DIRCO’s Haridwar explanation leaves questions over Zuma visit unanswered - IOL

Findings of investigations into diplomatic conduct should include reasons, not just the word "cleared", says the writer.

A JUNE 2026 photograph of the Siddhpeeth Shri Dakshin Kali Mandir in Haridwar showed former President Jacob Zuma, South Africa's High Commissioner to India, Ambassador Anil Sooklal, and fugitive businessman Ajay Gupta together as chief guests. For a country reeling from the damage of state capture as documented by the Zondo Commission, the image was more than embarrassing. It suggested that accountability ends at South Africa’s borders.

On July 2, the Active Citizens Movement wrote to DIRCO Director-General Ambassador Zane Dangor. We raised three concerns and made two requests. Our concerns were straightforward.

First, the context. Media reports indicated the high commissioner had accompanied Zuma to the temple event where Gupta, who fled South Africa in 2018 while facing allegations of looting billions, was also present.

Second, the impact. The optics of a senior diplomat sharing a platform with a fugitive appeared oblivious to the lessons of state capture and undermined the state's efforts to bring those accused to book.

Third, integrity. If the high commissioner were called upon tomorrow to assist with mutual legal assistance or any future legal process involving the Gupta family, could he act without fear, favour or prejudice?

His presence in that photograph raised serious doubts about objectivity. We requested an immediate investigation and precautionary suspension pending its outcome.

DIRCO's media statement of September 2, now provides its version.

According to DIRCO, the Presidency informed the department on June 19 of Zuma's private visit from June 25 to 27, and requested protocol assistance. In line with practice for all former presidents, DIRCO notified the high commission in New Delhi. Support included ceremonial lounges at King Shaka and OR Tambo, airport courtesies and liaison with host authorities. Five SAPS members accompanied Zuma, with costs covered by the Presidency.

On Haridwar, DIRCO says the high commissioner attended in his capacity as head of mission following a separate invitation from host organisers. He did not accompany Zuma or Gupta, that Gupta was among about 1,000 guests, and that the high commissioner reported no direct interaction with him. The mission, DIRCO says, did not arrange or facilitate any private meetings between Zuma and Gupta.

DIRCO adds that routine assistance to former heads of state does not constitute authorisation to represent government, and that while Gupta is not currently subject to an extradition request, cooperation with India on mutual legal assistance continues.

Finally, DIRCO recommends a mechanism to assess future engagements for reputational, political, diplomatic or security risks. Does this answer what we asked? Partially, but the critical gaps remain.

DIRCO confirms that state resources were used for a private visit. That is precisely the misuse we flagged. In the Zondo Commission years, state-owned enterprises were hollowed out and billions meant for health, education and infrastructure were diverted. That cost is still with us in unemployment, failing municipalities and deep cynicism about accountability. In that context, symbols matter. How the government spends public money sends a telling message about whether anything has been learned.

Former presidents are entitled to courtesies to protect the dignity of the state, not to fund private itineraries that create political risk. For citizens choosing between food and electricity, this is a painful contradiction. How can the state fund the lifestyle of someone a judicial commission says played a central role in enabling state capture, corruption, and the systematic weakening of public institutions to benefit the Gupta family and private interests?

This is not a call for vengeance. It is a call for coherence.

On the photograph, DIRCO offers a technical defence: separate invitation, no direct interaction, no facilitation. Diplomacy is not judged on technicalities. The standard under the Foreign Service Act is whether conduct causes embarrassment or brings the country into disrepute.

Minister Ronald Lamola himself highlighted “concerns about a former head of state appearing to conduct parallel diplomatic activities”. Minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni went further, labelling the diplomat's participation a "disgrace" and a "middle finger" to the nation”. Both assessments remain unaddressed.

On integrity, DIRCO is silent. It does not answer whether the high commissioner can credibly assist law enforcement tomorrow in matters involving the Gupta family in India after sharing a stage with one of them today. It does not publish the mission report, the guest list, or when the high commission became aware that Gupta was also a chief guest.

A summary is not transparency. If DIRCO is serious about renewal, its welcome recommendation for a risk mechanism must be made concrete. That mechanism should require advance disclosure. Any former president requesting facilitation should submit a purpose, itinerary and list of intended contacts screened against persons wanted by the state or subject to mutual legal assistance. It should codify a right to withdraw.

A head of mission must have explicit written authority to excuse himself from any part of a programme that would embarrass the Republic. Attendance at private, social or celebratory events involving individuals implicated by a judicial commission should require prior approval from the director-general and a recorded public purpose.

Proactive communication must explain the rationale for controversial engagements in advance. Silence breeds suspicion. It should create public accountability.

We need two reforms. First, Parliament must amend the benefits allowed to former presidents, to allow suspension or reduction of benefits where a former president is found by a judicial commission or court to have caused material loss to the state, with due process and a right to appeal. Second, DIRCO and the Presidency should publish an annual report on the cost of benefits for all former presidents and a quarterly register of state-facilitated travel tabled to Parliament.

Findings of investigations into diplomatic conduct should include reasons, not just the word "cleared". The rule of law demands process. Democracy demands legitimacy. Public office is a trust, not a shield, and representation abroad must reflect our values at home. The Haridwar incident was preventable. Closing the gap between what is lawful and what is right is how we demonstrate we have learned from state capture, and how we restore faith that our foreign service serves the Constitution, not personalities.

Finally, it bears being reminded that former president Zuma is a debtor of the state. The Gauteng High Court has ruled, since 2018, that he must repay the State an amount of approximately R29 million plus interest in respect of his personal legal costs that were paid by the State on his behalf for his criminal prosecution and other litigation. Under such circumstances, how can continuing to fund private visits by a debtor former President be justified?

Dr Nora Saneka is the Chairperson of the Active Citizens Movement.

** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or post.co.za