What now for South Africa, now that President Cyril Ramaphosa finds himself in a serious spot of bother following the charges laid against him by former State Security Agency Director-General Arthur Fraser? What does this mean for the country? Will the fight against State Capture and corruption be abandoned, as the self-serving RET forces resume the levers of power, or will it suffer a temporary setback only to regain momentum?

The answers to those questions depend very much on what happens when Ramaphosa, who is politically mortally wounded, ignominiously departs the stage – for depart he will. All that is left now is the timing and the manner of his departure. Will he walk away with some dignity, or will he wait to be pushed?

Sadly, this is more than just Ramaphosa’s conundrum. Indeed, it is a far bigger problem for the country than it is for Ramaphosa as a person. Given his financial resources, he is certain to hire the best lawyers to fight the charges against him and may even end up with no more than a slap on the wrist in the form of a fine, in the event of some of the allegations against him being proved to be true.

However, South Africa – which finally appeared to be on the verge of cleansing itself of the filth of the Jacob Zuma era – will be left with a much bigger conundrum: will the devastating findings of the commission into State Capture be tossed aside and the pervasive corruption of the Zuma era continue apace, or will the march continue to a well-governed country in which the scourge of corruption is punished ruthlessly?

Notwithstanding his weaknesses as a leader, at the top of which were his preoccupation with illusory party unity and his legendary timidity when it came to taking tough and potentially unpopular decisions, the fact remains that Ramaphosa was the torchbearer in the fight against corruption, and he was deservedly seen as our last hope against wholesale turpitude. That is the one thing on which he was consistent from the time he assumed the presidency, and in recent months he appeared to be winning the battle within his organisation.

The revelation that Ramaphosa kept US dollars in his residence at the Phala Phala wildlife farm in Limpopo is extremely damaging to his reputation as a corruption buster. It raises all sorts of troubling questions, to which he may yet provide convincing responses, and ensures that henceforth he will have question marks about his integrity. It suggests that former ANC Women’s League president Bathabile Dlamini, who has since been convicted for perjury, was right when she cautioned that all ANC leaders have their “smallanyana skeletons in the cupboard”.

However, even more damaging for Ramaphosa are the allegations – so far undenied – that not only did he lay no formal charges with the SAPS against those who had committed the crime, but that the alleged culprits were rewarded handsomely to keep quiet about everything after informal investigations led by the head of the presidential protective unit unearthed them, and that some laws were broken in conducting the said investigation. Should these allegations even be remotely true, they are certain to mark the end of the Ramaphosa presidency. After all, a leader without moral authority cannot be taken seriously – and it gets worse if that leader can be said, with some justification, to be guilty of hypocrisy in his treatment of those who have been similarly unscrupulous.

Sadly, the man who was preferred by Nelson Mandela to be his successor appears to be destined to go down in history as the first post-apartheid president not to finish even his first term in office, thanks to Phala Phalagate. It really boggles the mind how a man who knew that he was detested by so many within his own organisation, both for tribal reasons and because of his dogged fight against corruption, would have so carelessly gifted himself to the same crowd for slaughter.

As many others have pointed out, Fraser’s intentions – and they are so obvious – in laying the charges against Ramaphosa do not matter. The fact that Fraser belongs to the Zuma/RET faction of the ANC which has long wanted to fell Ramaphosa is no defence. Instead, what matters is whether there is truth in the allegations that he has made – and we know now that there is, even though the dollar amount stolen at Phala Phala remains in dispute.

Ramaphosa would be best advised to leave on his own terms, and not on those of his adversaries. It would help, too, if he would fully take the country into his confidence and own up where errors of judgment were made, if no crime was intended. He should take a leaf out of former Finance Minister Nhlanhla Nene’s book, who remains the only office holder voluntarily to step down when confronted with something so mundane as apparent inconsistencies in his story about the number of times he had met the Guptas. History would remember him kindly for the steps that he has taken to fortify previously-captured institutions like SARS and the National Prosecuting Authority, among others.

Such a step would help Ramaphosa to redeem his legacy. However, those around him with their own vested interests in his continued stay in office are likely to advise him against such action.

When a sitting President departs or is ejected from office, our Constitution stipulates that the Deputy President would fill his shoes. As things currently stand, my homeboy David Mabuza, against whom numerous so-far-unproven allegations have been made, must be salivating. But what would such a prospect mean for the fight against corruption? What would it mean for South Africa’s credibility as an investment destination? Your guess is as good as mine.  

I know the battle remains to be fought within the ANC, even as it lies on its deathbed. The one thing that is certain is that the factions within that organisation will continue to pull in different directions and to tear one another apart. As always, their motivation is what is in their respective best interests, and not what is in the country’s best interests. Their eyes are trained on the elective national conference coming up in December, and not on what is best for South Africa at the moment. If the latter was the case, they would not have been vehemently opposed to a meaningful revision of our electoral laws, as ordered by the Constitutional Court two years ago.

However, if the ANC were to put South Africa first for a change, they would agree that former president Kgalema Motlanthe is the best person to deploy as the next Head of State. Just as they called on him in 2008 to finish President Thabo Mbeki’s term, they would turn to him now to finish Ramaphosa’s term. The advantage of such a decision, for the ANC factions, would be that Motlanthe is unlikely to put his name in the hat for the ANC presidency in December, and that he can be relied upon to walk away quietly in 2024. Finally, he may just do such a decent job in the position that his actions may regain the ANC some credibility that it emerges as the biggest party in the coalition government that is likely to run the country after the 2024 elections.

More importantly, the advantage of such a decision for the country would be that Motlanthe, whose moral compass is so far unquestioned, would ensure that the recommendations of the Zondo Commission are implemented, that the fight against all forms of malfeasance continues and that the massive infrastructure investment which is necessary to stimulate the economy takes place. Since he would not be seeking to ingratiate himself into any ANC faction, Motlanthe would also be likely to reduce the size of our Cabinet and to put South Africa first.

A former newspaper Editor, Dr Nyatsumba is the Managing Director of KMN Consulting and the author of Successfully Implementing Turnaround Strategies in State-Owned Companies.