Why DG stays at home affairs

Source: City Press, 03/01/2017

The latest shuffling of ministers reflects the self-interest that is
President Jacob Zuma’s primary consideration, outweighing the public good.
What is to be made of Mkuseli Apleni’s retention as director-general
(DG) of the home affairs department? Even though Apleni won the case
against his suspension by then minister Hlengiwe Mkhize, President
Jacob Zuma could have relocated him to some obscure department,
especially if he believed his minister’s allegation against him.
Mkhize had suspended Apleni, for alleged insubordination and
incompetence. The court ruled that ministers don’t have powers to
suspend or fire DGs, those powers resting with the president.
The ruling aside, Apleni’s suspension surprised many. He had served
under four ministers in the department â€` Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma,
Naledi Pandor, Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula and Malusi Gigaba â€` none of
whom expressed disapproval of his conduct. That’s because Apleni has
been one of the best bureaucrats, overseeing a dramatic turnaround at
the department. Being at home affairs offices today is no longer a
nightmare and applications for official documents are processed a lot
quicker than previously. Hence Apleni’s contract being renewed for
another five years in April 2015.
His continued stay at the department is obviously based on merit. It
even appears that Zuma thinks so highly of Apleni that he moved his
irritant, Mkhize, to the higher education and training ministry. It is
rare for Zuma to reward excellence. How does one then explain this
anomaly? Or is it an anomaly at all?
Retaining a diligent bureaucrat such as Apleni is commendable, but
potentially misleading when examined in isolation. When examining this
saga in its entirety, one sees that Apleni’s retention doesn’t detract
from the neopatrimonial (or personalised) nature of Zuma’s presidency.
The clue lies in how Zuma has handled Mkhize, especially in light of
Apleni’s damaging allegations against her. They have a bearing on her
competence and suggest that she’s possibly dodgy.
Legal disputes
For starters, Mkhize had accused Apleni of failure to organise regular
meetings with senior staff and settle legal disputes private companies
had brought against the department. Apleni’s responses, submitted in
an affidavit to court, are revealing. For instance, of the seven
biweekly meetings that were scheduled since Mkhize joined the
department in April, she only attended two. The rest were cancelled at
her instruction. Nor did Mkhize attend any of the two quarterly
meetings that had been convened since her appointment. In another
instance, Mkhize set her first one-on-one meeting with Apleni for
06:30, only to cancel it as he was arriving at the venue. This could
only mean that it is Mkhize who is disorganised.
As for her allegation that Apleni failed to settle legal disputes,
Mkhize comes across as meddling in administrative matters and possibly
guilty of nepotism. One dispute involves a company owned by the
Oppenheimer family, Fireblade Aviation. The company took the
department to court for refusing it, as Apleni puts it, “exclusive use
of a section of the airport for themselves and those who are approved
by them on the basis that they are ‘very, very important persons’”.
“The implication of granting this application for the department is
that it would have to make available its own staff, relating to
immigration and customs … to the service of Fireblade, to the
exclusion of other users and customers.”
Apleni found this unconstitutional, especially because it would happen
without a competitive bidding process. Whereas her predecessor shared
Apleni’s views, Mkhize disagreed and, according to Apleni, went to see
representatives of Fireblade without him in order to negotiate a deal.
Another legal dispute that Mkhize alleges Apleni defied her on
involves Atlantis Corporate Travel. Mkhize’s son, Sizwe, is associated
with the company, which has taken the department to court, claiming
it’s owed about R1m. The department disputes the claim. Sizwe resorted
to asking his mother to intervene on the company’s behalf. In a letter
to the department, Sizwe tells officials that he’s spoken to his
mother about settling the supposed debt: “Writing to you in regard
with issue of department of home affairs owing Atlantis Corporate
Travel close to R1 million for travel services dating back to 2014.
“I do believe that you had received all documentation sent by Nelisiwe
Luthuli this past Monday. I forwarded information to my mother
Minister Mkhize, but don’t want to keep bothering her with this matter
... At this point my superiors just wanted to check if there’s
anything that can be done to solving matter without having to go to
court, even though legal process has just started (sic).”
Mkhize’s accusations, therefore, were simply a ruse. The real reason
for them, Apleni believes, was to get him out so that she could have
her way. This included getting the department to pay her son. The
court revealed Mkhize to be exactly what she had accused Apleni of
being: inefficient and possibly unscrupulous.
Self-interest
This brings us to the question about Zuma. Why did he retain Mkhize as
minister, especially in a critical department like higher education,
at such a delicate moment for our universities? By the way, Zuma knew
of Mkhize’s ineptitude long before Apleni’s revelations in court. She
impressed none of the ministers she deputised to and her deputy at
home affairs was reportedly beginning to complain about her incompetence.
The answer to why Zuma retained Mkhize lies in what has been happening
in higher education. He wanted sole control over decision making in
order to institute a no-fees policy at universities. Because Mkhize is
indebted to him for remaining in Cabinet â€` although her record doesn’t
warrant it â€` Zuma knew that she would be pliant to his dictates. He
even replaced her (and her DG) with 28-year-old Morris Masutha, to
make the decision.
Masutha briefed Cabinet and ANC leaders to try to get them to agree to
a no-fees policy, without saying where universities would get the
money from. Ministers and leaders of a liberation movement were forced
to listen to this young lad, even though he had neither the
qualifications nor the experience in higher education. The only
qualification for assuming that role was that he dated Zuma’s
daughter. He was a potential mkhwenyana (husband). That was enough for
Zuma to entrust him with the future of our education system and risk
wrecking our already precarious public purse. Personal relations
trumped merit.
This explains the present saga around State Security Minister Bongani
Bongo, who’s embroiled in all manner of scandals. They range from
accepting kickbacks while still a civil servant in Mpumalanga, to
attempting to bribe a parliamentary lawyer involved in the inquiry
into corruption at Eskom. Bongo wanted to stop the probe. Such
machinations are synonymous with gangsters, not ministers of state. A
background check on Bongo, as ought to be carried out before any
ministerial appointment is made, should have disqualified him. It was
either never done or Zuma didn’t care that Bongo was a dodgy
character. His main consideration was that Bongo would act as his
henchman. Stopping the Eskom investigation also benefits Zuma. He’s
implicated in state capture. And, we don’t know what else Bongo has
been doing since his appointment as chief of spies.
Self-interest remains Zuma’s primary consideration in decision making.
It outweighs the public good. That’s why it’s difficult to fathom that
he wouldn’t do anything necessary to sway the ANC’s elective outcome
in his favour. It’s all about himself.