Crime analyst discusses Floyd Shivambu's alleged complicity in state fund theft
Did Floyd Shivambu commit a crime by staying silent on alleged corruption?
Image: Timothy Bernard/ Independent Newspapers
Forensic Scientist and crime analyst Thabang Bogopa has weighed in on allegations that Floyd Shivambu, leader of the Afrika Mayibuye Movement (AMM), may have witnessed a meeting in which a party he was previously a part of allegedly plotted to loot state funds but failed to report it.
Under Section 34 of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act 12 of 2004 (commonly referred to as the Precca) failure to report is a criminal offence.
Bogopa cautioned that the issue is highly complicated. "This issue is very complex, as it involves not just him in his persona but also all politicians in the country.”
Shivambu has publicly commented on the alleged meeting, claiming he witnessed discussions about diverting government funds.
"I've sat in a meeting where, as an official item on the agenda, there was a discussion on how to steal government money," said Shivambu. "Even figures were mentioned … that you must take this much… I'm not telling you fiction… We are not going to legitimate nonsense that pretends to be revolutionary."
The remarks drew sharp criticism from political commentator and Rise Mzansi leader Songezo Zibi, who questioned public reactions to Shivambu's admissions.
"Only in South Africa will someone confess to being part of a conspiracy to steal, didn't report it and get cheered for it. At some point we have to examine whether it's the politicians, who are always showing us who they really are, that are the problem."
Author Zakes Mda also spoke up, highlighting a wider cultural concern. "South Africa's culture of impunity. They know that they can confess as much as they like, and even boast, but nothing will happen to them," Mda said.
Bogopa explained that certain officials, including those in the State Security Agency, have access to sensitive information about political organisations, which can complicate accountability. He used a historical example from an ad hoc committee to illustrate the challenge.
"A simpler example is when a certain person mentioned in the Ad Hoc Committee that he has knowledge of the wrongdoings done by the members of parliament but still did not act! He said that if provoked, he would act," said Bogopa.
He further noted that many fiduciary positions in government are regulated through Non-Disclosure Agreements, making it difficult to prove crimes in court even when wrongdoing is suspected.
"Overall, harbouring a crime is unlawful however the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas the Constitution protects everyone against self-incrimination."
Bogopa concluded that, in this context, establishing legal culpability is challenging.
"It will be difficult to prove all the elements of that crime in a court of law, relying on what the Individual said," he added.
IOL News