Muhsin Ertugral took full responsibility and quit after Pirates’ humiliation, a lesson in accountability that SA leaders should learn, says Dumisani Hlophe.
Turkish-born Muhsin Ertugral resigned this week as the head coach of Orlando Pirates after the mighty Sea Robbers were humiliated 6-1 by SuperSport United.
During the post-match interview, Ertugral accepted the defeat, indicating it was a historical embarrassment and saying he took full responsibility for it.
He went on to say that wearing the Orlando Pirates jersey comes with massive responsibility.
The massive loss undermined the integrity and status of Orlando Pirates on the South African scene, therefore he resigned on the spot.
The situation required him to humble himself and do what was best for the Sea Robbers.
There is a deliberate emphasis on Ertugral’s Turkish ancestry because, in South Africa, taking responsibility and being accountable for one’s actions is practically alien.
This is also true in the political environment. A few incidents below illustrate this abdication of responsibility and accountability.
Shaun Abrahams, the head of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), was made to change his decision to charge Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan in a leaky case.
The master stroke of his denialism was to say that he did not make the decision to charge Gordhan.
He argued it was the decision of the Gauteng regional head.
But Abrahams is the ultimate head of the NPA. He actually called a press conference to announce the “NPA’s decision to summons” Pravin to court.
Practically, this is Abrahams’s decision. Hence he announced it in his capacity as head of the NPA. Thus, he has to take full responsibility and accountability for such a decision.
In fact, the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, Michael Masutha, ought to take full responsibility as the political head, and Abrahams should be fully accountable as the administrative head.
In his last press conference, where he announced the withdrawal of the charges against Gordhan, Abrahams undertook to do an internal investigation to determine whether someone should be punished.
That’s actually an internal administrative issue.
He should have determined the veracity of the basis for the charges before he went public.
Once he went public, it became his decision and therefore he was accountable for it.
But then, as is the trend, he avoided accountability.
In the Marikana massacre, no politician assumed responsibility. Nor did the suspended National Police Commissioner, Riah Phiyega, assume accountability for the massacre.
In fact, even the chairperson of the National Council of Provinces barred the EFF from saying the “ANC government massacred people in Marikana” in the National Assembly.
She subsequently lost the case in court.
The commission that was established to inquire into the Marikana massacre absolved political executives.
In this abdication of political oversight responsibility, Phiyega was left to fight for her professional survival. Part of this battle was avoiding accountability.
President Jacob Zuma has always denied responsibility in the Nkandla debacle.
His initial response to calls that he must assume responsibility was that he did not ask for the upgrade. Therefore, it was not his responsibility.
He argued that government initiated it and therefore must see the matter to the end.
But then he is fully responsible for the appropriate usage of state resources, financial and non-financial.
He is actually the ultimate custodian of good governance in South Africa.
It is for this reason that he takes a constitutional oath in front of the nation committing himself to upholding and advancing good governance.
While the president ought to have taken responsibility, the director-general of the Public Works Department ought to have been accountable.
When wasteful spending from the public purse degenerates to the point that the Constitutional Court makes adverse findings against the president, it is inconceivable that administrative heads remain immune from accountability.
Similarly, the National Assembly, or ANC MPs, did not take responsibility for defending rather than holding the executive to account. It abdicated its constitutional responsibility and obligations.
When the Guptas landed at the Waterkloof Air Force base en route to a wedding in Sun City, the president was asked in Parliament about it.
His response was to the effect that there are too many planes landing across the country on daily basis and that he could not be expected to know them all. In other words, he is not responsible for a family friend landing at a national key point.
A question was posed to the president about the claim that Deputy Finance Minister Mcebisi Jonas was offered the position of finance minister by the Guptas. The response - “ask Jonas!”
Another question about Deputy President’s Cyril Ramaphosa’s comments of a cabinet “at war with itself”, and the response - “ask Cyril!”
Essentially, the president frequently abdicates political oversight responsibility.
Despite the SABC being a public institution, its board is actually a law unto itself.
Here is an anecdote: the SABC Board goes to “account” to the communications portfolio committee in Parliament. After the said session, it leaves Parliament, holds its own press conference and dismisses the portfolio committee as naive.
The chair of the board actually declares war on the very same committee it’s meant to account to - “Bring it on,” he says.
Minister of Mineral Resources Mosebenzi Zwane is rebuked by the cabinet for wrongfully issuing a statement on behalf of cabinet.
But then Zwane goes to Parliament to reiterate the very same issues that the cabinet collective distanced itself from; in essence, defying the cabinet collective.
He does not own up to the collective accountability of cabinet.
So, the excitement over the former public protector’s State of Capture Report needs to be managed. At its core, the report raises issues of ethical leadership and conduct and a conflict of interest.
The trends indicated that no one among those implicated will assume accountability or responsibility.
It is not in the political leadership principles of this country to assume responsibility and accountability.
The dominant approach by the powers that be, unless found guilty by the courts, is that they have no reason to fall on the sword of the principles of accountability and responsibility.
The “innocent until proven guilty” mantra has become the shield against ethical accountability and responsibility.
It is for this reason the judiciary will remain inundated with political and state administrative litigation.
* Hlophe is governance specialist at Unisa School of Governance. He writes in his own capacity.
** The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Independent Media.
The Sunday Independent