ANC is just a custodian

It is common cause that the ANC developed a strong relationship with Russia for decades before it took power. It is therefore easy to understand that the ANC wants to continue with the preferred relationship.

Where the ANC gets itself into trouble is when it conflates its interests with those of the country. It has done this with such consistency since 1994

— its stance on Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine is but the latest example — that it raises the question whether it has made the conversion from a liberation party to a political party.

The facts are incontestable: Vladimir Putin has launched an unlawful invasion of a sovereign nation and has committed horrendous war crimes. It should not be difficult to understand the difference between right and wrong in this situation. Any country, or even an individual, puts itself on the wrong side of history by pandering to Putin.

SA’s stance is interpreted as signing up to what Putin stands for — to destroy democracies in favour of autocracies and dictatorship; that it is legitimate to invade sovereign countries to re-establish historical boundaries by force; and personal self-interest can override the best interests of a country.

The ANC is entitled to make its own relationships. But, as the governing party, where the fiduciary duty is to further the best interests of the people of SA, it should not conduct itself in a partisan way that is an international embarrassment and jeopardises existing long-standing relationships. Countries last forever, parties only until the next election. As such, the assets of the country belong to the people, not to the governing party. The governing party is the “custodian”, not the shareholder.

Custodians have fiduciary duties because they are temporary curators of the wealth of others, in this case the people of SA, who own the asset. Eskom, for example is not owned by the ANC, but by South Africans. Shareholders have limited fiduciary duties. So when we hear the ANC talking about shareholding it is legally wrong. Political leaders have fiduciary duties that make such custodians legally accountable, with consequences if they fail in those duties. They are not immune, as they appear to believe.

Nic Frangos Johannesburg