There is no substantive difference between the nature of the Ramaphosa-Bosasa relationship and that of Zuma-Gupta. The Zuma-Gupta relationship had more time to play itself out and therefore involves the syphoning off of a lot more public money. But the difference is one of degree and timing, not of kind.

This week, President Ramaphosa’s son, Andile Ramaphosa, admitted that he received over R2-million from Bosasa as a monthly retainer fee starting in December 2017, the month his father was elected ANC President.

President Ramaphosa has admitted knowledge of this “business relationship” and has also admitted that Bosasa CEO Gavin Watson “donated” R500,000 towards his ANC presidential election campaign.

Let’s cut the quotation marks and call these payments what they really are: sweeteners and bribes.

There is no substantive difference between the nature of the Ramaphosa-Bosasa relationship and that of Zuma-Gupta. The Zuma-Gupta relationship had more time to play itself out and therefore involves the syphoning off of a lot more public money. But the difference is one of degree and timing, not of kind.

We’re watching the same game here, but with different players.

Bosasa is a company that has been bribing ANC politicians for the last two decades. Bosasa contracts with the ANC government total over R10-billion. The details of this corrupt relationship have been reported on in the media over the years, and much of the information was exposed in a detailed SIU report a decade ago.

Like Zuma-Gupta, the Ramaphosa-Bosasa relationship follows the standard ANC modus operandi: the ANC-in-government (eg Department of Correctional Services) gives lucrative tenders to the ANC-in-business (eg Bosasa) which in return funds the ANC-as-a-political-party (or one or both of its factions).

This has enabled an ANC-connected elite to enrich themselves while also entrenching their political power to facilitate ongoing elite enrichment. This is profoundly anti-democratic, deeply corrupt, and unequivocally against the public interest.

In fact, this modus operandi lies at the heart of SA’s battle to evolve from a young, highly unequal democracy to a mature, broadly prosperous one.

As I write, Agrizzi has just told the State Capture Inquiry that Bosasa paid out an estimated R70-million in bribes between 2006 and 2016, and that he knows of large “donations” of R10-million and R12-million given to the ANC top six. It is simply inconceivable that the R500,000 “donation” to Ramaphosa wasn’t a bribe.

It is strongly in the national interest that President Cyril Ramaphosa appears before the Zondo Commission of Inquiry into State Capture before the national elections on 8 May 2019. I have this week written to the Commission Chairperson, Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo, to urge that he does so.

Our country faces severe crises on multiple fronts. South Africans have a critically important once-in-five-year opportunity to bring change. So we all need to know the full truth about the nature of the relationship between the Ramaphosa family and Bosasa. This information is integral to the decision we face and therefore integral to our nation’s future well-being.

President Ramaphosa’s actions in relation to these revelations are not those of a man with nothing to hide. On the contrary, he has ducked and dived in an attempt to gloss over or conceal the truth from Parliament, the media and the people of South Africa.

In an answer to my oral question in Parliament in November 2018, asking President Ramaphosa to explain the payment of R500,000 by Bosasa to his son, Ramaphosa claimed the payment was for consulting work rendered by his son Andile to Bosasa, and that he had seen the contract himself.

It should be extremely concerning to all of us that Ramaphosa considered it acceptable that his son had received R500,000 from a company notorious for conducting a deeply corrupt relationship with his party over the course of two decades.

He later backtracked on this explanation, claiming that the payment was in fact a “donation” by Bosasa to his ANC presidential election campaign, but not explaining why it was laundered through several other accounts first. Like so many other important issues, Ramaphosa claims not to have known about the “donation”. This begs the question: why would a corrupt company pay R500,000 towards a cause unless they know they will get something in return?

I submitted a complaint to the Public Protector because this “donation” requires further investigation and because Ramaphosa’s false answer to Parliament constitutes a serious breach of conduct in terms of the Executive Members Ethics Act, with serious implications for his Presidency.

Since then, President Ramaphosa has used this to avoid answering any further questions in Parliament on the matter, saying that it is being dealt with by the Public Protector. In doing so, he displays a blatant disregard for the constitutional oversight role of Parliament. That a matter is with the Public Protector does not in any way absolve him of his constitutional obligation to account to Parliament.

My office has used PAIA applications to obtain more information about the arrangement between the Ramaphosas and Bosasa but none has been forthcoming. Regardless, the fact is that Bosasa would not be throwing money at the Ramaphosas unless there was something in it for the company.

Which is why I reiterate my contention that South Africa needs to know the truth about the Ramaphosa-Bosasa relationship, and they need to know it before 8 May. We need to end this system of corrupt elite enrichment and the sooner we do it, the sooner we can start building a South Africa where opportunities are open to all, rather than to the connected few.

With the National Prosecuting Authority as weak and incapacitated as it is after years of assault by the ruling party, the State Capture Commission looks set to be a “Corruption TRC” when what we really need is a government clean out. That’s why voting for the DA on 8 May is such a crucial assault on corruption. DM