In the report, Chief Justice Raymond Zondo – who chaired the inquiry – says Ramaphosa claimed in his testimony before the commission in April and August last year that “he would have been dismissed [as Zuma’s deputy] if he had been more confrontational”, but “he did not give any evidence as to why he believed this was the case”.
Ramaphosa told the commission that the balance of forces within the governing ANC meant that resistance inside the party was better than resigning to try to oppose the corruption from a marginal position.
“The crux of President Ramaphosa’s ‘balance of forces’ explanation is that any other approach would not have been allowed by the ruling party, and he and others were unwilling to damage the ANC by publicly going against it,” Zondo says.
Although it’s not possible to prove anything to the contrary, Zondo asks whether “these processes [of state capture] could
There's more to this story
Get unlimited access to our exclusive journalism and features today. Our award-winning team of correspondents and editors report from over 54 African countries, from Cape Town to Cairo, from Abidjan to Abuja to Addis Ababa. Africa. Unlocked.
Already a a subscriber Sign In