The rule of law requires more than suspicion

Jul 20, 2026 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

(Kaieteur News) – Christopher Ram begins his latest letter by declaring: “For a columnist who does not usually respond, Peeping Tom has spent the past several days doing little else.” That opening sentence collapses almost immediately under the weight of its own inaccuracy.

What I said was that Peeping Tom does not usually respond to criticisms of its columns. I did not say the column never responds to public arguments. There is a world of difference between the two. And I am confident that Ram is capable of understanding this difference.

So let me clarify this matter, not for Mr. Ram alone, but because the public is entitled to an accurate understanding of what was actually written and what was not… The purpose here is not to engage in an endless exchange of opinions, but to correct a fundamental misrepresentation of my position.

Mr. Ram had suggested that I treated him as though he were accusing the President of criminal conduct. That is not what I said. What I addressed was the broader issue of whether allegations, suspicions or questions, without an established factual foundation, should automatically trigger demands for formal investigation or imply wrongdoing.

When a public argument is built upon a misunderstanding of what was actually written, clarification and correction becomes necessary. It is a matter of ensuring that the record is accurate and that the public discussion is grounded in facts rather than assumptions.

My recent column on the Resource Curse was not a response to any criticism of a Peeping Tom column. It was a response to Christopher Ram’s own article on the nature of the Resource Curse and, more specifically, to the implicit analogy he sought to construct between the Phala Phala scandal in South Africa and the manufactured controversy over President Ali’s farm.

In his latest letter, published in yesterday’s edition of Kaieteur News, having stumbled at the very first sentence, Mr. Ram proceeds to triumphantly introduces Nkandla, as though this somehow rescues his comparison with Phala Phala. It does nothing of the sort.

So let me clarify since the public is entitled to such clarification, even for Ram’s own benefit.

The irony, of course, is that Ram’s own Nkandla example actually supports the argument that the nature of the allegation matters. Nkandla was not investigated because Zuma had a house. It was investigated because there were allegations that the State had paid for improvements to that house.

Phala Phala involved allegations of criminal conduct: foreign currency concealed in furniture, theft of undeclared cash, possible exchange control violations, tax issues and money laundering concerns. Criminal allegations naturally invite criminal investigation.

Nkandla was an entirely different matter. It concerned allegations that public funds had been improperly used to enhance the President’s private residence.  And there was a prima facie basis to investigate.

That basis was the alleged expenditure by the South African state on security upgrades and related construction works at President Jacob Zuma’s private homestead in Nkandla, KwaZulu-Natal. Ram’s contention about the evidence is patently wrong.

The expenditure itself was not a secret. Government departments had been involved in the project, and public funds were being spent on the site.  That was known and could be established. The controversy was over whether all of the expenditure was legitimately connected to presidential security requirements or whether some of it amounted to a private benefit to Zuma and his family.

The specific categories of expenditure that became controversial included security upgrades at the President’s private residence, which the state was permitted to provide; construction and improvements that critics argued went beyond security needs, including a swimming pool (later described by authorities as a fire-fighting facility), an amphitheatre, a cattle kraal, a chicken run, and paving and other improvements.

The initial public concern arose because reports indicated that the cost of the project had escalated dramatically, eventually reaching more than R200 million. The question that arose therefore based on evidence was: “Has the South African taxpayer funded improvements to a private residence beyond what is necessary for legitimate presidential security?” That was the factual hook that triggered the investigation.

This distinction is important. The Nkandla investigation was not triggered merely because someone said: “The President has a property; investigate him.” It was triggered because there was an alleged financial connection between the State and a private asset. Public resources were known to have been spent on the property.  That was precisely why the Public Protector had jurisdiction to investigate whether public resources had been unlawfully expended.

This new case introduced by Ram bears no meaningful resemblance to President Ali’s farm. There is no evidence that public funds were involved in building President’s Ali’s farm.

There is, instead, political suspicion elevated into an argument that because questions exist, an inquiry must automatically follow. That is not the rule of law. That is government by insinuation.

Mr. Ram repeatedly insists that investigations exist to discover whether allegations are true. Indeed, they do. But he quietly ignores the equally important question: what threshold should exist before the coercive machinery of the State is deployed against an individual?

Apparently, his answer is remarkably low.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

• Christopher Ram, Peeping Tom, rule of law, suspicion

---