DIRCO wants full explanation from SA envoy over Zuma-Gupta India meeting

South Africa’s government has faced growing criticism over its handling of High Commissioner to India, Anil Sooklal, following his appearance alongside former President Jacob Zuma and fugitive businessman Ajay Gupta during a visit to a temple in Haridwar, India. ActionSA, a key opposition party, has condemned the decision not to sanction Sooklal, arguing it undermines efforts to address the legacy of State Capture and erodes public confidence in the Government of National Unity (GNU). The controversy has sparked calls for greater transparency and accountability within the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO). The incident came to light after photographs surfaced showing Sooklal, Zuma, and Gupta attending a prayer ceremony at the Siddhpeeth Shri Dakshin Kali Temple in Haridwar on June 26. These images raised immediate concerns, particularly given the central role both Zuma and the Gupta family played in the State Capture scandal that plagued South Africa under Zuma’s presidency. In response, DIRCO initiated an internal inquiry into Sooklal’s conduct. However, the department later decided not to impose disciplinary measures, prompting backlash from critics who argue that such associations demand rigorous scrutiny. ActionSA parliamentary leader Athol Trollip emphasized that the decision sends the wrong signal at a critical juncture for South Africa. He noted that the country continues to grapple with the economic and institutional fallout of State Capture, and any link between senior officials and figures associated with that era requires thorough examination. Trollip accused the Gupta family and Zuma of orchestrating one of the most extensive corruption networks in the nation’s post-apartheid history, stressing that diplomats representing South Africa abroad must adhere to the highest ethical standards. The opposition party has urged Minister of International Relations and Cooperation Ronald Lamola to provide a clear explanation for the decision not to discipline Sooklal. ActionSA wants the minister to disclose the findings of the internal investigation and clarify why no disciplinary action was deemed necessary. Trollip argued that the GNU cannot genuinely commit to clean governance while seemingly excusing behavior that casts doubt on the judgment and impartiality of high-ranking officials. DIRCO Director-General Zane Dangor confirmed that the department has requested Sooklal to provide a full account of Zuma’s recent visit to India, including the nature of the meeting with Gupta. Dangor stated that the ministry is reviewing protocols regarding the support provided to former presidents traveling abroad. While DIRCO typically receives notifications about such visits, it does not usually get details about their purposes or itineraries. This lack of information has led to calls for increased transparency to protect the country’s national interests and international reputation. Zuma, who traveled to India with the JG Zuma Foundation spokesperson Mzwanele Manyi, described Gupta as “a brother and friend” who had been forced to flee South Africa. He claimed the visit was personal and not related to his role as a former president. MK Party secretary-general Sibonelo Nomvalo previously defended Zuma’s trip, stating it was a private matter and that the party should not be held responsible for his personal activities. She added that everyone has a right to privacy, even if it means being questioned about mundane aspects of daily life. Minister Lamola acknowledged the need for clarity on the situation, noting that former presidents are entitled to certain privileges, including diplomatic assistance during overseas travel. He emphasized the importance of understanding how the visit occurred, its nature, and the extent of Sooklal’s involvement. Meanwhile, Minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni had earlier criticized Zuma’s actions, stating they undermined South Africa’s criminal justice system and foreign policy. As the debate continues, the focus remains on ensuring that all public officials, regardless of rank or position, are held to the same standards of accountability. The outcome of DIRCO’s internal review and the subsequent actions taken by the government will likely shape perceptions of its commitment to addressing the legacy of corruption and restoring public trust in state institutions.