, which means that even potential voters for the ANC will turn their backs and vote for other parties because of the tainted image of the ANC president.
“This is bad news for the ANC as the ruling party because come the 2024 national government elections, it will lose more votes at the polls.
“The MPs that voted no are not thinking for the country, but for themselves,” Mngomezulu concluded.
Another political analyst, Thabani Khumalo, said that when looking at the internal democracy of the ANC, as long as the MPs were accountable to their parties, they would never vote with their consciences. Instead, they would always be accountable to their political parties.
“Therefore the country’s electoral system itself needs to be reviewed and changed, making them accountable to those who voted for them and their constituencies.
“It has become apparent therefore that the country’s electoral act has to be repealed.
“Ramaphosa’s balance of power seems to be shaky, but still intact. He still has the support of the NEC, of branches that will be voting at the elective conference. He is still in control of the ANC yet he still has a big challenge as leader of the ANC and government.
“Ramaphosa’s first five years were also ‘five wasted years’ - the same as his predecessor’s ‘10 wasted years’.
“Even the white people that trusted him enough to vote for him are now seeing him as a failure.
“Ramaphosa has suffered three losses in his administration. First he has failed his brand, has failed the ANC and has failed the country.
“He doesn’t have a choice but to save his image, his legacy, not only the ANC.
“The biggest ANC problem is that they are all the same. When they looked around for a better candidate to lead the ANC in the next five years, they concluded that ‘this is the best that we have’.
“It is obvious the ANC has no plan B and that is why they want him to continue.
“Going forward with the current status quo, the ANC is likely to lose at the polls come 2024.
“They should have said Ramaphosa has become a liability to the party, therefore he must go.
“Going forward, Ramaphosa has no choice, but he must have a backbone and fight corruption, ridding the ANC of all those rotten potatoes. He must not be seen as only ‘purging’ those outside his camp. This country will only then be saved. He has no choice but to do it. It is either he breaks it, or loses it,” Khumalo ended.
Political analyst Lukhona Mnguni said it was incorrect for the NEC to dictate to the ANC executive how to vote.
“It is a known fact that not all NEC members are MPs. Those who voted ‘yes’ to the motion will have to wait and see what the aftermath of the conference says.
“It is a cowardly thing if you don’t want to face the consequences of your actions, but instead choose to opt out by being absent. It is not surprising for Lindiwe Sisulu and those who were absent to chicken out.
“The fight for Ramaphosa is not over though - Phala Phala is not going away any time soon,” Mnguni said.
Daily News