Jacob Zuma’s dramatic appearance at the Commission of Inquiry into State Capture was nothing but a well-calculated tactic designed to make him look good to his supporters because he came to answer questions – but he had, in fact, answered none of the damning allegations against him.

He fooled the commission, but not the intelligence of the majority of South Africans. How else can you explain someone who volunteers to speak to the commission, but refuses to be cross-examined about serious allegations made against him by a number of witnesses?

Instead of answering to the allegations, Zuma spoke to himself for hours and when the time for cross-examination came, he threatened not to cooperate and to stage a walk out.

He decided to label his own comrades as apartheid “spies”, simply because they did not agree with him. Doesn’t Zuma know that the allegations that some top ANC leaders were recruited as apartheid agents had been in circulation for a long time? And that most of those were unfounded?

I am sure Zuma knows he was among those rumoured to have been recruited as apartheid agents, along with the likes of Mandela, Biko, Sobukwe and Hani.

But we never believed that because we knew what the agenda of the apartheid regime was: to sow suspicion among comrades so as to destabilise the struggle. Not that there were no spies, but there was never any evidence.

When he claimed that senior ANC members Ngoako Ramatlhodi and Siphiwe Nyanda were paid by the apartheid system to spy against their own in the ANC, you could see the lie.

He took advantage of the fact that there was nobody to challenge him.

He might have caught the commission’s chairperson, Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo, and his crew by surprise with his claims and long speech, but I believe Zondo should have stopped him when he came to the wild claims about Nyanda and Ramatlhodi. He undermined the commission by insisting on speaking without being questioned, which was unfair to those he accused of being spies.

If it was the ’80s, Zuma would have succeeded in pointing out spies and those people would have been necklaced – guilty or innocent. At the time, you needed not be guilty to be punished.

Zuma decided to open old wounds that never existed in the first place in order to divert attention from himself.

Only those who believed in him would believe what he said. His open-ended testimony exposed him as a weak leader who cared less about whether the ANC died, as long as he himself survived politically.

Zondo should subpoena Zuma to come testify officially before the commission. This time, he must be cross-examined like all other witnesses. He must answer to specific issues as mentioned by the likes of Themba Maseko, Vytjie Mentor, Barbara Hogan and Ramatlhodi.

Zondo needs to stamp his authority on the commission because the allegations against the former president are very serious. Who would respect the commission in future if it allowed Zuma to get away with murder in the way he did?

When he returns, he must be followed by the management echelon of the Gupta companies as it was unlikely that the Gupta brothers were acting alone.

For more news your way, download The Citizen’s app for iOS and Android.