If Jacob Zuma is reliable at anything, it’s his inability to show a poker face in dire times. So when our dear President stated that he would be paying back a yet-to-be-determined amount of the R250 million from “security upgrades” on his Nkandla mansion, not only did his supporters’ egos receive a little bruising, but commenters began to speculate on the real reason behind his decision. Because, essentially, Zuma admitted he has done wrong.

The proposal to pay for the undue benefits he gained from the upgrades came a week before a Constitutional Court showdown between Mr Zuma’s legal team and lawyers representing the Democratic Alliance (DA) and the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF).

They want the court to reaffirm the powers of Public Protector Thuli Madonsela and to have her findings made binding.

They also want Mr Zuma to fulfil his constitutional obligations by implementing Ms Madonsela’s report — among other things, by paying for his having benefited unduly from the spending.

Some members of the ANC have put his admittance down to the fact that his power is waning. After all, Zuma totally screwed up our economy back in December – and in return lost support within the ANC – by using the position of finance minister in a hand of poorly played poker:

His hope was, no doubt, that Des Van Rooyen would pick up where Nhleko had left off and implement his every desire when it came to the state’s cash supply

Silly boy, but when you consider that he has only three years left to loot our already draining economy – just watch the cutbacks that are going on – he is scrambling to get things right before he provides reason for any more supporters of the ANC, and supporters within the ANC of him, to move along.

So he had to sacrifice his greatest card in the hopes of improving his bluff:

After years of obfuscation, denial and even full-throated laughter, Zuma was made to back down and offer another slice of his dignity to the electorate, in the hope that some of them at least, would reconsider their displeasure at the party he had once ruled.

An ANC MP suggested that Zuma had “bowed to pressure from the public and from within the movement.” His internal support has weakened as Zuma continuously drops his most avid supporters for, well, a stable cash flow. And that’s what has now happened with police minister Nathi Nhleko:

The report instructed Mr Zuma to rebuke the police and public works ministers Nathi Nhleko and Thulas Nxesi. But the two became part of the bulwark that defended Mr Zuma, while ostracising Ms Madonsela.

Top officials have even complained about the “capture” of the state by the Gupta family. But the turn in Zuma’s stance on his own wrong doing has surprised those within the ANC, and top officials have made moves that have defied their respect for the man:

Even as he made this admission, the Gauteng premier, David Makhura, announced that he was appointing Paul Mashatile, to his cabinet. The same Mashatile who had been banished from Zuma’s cabinet after he spoke out against e-tolling, a project which the president has defended against all comers. It is clear that Makhura no longer fears Zuma.

Political analysts, on the other hand, have varying reasons as to why Zuma would do something like this. Steven Friedman suggests that it’s pretty straight forward:

It seems to me to be a straight forward and simple explanation, which is that he is responding to the court case and his lawyers are worried he is going to lose the case and he is therefore offering a settlement in order to prevent that from happening.

Ebrahim Fakir on the other hand thinks Zuma is on a mission to complicate things:

I think what he is doing is, he is playing a game of institutions and processes… The reason I would say he is weakened is because a weakened president would not want to do those things.

He’s doing this to regain or to reassert himself and ultimately and what it is to me is a mockery, a game.

Fakir has warned that Zuma’s announcement, however, does not mean he is admitting to anything. But rather, they would make it seem like a generous gesture:

What they have positioned this as is a magnanimous gesture,… that he’s prepared to pay for something he’s not supposed to pay for just so that we can settle everything.

So he’s saying we showing leadership, we are being magnanimous, we are solving a problem which people have made a problem, but is not. We will do something to say to everyone, see how great we are…

And NKC African Economics political analyst Gary van Staden agrees:

President Zuma has a habit of backing down only when he’s in a corner with absolutely nowhere else to go. He did that with the finance minister.

It’s not going to help the ANC although they’ll put a positive spin on it.

After all, the subject is set to be in court on Tuesday, so we will see then.

[source: iol&bdlive&news24&rdm]