,
9 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
1. I did not find the responses of the president to excellent questions from @QaanitahHunter , @AndrewWJHarding & Thulasizwe Simelane, convincing. Let me explain, briefly. (1/9) #Ramaphosa
2. The main statement read out by #Ramaphosa focused narrowly (and for reasons he justified) on his view about the soundness of the report of the @PublicProtector but the journalists' questions invited him to speak more widely about money and politics. He dodged that request.
3. But regardless what your lawyers think of THIS particular report from the @PublicProtector (and it has flaws- I'll give an example below) #Ramaphosa has a duty to address the big issues e.g. who gave you money and what were their expectations? HOW could you not have known?Etc.
4. The sub judice rule does NOT preclude #Ramaphosa answering the second question from the first journalist directly: what is your view on whether parliament can or should take action pending the urgent review application? He waffled, and evaded a fair and clear question.
5. While waffling, #Ramaphosa got himself into potential trouble: he says that because of competition between candidates there was no need to disclose donations. But here is a difficulty- the party/state lines become blurred for a deputy president of the country being so coy here
6. Example: you may say IN THEORY it's an internal ANC matter how donations flow, and are or are not disclosed but the likes of the Watson brothers invest in you KNOWING you'll occupy a position IN THE STATE, not at Luthuli House. So POTENTIAL conflict means disclosure is key.
7. Again, all this shows that lawfare is convenient for #Ramaphosa here. Because the @PublicProtector report isn't watertight, he can focus on her and the urgent review but AS CITIZENS we must frame this as being about the links between money and political power in our society.
8. On the @PublicProtector - Just one example of the flaws for now: she keeps flipping in her report between saying #Ramaphosa "deliberately" misled parliament and yet also possibly "inadvertently". Those words differ *materially*. His lawyers will milk such incoherence.
9. What's one conclusion? That #Ramaphosa has many questions to answer politically and ethically, still, but that the lawfare will be landing in a context within which strong prior views (for and against) about the @PublicProtector will shape how this plays out, outside court.
