The CR17 Scandal: Cat Matlala, Political Donations, and the Fight for Transparency in South Africa
In 2017, South Africa’s political landscape was rocked by a revelation that would spark debates on power, money, and democracy.
Cat Matlala, a mining magnate and energy tycoon with a fortune exceeding three billion rand, secretly wrote a check that would change the course of South African politics.
His donation was not for a business venture or a charity but to fund the presidential campaign of Cyril Ramaphosa.
The question on everyone’s lips: did Matlala really bankroll Ramaphosa’s rise to power?
The answer is more complex than a simple yes.
Matlala himself confirmed his involvement in the funding, but the story behind it reveals the murky world of campaign financing in South Africa.
This is not just a tale about two men—Matlala and Ramaphosa—but a window into the ways money influences politics.
In the following, we delve deep into the controversy surrounding the CR17 campaign, how Matlala’s millions made their way into Ramaphosa’s election bid, and the broader implications for South African democracy.
Cat Matlala’s Rise to Power
Before we dive into the CR17 scandal, let’s first understand who Cat Matlala is.
Born in a township during the apartheid era, Matlala built his fortune from scratch.
Known as Tishua Matadzi Matlala, he rose from humble beginnings to become one of South Africa’s wealthiest businessmen.
His breakthrough came in the mining sector, where he saw opportunities as the country transitioned post-apartheid.
By the early 2000s, he founded Bao Bathau Trust, which would eventually own stakes in platinum mines, coal operations, and energy projects.
His success wasn’t just luck.
Matlala knew how to navigate both political and business circles, establishing relationships that would prove valuable as his wealth grew.
By 2017, Matlala had become a key player in South Africa’s business elite, with his net worth exceeding 3 billion rand.
He controlled key mining and energy contracts and sat on influential boards.
This was not just a businessman looking for profit; this was someone positioned to influence the country’s political future.
The CR17 Campaign
To understand the significance of Matlala’s donation, we need to contextualize the 2017 campaign.
That year, South Africa’s ruling party, the African National Congress (ANC), was at a crossroads.
Under the presidency of Jacob Zuma, the country had been beset by corruption scandals, economic stagnation, and growing public disillusionment.
In the internal ANC election, two main candidates emerged: Cyril Ramaphosa, positioning himself as the reformist, and Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, representing continuity with Zuma’s faction.
The ANC’s internal election was not a public vote but a decision made by approximately 4,700 delegates at the national conference in December 2017.
Winning required securing delegate support, which meant massive funding for logistics, outreach, and organizing across South Africa’s provinces.
This was where the CR17 campaign came in.
Ramaphosa’s team needed millions to mobilize voters and secure his election.
Traditional party funding was insufficient, so the campaign turned to private donations.
Wealthy businesspeople who believed Ramaphosa would restore economic stability and fight corruption were approached.
The campaign raised over 100 million rand, primarily from private donors.
These donations were intended for internal ANC election purposes, but what seemed like a routine matter soon exploded into a political scandal.
The revelation came in November 2018, nearly a year after Ramaphosa became president.
Leaked bank statements exposed the identities of the campaign’s key donors, with Matlala’s name prominently featured.
Matlala’s Donation and Its Fallout
Matlala’s confirmation of his donation to Ramaphosa’s campaign was not accompanied by a dramatic press conference.
Instead, it came through legal proceedings and public acknowledgements.
He did not deflect or hide his involvement.
In interviews, Matlala acknowledged that he donated 5 million rand to Ramaphosa’s campaign.
His rationale was straightforward: he believed that South Africa needed leadership capable of stabilizing the economy and fighting corruption.
Under Zuma, the country had suffered from state capture, economic decline, and diminishing investor confidence.
Matlala framed his donation as an act of patriotism, not a transaction.
He argued that supporting Ramaphosa was not about gaining influence but about ensuring the country’s survival.
For someone whose business interests spanned mining, energy, and infrastructure, having a stable economy was a matter of self-interest.
Whether this explanation resonates with the public or not, Matlala’s willingness to confirm his donation publicly set him apart from other donors, many of whom chose to remain silent after the bank statements were leaked.
The Legal and Ethical Debate
The controversy surrounding Matlala’s donation highlights South Africa’s weak campaign finance laws.
At the time, there were no requirements for political parties to disclose donations, and donations to internal party campaigns operated in a gray zone.
The legal framework governing campaign financing had significant gaps, and the introduction of the Political Party Funding Act in 2021 came too late to prevent the CR17 scandal.
Matlala’s 5 million rand donation, while substantial, raised questions about the ethical implications of wealthy individuals funding political campaigns.
Critics argue that such contributions inevitably lead to conflicts of interest.
Even without explicit quid pro quo arrangements, the mere act of donating large sums to a candidate creates expectations of future influence.
This is particularly concerning when the donors’ business interests are directly affected by government decisions.
Ramaphosa defended his actions by arguing that the donations were made to his internal ANC campaign and not directly to him.
He claimed that no laws prohibited such contributions at the time.
However, the revelation of these contributions led to public outcry.
The question arose: when wealthy individuals fund political campaigns, do they buy influence, or do they simply support the candidate they believe will serve the public’s best interest?
The Political and Public Fallout
The CR17 scandal exposed the deep ties between business elites and political power in South Africa.
The leaked bank statements revealed that Ramaphosa had received millions from businesspeople with interests in industries heavily regulated by the government, such as mining, energy, and construction.
Critics of Ramaphosa seized on this as proof that he was captured by wealthy elites, particularly white monopoly capital.
Opposition parties, notably the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), used the scandal to portray Ramaphosa as a sellout who had betrayed the liberation struggle.
They argued that by accepting money from these donors, Ramaphosa had compromised his reformist agenda and aligned himself with the very forces he promised to fight.
Internally, the ANC was divided.
Ramaphosa’s supporters argued that the donations came from people who believed in good governance and transparency.
However, his opponents, including those aligned with Zuma, used the scandal to undermine Ramaphosa’s moral authority.
The controversy became ammunition in the ongoing power struggles within the party.
Campaign Finance Reforms and Transparency
The CR17 scandal led to calls for campaign finance reforms in South Africa.
The introduction of the Political Party Funding Act in 2021 aimed to address many of the concerns raised by the leak.
The law requires political parties to disclose donations above a certain threshold, which is intended to increase transparency and reduce the influence of money in politics.
However, questions remain about whether the law goes far enough.
There are concerns about the enforcement of these regulations and whether the disclosure threshold is high enough to reveal the full extent of private donations.
Internationally, different countries have adopted varying approaches to political funding.
The United States, for example, allows large private donations but requires disclosure, while the United Kingdom places stricter limits on campaign spending and requires detailed reporting of donations.
Each system has its pros and cons, and the South African experience shows that even with laws in place, money will always find ways to influence politics.
The Broader Implications
The legacy of the CR17 scandal goes beyond the immediate political fallout.
It exposed the deep fractures within the ANC and South African society.
The public’s trust in government took another hit when they learned that their president had been funded by billionaires with interests in sectors directly influenced by government policy.
This scandal has not only affected Ramaphosa’s presidency but has also led to a broader discussion about the role of money in politics and the need for greater transparency.
The CR17 scandal also highlighted the challenges of maintaining political integrity in a society marked by economic inequality.
As the debate over campaign finance continues, the question remains whether transparency will reduce corruption or merely make it more sophisticated.
The true test will be whether South African democracy can build a system that balances free political expression with the need for accountability.
