Government set to change presidential rules after Jacob Zuma’s rogue stunt
Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) has proposed changes to the protocol and diplomatic support provided to former presidents and deputy presidents.
The proposed changes follow an incident in June in which Jacob Zuma made an unauthorised trip to India.
He was photographed in Haridwar, alongside South Africa’s High Commissioner to India, Anil Suklal, and Ajay Gupta, a member of the Gupta family, which has faced numerous allegations linked to state capture.
The incident prompted questions about Suklal’s conduct and Zuma’s activities abroad, with the government now considering stricter requirements for former leaders who travel internationally with state-funded assistance.
However, Kingsley Makhubela has warned that the government should be careful not to overhaul the rules governing former presidents simply because of Jacob Zuma’s controversial appearance.
Kingsley Makhubela is a former South African diplomat and ambassador who serves as a director at RiskRecon, a Johannesburg-based executive consulting firm specialising in socio-economic, political, and global market risk and opportunity analysis.
In an interview with 702 Drive, Makhubela said the government has to be cautious about how it approaches the issue, particularly because DIRCO is not responsible for regulating former presidents.
According to Makhubela, the Presidency is responsible for the framework governing former presidents, including the funding of their activities abroad.
He also warned that any new disclosure requirements would need to balance government oversight with the privacy rights of former presidents.
However, he said some changes may be needed as the political landscape of South Africa evolves, with former presidents not always coming from the same political party.
Makhubela said a former president could, for example, travel abroad to raise funds for their political party or express views that differ substantially from those of the sitting government.
He agreed with the government’s position that a former president should not travel abroad and claim to represent South Africa’s official foreign policy without being mandated to do so.
However, he said this should not be confused with a former president expressing their personal political views.
The situation is very complex
Makhubela did, however, agree that former presidents should not misuse national symbols, such as the South African flag, when travelling abroad.
The existing framework also means that the state provides substantial support for former presidents when they travel.
Makhubela said their international travel is covered by the state, including flights, security and other assistance.
“If they travel abroad, you must buy a first-class ticket for them, and you must provide for security and assistance and so on,” he said. “That’s clearly regulated, and that’s paid by the state.”
He argued that instead of micromanaging former presidents through new bureaucratic requirements, the government should establish a political understanding between sitting and former presidents.
“There must be an agreement, a collegial agreement, among former presidents and the current sitting president,” Makhubela said.
Former presidents can still play an important diplomatic role when requested by the government. He pointed to former presidents Thabo Mbeki and Kgalema Motlanthe, who have been used as special envoys in international matters.
Makhubela said this demonstrates why the relationship between former and sitting presidents needs to be managed politically rather than through overly restrictive rules.
He also warned that South Africa should recognise the democratic right of former leaders to disagree publicly with their successors.
“In mature democracies, these things are well managed,” he said, noting that former leaders in countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom have publicly disagreed with sitting governments.
However, he said South Africa still has to navigate a political environment where intolerance towards opposing views remains a concern..”
The controversy has also resulted in Suklal being recalled to South Africa for consultations. Makhubela said a recall should be taken seriously, particularly because it can signal significant concern within government.
However, he noted that the minister had described Suklal’s return as being for consultations rather than explicitly as a disciplinary measure.
Makhubela said the government should ultimately focus on whether the existing rights and privileges framework needs to be changed, rather than allowing an individual incident to become the basis for potentially politicising the system.
Loading ...