The NPA debunks ANC claims about Nel, Zuma gets it wrong on the media.

The new ANC leadership seems to be in a desperate hurry to dismember the Directorate of Special Operations, undermine the judiciary, and bash the media. Quite apart from the damage this programme will do to South Africa, the new leadership seems curiously indifferent to the harm they are likely to do to themselves in the process.

But then again: if you are a ruling party that believes it "will be in power forever until the son of man comes back *1," then you won't worry about the negative political and electoral repercussions of your actions (since there will be none).

As part of this three-pronged campaign the new ANC leadership has made claims which have proved to be exaggerated or untrue *2. The first of these - and the one which has received the most coverage and comment - was the gross overreaction by the ANC National Working Committee and Youth League to some relatively innocuous comments the Deputy Chief Justice, Dikgang Moseneke, made at his birthday party.

The second was actually far nastier. On Tuesday SABC news quoted ANC Secretary General, Gwede Mantashe, as saying:

"We know [Advocate] Gerrie Nel not as the head of Scorpions in Gauteng, we know him as the head of the riot control in Gauteng during the state of emergency. That is his background and therefore they are having it nice when they are charged, their cases are withdrawn easily. When high profile cadres of the movement are charged, cases can take up to seven years."

In response to inquiries the NPA released a statement on Friday expressing its concern over such comments, which it said were "clearly based on incorrect information."

The NPA pointed out that Nel had received a bursary to study law from the then Department of Co-Operation and Development in 1981. He had worked as a prosecutor, following graduation, since 1984 (The first state of emergency was declared in July 1985).

The NPA added that to the extent it was aware Nel "has never had any association with the apartheid police riot squad and has never prosecuted any of the 'riot cases' as may have been suggested." It also pointed out that he has "never been a member of the Broederbond or any secret organization."

(As the national chairman of the SACP the one thing Mantashe should remember Nel for is the fact that he helped prosecute Janus Waluz and Clive Derby Lewis for the murder of Chris Hani.)

Yesterday, despite a promise to do so, an ANC spokesman failed to reply to queries as to where Mantashe had received this information about Nel, and whether he stood by his original claim.

The third dubious claim was presented by ANC president, Jacob Zuma, in his second and final "Letter from the president" on Friday. Zuma complained that the South African media, "in general terms, is politically and ideologically out of synch with the society in which it exists."

In support of this contention he wrote that in the run-up to the 2004 national and provincial elections (as well as the 2006 local government ones) "it would have appeared patently obvious that the leading party in government, the ANC, was heading for a hiding. Though unlikely to be defeated, most media commentators concurred, the ANC would see its support drop significantly in the face of an electorate that had become disenchanted."

But, Zuma continued, in both of these elections "not only did the ANC's share of the vote increase, but also the actual numbers of people who voted for the organisation increased. Voters did not desert the ANC, and instead gave it a stunning 70% mandate!"

Zuma is right in one sense. If any commentator had argued that the ANC was "heading for a hiding" - the results of the 2004 elections would have proved them wrong. The problem is they didn't. It is hard to think of a single commentator who would have made such a claim. Media comment on the likely result was informed, as in other democracies, by the opinion polls conducted in the run-up to the election.

These all predicted an overwhelming victory for the ANC. A Markinor poll conducted in November 2003, before campaigning began, found that 59% of those polled said they would vote ANC, with 16% of the sample undecided. Another Markinor poll, conducted in February 2004, found that the ANC enjoyed the support of 68,6% of registered voters, with 9,1% of the sample refusing to disclose their preference. Markinor predicted that the ANC would win between 70,9% and 73,4% depending on voter turnout. The poll found that the DA had the support of 9,2% of registered voters, and predicted that it would win between 9% and 8,6% of the vote.

These predictions were extensively reported on in the press. Beeld began its report on the poll by claiming that "In next months election the ANC could win anything from 70,9% to 73,4% of the votes." In an editorial on March 23 2004 Business Day noted, "The latest SABC-Markinor poll estimates that the ruling ANC will win at least 70% of the vote in the election next month." The Mail & Guardian reported on April 7 2004 that "if we are to believe the opinion polls, the ANC will sweep to power with a two-thirds - or even a 70% -- majority on April 14."

In the event the ANC won 69,7% of the vote, and the DA 12,4%. In other words ANC support had been slightly overestimated by Markinor, and DA support slightly underestimated. In an article for This Day John Matisonn noted that the opinion polls had had a "mixed report card or the accuracy of their predictions." "None of the polls correctly picked up the extent of the DA's growth or that of the NNP's fall... Least offended against by the opinion polls was the ruling ANC."

With acknowledgements to James Myburgh and Politicsweb.