Corruption is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as “illegal, bad or dishonest behaviour, especially by people in positions of power”. Wikipedia describes it as “a form of dishonesty or a criminal offence which is undertaken by a person or an organisation which is entrusted in a position of authority, in order to acquire illicit benefits or abuse of power for one’s personal gain”.

Wikipedia adds that “corruption may involve many activities, which include bribery, influence peddling and embezzlement”. It also states that “political corruption occurs when an officeholder or other government employee acts with an official capacity for personal gain”, concluding that corruption is most common in kleptocracies.

‘Kleptocracy’ is derived from the Greek words for “I steal” and “power, rule”, and is also referred to as ‘thievocracy’. It means a government whose corrupt leaders, or ‘kleptocrats’, use political power to expropriate the wealth of the people they govern, typically by embezzling or misappropriating government funds. An acknowledged feature of political socioeconomic thievery is that there is often no public announcement explaining or apologising for misappropriations, nor any legal charges or punishment imposed against the offenders.

In this year’s State of the Nation Address (SoNA), delivered by President Cyril Ramaphosa last month, the word ‘corruption’ appears nine times. Seemingly, corruption is hardly a priority for the President. Indeed, the word only appears a third of the way into the speech. But there used to be a time when “our first priority is to put a decisive stop to State capture, to dismantle the criminal networks within the State and to ensure that perpetrators faced justice”. What has happened?

The first mention was when the President said: “One of the overriding challenges this administration had to deal with when it took office was State capture and corruption.” We will return to ‘State capture’, which also appears nine times. An obvious question would be: What is the political affiliation of the present and past administrations?

The third mention of ‘corruption’ was when he said: “We will not stop until every person responsible for corruption is held to account. We will not stop until all stolen money has been recovered.” A priority, then? Incidentally, the word ‘stolen’ appears three times.

So, just how much money was stolen? The SoNA is silent on the amount, saying only: “Freezing orders of R14-billion have been granted to the National Prosecuting Authority’s (NPA’s) Asset Forfeiture Unit for State-capture-related cases, and about R8.6-billion in corrupt proceeds have been returned to the State.”

Is one to deduct that proceeds of ‘corruption’ and of ‘State capture’ are mutually exclusive? If you want to explore this further, you should read the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF’s) April 10, 2023, blog post, titled ‘How and Why Did State Capture and Massive Corruption Occur in South Africa?’

Should you be wondering as to how many times the word ‘theft’ appears in the speech, the answer is only once, and that is in relation to the provinces’ “successes in combatting cable theft”.

For the uninitiated, a ‘freezing order’, also called a ‘freezing injunction’, is an interim court order that prohibits a party from disposing of or dealing in certain assets. This does not seem to mean that the amount was recovered. Applying the maths, only about R8.6-billion was recovered by the State.

According to the Daily Maverick of May 24, 2021, “the total(ish) cost of the Guptas’ State capture was R49 157 323 233.68. The recovered funds mentioned in the SoNA equate to only 17.49% of this amount, and this is only for one family.

In an article titled ‘True cost of State capture incalculable – a shocking reprise’ and published in March 2019, BizNews contended that “it’s far easier to estimate how much State capture cost South Africa in rands and cents (R1-trillion over the past four years), but putting a price on destroyed trust, lost reputation and missed opportunities is inestimable.” So, the State’s recovery equates to a meagre 0.57%, but that is only for four years. Since another four years have passed the number can at worst be halved, equating to 0.29%.