David Lewis, perhaps a hypocritical anti-corruption mind, picks an old jealousy bone with Boesak and uninformedly swipes at Sisulu

By: Clyde Ramalaine 

I read the piece penned by David Lewis on Allan Boesak and Lindiwe Sisulu’s visit to John Block as published in the Business Day on November 8. Unfortunately, this fictitious and bereft of content swipe at Boesak and Sisulu on what transpired with the recent John Block visit made it to publication. However, we must continue celebrating freedom of expression, not sacrificing truth for sophisms.

Lewis starts by trying to give us a memorable incident of ANC President Oliver Reginald Tambo addressing a New York-based Riverside Church congregation on the occasion of the Swedish Prime Minister Olaf Palme memorial, which he also attended back in 1986. He points at the humility of Tambo when he really wants to tell us how humble he, Lewis was: “I was a humble Western-Cape based organiser at the time.” Vibrating in the background is the intention to tie himself to Tambo as humble. Lewis, in old age, still does not know humility is not something you accord yourself but others identify in you.

He then refers to an apparent helicopter arrival with Allan Boesak on it, who enters to give introductory remarks, after which Boesak leaves. The challenge is that this helicopter arrival is a fictional version of Lewis’ confused but hell-bent mind. The truth is that Boesak was picked up from the hotel by the Riverside Church designated driver. There was, therefore, no helicopter but in the hallucinations of Lewis. This is the sophism that Lewis starts with to lay the ground for his ad-hominem attack on Boesak and Sisulu. Lewis instead exposes his deep-seated envy and jealousy for Boesak. Clearly, Boesak’s stature at the time did not sit well with him; this missive is filled with this jaundiced attitude. I wonder how much of his hatred or distaste for Boesak was informed by Lewis’ racist entrapment. I have elsewhere observed apartheid in all its glory could never deny whites who associated with the black liberation struggle their whiteness. Meaning even those who joined the struggle could never escape their whiteness and continued to share in those privileges.

He then takes a cheap swipe at what he calls the performative acts of Boesak. Well, David, it is simple, you do not have the oratory skills, nor were you endowed with the giftedness of intellect to be in that space at the time – can you accept that you were never in the league of those you critique from a place of resentment?

In one cheap swipe, Lewis attempts to draw a line through Boesak in typical small-mindedness. Unfortunately, you won’t let you attempt to manage history in such an evanescent way. There is much more to Boesak than what you deem ‘sex’ and ‘money,’ and even you, with jealousy, have to admit that. It is from this bedrock of innate disdain that he chokes on acknowledging Boesak’s role as founder of a member of the United Democratic Front.

Back to the issue of the recent Block visit. Lewis conclusively states what happened, pretending he has the facts on that. Let us hear Lewis, “They were refused entry because they had not applied for permission in the manner provided for in prison regulations; they simply pitched p and because she is a minister and he an (in)famous cleric, they expected to have the rules waived.” Earlier I have earlier shown how David lewis fabricates helicopter rides; now, he is the expert on what transpired. Unfortunately, Lewis is again wrong, or should we accept in sophism mode again? There is a record of request on the part of Block to have Sisulu whom he shares family relations, come to visit. There is a letter that Sisulu’s office submitted ahead of time, and there is correspondence between her office and the Correctional Services Centre. Lewis needs to explain why Sisulu and Boesak were allowed to pass the first gate. He was not present, but in white privilege and armchair, know-it-all attitude adjudicates on Boesak and Sisulus’s visit to Block. He ignores the facts because engaging them will make his missive go up in smoke.

It is not surprising because for Lewis to continue with his bile, he has to, in one-dimensional mind, religiously believe the Correctional Services Centre version and reject any other version, even the facts which John Block’s family statement highlighted. C’mon, David Lewis, objectivity is not a contagious disease to be avoided at all costs.

So what can we deduce from this act of Lewis? He finds objectivity troublesome and a proverbial bitter pill to swallow and is willing to concoct and lie, thus sacrificing anything in pursuit of making his matchbox house stand. To Lewis, we say you do not have the facts, or you choose to ignore them since the facts around the visit, as relayed, render you incapable of making the case against Boesak and Sisulu.

In this meandering piece, he tells Boesak that the latter knows nothing of neoliberalism. First, by what authority or power does Lewis tell a renowned trans-disciplinary academic, researcher, publisher, and avid reader he does not know what neoliberalism constitutes? Well, two things it’s the arrogance of whiteness that speaks in a monotone fashion. Secondly, it is not very pleasant to concede that he, an apparent trade-union expert and academic, does not have the inalienable right to explain or understand constructs such as neoliberalism. When Boesak speaks on neoliberalism, the trade unionist cringes because he must feel that the guy with whom he has this long jealousy issue is now also vocal on Lewis’s apparent forte. We call that territorial gatekeeping because he sees Boesak as a little dominee.

He calls Boesak’s most recent published opinion piece a missive since it draws links between the PW Botha regime and Cyril Ramaphosa’s administration. To appreciate his discomfort with the op-ed, you only have to know how he admires Ramaphosa from an interview. I quote: “In the early years, not many government departments were willing to engage with Corruption Watch. “Now we have a government whose doors, if we knock loudly enough, will be opened,” says Lewis, adding that President Cyril Ramaphosa has made Corruption Watch’s life easier, but the battle still rages. “He [Ramaphosa] has, in the main, appointed competent and honest leaders, but I think he underestimated the damage that had been done and how pervasive corruption had become. “As we’ve seen through Covid, nothing is off limits, especially at the local government level.”

This is David Lewis in the full bloom of exonerating Ramaphosa, the deputy to Jacob Zuma, while castigating Zuma. This is David Lewis, the so-called anti-corruption champion who, until now, has remained audibly silent on Glencore corruption and the Phala Phala crimes.

This is David Lewis, who has a bone to pick with Boesak and Sisulu out of historical jealousy but celebrates a failing Ramaphosa. The man whites birthed from the cradle of an Urban Foundation and have firmly controlled and defended with their bottoms because he spells no threat to their dominance. It is a given that white privilege never had it as good as under their protege, Cyril Matamela Ramaphosa.

Lewis’ the academic and self-appointed constitutional defender, cannot miss the opportunity to dismiss Sisulu’s January 6 opinion piece. He would use adjectives of scurrilous attack to describe an opinion piece he cannot engage in the content. An article that still stands as the agenda-setting opinion piece of 2022.

Unfortunately, or as to be expected, Lewis, the academic, did not read that after Sisulu’s opinion piece, a litany of jurists re-echoed her sentiments in various expressions. Lewis ignored Ngoako Ramathlodi. He did not hear Constitutional Court Justice Jody Kollappen; he missed Judge President Dunstan Mlambo. Lewis even missed retired deputy chief justice Dikgang Moseneke and off late ANC Constitutional Law Sub Committee chairperson Mathole Motshekga all agreeing with Sisulu. How seriously can we take this Lewis, the constitutional defender, and policymaker, if he evidences a tendency to ignore facts and finds objectivity a contagious disease to be avoided at all costs?

Now I ask why Boesak and Sisulu should pay attention to a questionable dodgy, and selective mind constipated in old jealousy and factional in Ramaphosa’s celebration. One who has a penchant for ignoring facts, fabricating his own reality TV drama, and is stuck in jealousy. At the same time, hoping to insert himself as Ramaphosa’s defender.

What is left is Boesak’s undeniable contribution to the liberation struggle, academic weight, enviable resume, and most recent piece. What is left is Sisulu’s more than 50 years of ANC service. One who has successfully led many portfolios and her “Hi Mzansi, have we seen justice yet?” and David Lewis’ Business Day column, the latter perhaps dirty paw marks on a canvas.