TRANSCRIPT: Adil Nchabeleng, Transform RSA

Date: 11 May 2020

13:32 Called Adil Nchabeleng 1 [phone number redacted], rang no reply, no option to leave
a voicemail
13:33 Called Adil Nchabeleng 2 [phone number redacted], number does not exist
14:24 Adil Nchabeleng 1 returned my call:

[I introduced myself – Susan Comrie from the amaBhungane Centre for Investigative
Journalism. By this point, I had opened my laptop and was able to start recording
with my phone on speaker. SC: Susan Comrie / AN: Adil Nchabeleng]

SC: Thanks for calling me back. I want to just speak to you because we’re writing a story
about social media manipulation. And I wanted to speak to you about a whatsapp
group that you had set up called Twitter Storm.
AN: Yeah?
SC: I mean, from what I can tell the group was sort of created in September 2016, sorry
September 2018, in order to coordinate Twitter activity between supporters of
former President Jacob Zuma and prominent Twitter influencers. Do you think that's
a fair assessment?
AN: No, not that’s not a fair assessment, Susan. I set up the group because one of the
things is we don't have platforms where we can coordinate and speak about some of
the campaigns we do, it has nothing to do with President Jacob Zuma. And I don't
know why we keep getting dragged into a discourse whereby it has be, everything
must be justified around the presidency of Zuma, the former president. People are
doing (indistinct), people are doing a whole lot of independent activities and it’s got
nothing to do with that. The Twitter Storm is actually people who didn’t even know
how to use Twitter. We actually created the platform to start educating on how to
work Twitter, and when we have any form of information that we want to use we
can always engage through the Twitter platform. And it has actually done quite a lot
of work. It has now a presence on Twitter which is quite overwhelming. And most of
it is educational around South African history, political activities and stuff like that.
Some of these things, Susan, they mustn’t make up things.
SC: Well I mean it's just that you know, from what we could tell the, the activities that
were coordinated there seem to be specifically around targeting President
Ramaphosa –
AN: No that’s not it –
SC: I mean, you know, the coordinating “Ramaphosa must fall”, “Special NGC” –
AN: I’m the head of that, I’m the administrator who set up that thing. I never, ever ran a
campaign to say “Ramaphosa must fall”. We don’t even, if we did run a campaign for
Ramaphosa he will not be in power. (Sound muffled as I moved laptop) – so those
kind of things, I don’t know who’s doing that analysis or profiling of the group and
coming up with that kind of analyst point of view, doesn’t make sense. Even from an
intelligence point of view, it’s really missing the whole point completely.
SC: Well it’s just that we could see you had proposed that the people use the hashtag
“Ramaphosa Must Fall”.
AN: That was a long time when there was an issue with Ramaphosa doing something
wrong, that is (indistinct) as unacceptable, you know?
SC: Yes?
AN: So whoever is doing that profiling is completely missing the whole point. I mean this
is a lousy intelligence work to do. You have to understand the background – you
know one of the things we make a mistake in South Africa is we assume things
because people are not involved in the heart of (indistinct). You would take for
instance a simple grouping of that nature and now pin it to an event related
(indistinct). We don’t care whether Ramaphosa stands or falls, it is immaterial
because elections of the president of the ANC is done by the ANC. If we wanted to
influence the collapse of Ramaphosa’s administration, we would have done it
through the channels in the ANC. We are involved in the movement, we have
understanding and all of those things, so you know it’s not really fair to be using
information in a wrong way. And I’m telling you guys because I know journalists have
a funny way of trying to cook up facts in to present whatever their worldview is
which a not the real worldview, (indistinct) creating things. The fact that everybody
must be haunted with this thing amongst blacks, which I find is very (indistinct).
There is this thing that whenever you want to play up President Ramaphosa to be a
good man, they have to include Zuma as the evil. Whenever they want to play up
Zuma as a good man they have to include Ramaphosa. It’s wrong.
SC: Well I mean –
AN: We don’t follow such politics.
SC: Look, we're just going by what we can see was being proposed in the group.
AN: Based on what? How was it sourced? Who did the analysis? Who’s part of a member
of the group to even do that kind of an analysis?
SC: Well we had someone who was a member of the group who allowed us to see some
of the content.
AN: No, no –
SC: Perhaps Mr. Nchabeleng, perhaps let me ask you this, this might help: Could you
perhaps give me an idea of some of the other campaigns that the group has
coordinated through that group –
AN: No –
SC: – that would then allow us to see that it stretches beyond –
AN: No, the word Twitter Storm meant educating people on how to use Twitter and be
present on Twitter to create what we call Twitter Storm. That was the origin of the
group. It never developed further than that, you guys are giving us too much credit
which is wonderful by the way.
SC: (Laughs)
AN: It’s not all of that (laughs).
SC: I think it would be fair to say that a number of the members of the group, you know,
would have no objection to being called, you know, allies of the former president. I
mean, Edward Zuma, Dudu Myeni, Carl Niehaus –
AN: No but why must people always be suppressed to being somebody’s minion?
SC: I'm sorry?
AN: You know what I disagree with. Why must black people whenever they organise
themselves be suppressed to be continuously called somebody else’s minion. Why
don’t you do that with the DA, where you have certain people of a liberal calibre
 doing their own organizing on a social level, they’re never referred to as Zille’s
whatever or Steenhuisen’s this-and-that. Or Rupert this-and-that. But whenever it
comes to black people, I have seen this trend and it’s really quite shocking, that so
undermines, even if we are academics, intellectuals, business people, politicians, we
always get to be second-handed to a minion capacity, we’re not in our own capacity,
to stand out ground, think independently and champion independent ideas, there’s
always somebody, and usually, you know what they use, they use Zuma as the
person who is doing these things. President Zuma is not even (?), this man is retired
long ago, (?) I last saw him in a rally two years ago, when we did the rally in Durban.
That was the last time, and people think there is still this continuing engagement
with the man, and there’s been activities and all these things. No! Black people are
quite capable on their own, to make their campaigns and engagements, and they
don’t have to be literally given agendas to champion. They think independently, the
world has changed.
SC: So what would you, I mean, would you say there is an organising ideology or an
organising principle of group?
AN: There is not, I created the group, there is none. Anyone who tells you there is an
organised ideology is lying to you.
SC: So can I be part of the group?
AN: Of course you can be part of the group.
SC: Okay. I’ll ask you to add me.
AN: We have added on people who have whatever it is we have added on. We’ve got
multiple, we’ve got thousands of groups by the way. Not one group. We’ve got
thousands of them.
SC: Well, I mean the one, the reason this interested in me was that I noticed that there
were two prominent Twitter influencers who were also part of the group they,
they're anonymous accounts that they go by the, the name “Superblack”,
Hostilenativ is the handle, and then the other one is “Izwe Lethu” which goes by the
handle LandNoli.
AN: Izwe Lethu has always been prominent before the group, you know that by the way.
SC: I’m sorry?
AN: Your timeline can show you, Izwe Lethu as well as Superblack, if you can follow them
on your timeline, on their timeline, and in terms of their Twitter activity, they were
far much more even prominent. We brought them in, into the group to educate and
actually assist people who didn’t how Twitter worked. Most of those members on
that group by the way didn’t even know how Twitter works.
SC: So, would it be fair to say I mean the group also seems to be there in order to
coordinate online activity not simply to teach people how to use Twitter?
AN: No, there hasn’t been such activities, there hasn’t been any co-ordinated activities,
and if it was it would have been catastrophic because we are really serious when we
do things. We are really serious. When we (?) activities, we achieve results. If we
used that group to do any of those things by now you will have seen results directly
emerging out of the group, and the group could have even solidified itself into some
sort of a movement. There is nothing right now.
SC: Okay it’s just that –
AN: People musn’t imagine things.
SC: Yeah, it's just that, you know, a lot of the messages are quite clear that they are
trying to attempt to coordinate Twitter activities.
AN: No, no.
SC: I mean, you know, you know, saying “This group is strictly for people who want to be
part of Twitter Storm activities”. “Twitter is our political frontier and battleground”.
AN: No, no you guys are far out reaching, there is no such, please. You’re really far
reaching on this one.
SC: I'm simply reading back to you the messages that you sent on the group.
AN: No, it’s a whole conspiracy. It’s far-reaching, that thing has never been achieved,
achieved what it was intended to do, if we wanted what we wanted out of it by now
you would have seen the group emerge out of a movement. Whoever gave you that
information, gave you short-handed information which was totally incomplete. Let
me explain to you, if people wanted to use Twitter to do revolutionary change a lot
of things wouldn't happen by now. Twitter is one of those mediums which we see as
just a liberal platform for ultra-wealthy and rich people. The majority of the people
we work with are of the masses on the ground. They are not on Twitter, they know
nothing about Twitter. So yes, if you want to influence a few liberals and some ultra-
left and whatever and (indistinct) which most of them have their mind made up, you
wouldn’t need Twitter, you will just say historical information and stuff like, you
know? But that whole assessment and analysis to say this thing is a movement is all
rubbish.
SC: Well, I mean, look what we can what we can see is that they certainly attempts to do
so, whether or not they're successful is a different story.
AN: Please tell your member to actually be active much more to actually do their own
proper analysis.
SC: Can I ask you the, you know, most influencers, most of the prominent influencer
accounts are paid for their work that they do on Twitter. Were those two accounts
remunerated for the work that they were doing with the group and on Twitter?
AN: By who?
SC: I'm asking by you. By the by, by members of the group?
AN: For what?
SC: Well for the work that they were doing on Twitter, when we were participating in
Twitter Storm activities or as you say, for, for helping to educate the group.
AN: No.
SC: They were not paid?
AN: There is not even a remuneration arrangement. Who said they are getting paid from
a Twitter account?
SC: No, I'm simply asking you if they are.
AN: No we’re no (indistinct), we are not you guys who’ve got money and can pay
yourselves doing all these campaigns and stuff like that. We don’t work like that,
Susan.
SC: Can I can I ask you, in terms of Transform RSA. Would you be willing to disclose who
funds Transform RSA?
AN: We’ve always made it clear, we are business funded, we are independent individuals
who have businesses and movements all over the show. The activities by are done
Transform RSA has nothing to do with anything that is political, we always go for civil
society interests and stuff like that so, the funding part of it is we self-fund.
SC: But in terms of individuals who fund, would you not be willing to disclose that?
AN: No. We self-fund. Why would I be doing that? I mean, why don’t you ask DA that
information, which are the individuals that are funding the DA and ANC?
SC: Well, we have been asking for that we've actually been campaigning for a long time
to change the law to force them to disclose.
AN: But you haven’t been successful.
SC: Well, we were sitting trying it's a long Constitutional Court battle to get that one
right.
AN: Yeah they must win those Constitutional Court battles. (indistinct)
SC: I mean, for instance, you know, the court case the Transform RSA I say brought in, I
think it was November 2016 to intervene as an amicus in the Shaun Abrahams case. I
mean, for instance, you know, Transform RSA was not, was barely a shelf company
at that point, so that’s why I’m curious who was able to fund such a significant court
challenge?
AN: What do you mean we were barely a shelf company, we’ve been in existence since
2016. (indistinct) in the forefront, I think, came in 2018.
SC: Well the one I’m referring to is the first one Transform RSA brought in 2016.
AN: Yes, I know the one you’re talking about which was amicus [curiae] or something.
SC: Well, it's just that the company I mean you weren't even registered as a director
then it still had its original shelf company directors.
AN: Yeah. We don’t do those things. Exactly for that reason, because people are always
spying and snooping, who does what. So half of what we do (indistinct) disclose that
information because half of the time we get intercepted and lies are written about
what we are doing when it is not even fact. So we are weary of what people go out
there and peddle and everything. Transform RSA has been in existence, beyond that
point by the way.
SC: Well, I mean, do you not think that if Transform RSA is, because look, there's
certainly the perception that Transform RSA is essentially astroturfing for a particular
faction of the ANC –
AN: No!
SC: That it's effectively taking up fights which largely benefit a particular faction.
AN: No, no, no, if standing for the interests of black people is astroturfing, then that’s a
different discussion. When we talk about the Reserve Bank, it’s an interest that
majority of South Africans have. Is that astroturfing?
SC: Well I mean –
AN: When you talk about the aspect of black executives, which we started the campaign
long ago, remember I think it was 2018, when we said (indistinct) when President
Ramaphosa came into power, they started a move by which even including I think it
was, what’s his name, Pravin and them were involved in removing a lot of black
executives and that trend continued, so we’ve been seeing these things before even
the factions became solidified. When we started the campaign at Transform RSA to
protect SOEs and to root out corruption in government under the SOE banner, there
were no factions in the ANC, there was no Ramaphosa camp, there was no Zuma
camp. No, it was still one camp. So where are all of these things coming from?
SC: Sorry, what period are you talking about?
AN: We’re talking about 2017, 2016.
SC: I think it's fair to say 2016, 2017, there were very clear battle lines drawn within the
ANC.
AN: No there wasn’t!
SC: I mean, come on.
AN: Only towards Nasrec, the six months towards Nasrec, which was not 2017.
SC: But I think 2016 it was very clear that there were battle-lines being drawn.
AN: No there’s wasn’t, go and check it out, the concept of CR17 only was born around
(indistinct) by the way.
SC: Mm hmm.
AN: So it was not even born during this time, it was not even powerful then. It didn’t
even emerge until a year towards Nasrec and that was around 2017, 18 at the time,
alright, that was 2017 heading towards 2018 Nasrec conference. So those things, I
don’t know why would people sit and make up these things. If you guys want black
people to fight, let them fight over the distribution of wealth.
SC: I mean look that’s certainly not our goal at all.
AN: There is a group, which is an elitist group which controlled the majority of South
Africa’s wealth and there’s a few black people (indistinct). Then there is another
grouping which is majority black which is poor and completely isolated from the
economic distribution which is what we fight for. When we say Transform RSA we
are fighting for the distribution of the wealth and the resources of the country that
has benefitted the minority whites as a community and the minority ultra 1% rich
white globally that we actually coined the white monopoly capitalists that have been
doing what they want throughout the world, using funds, using the foreign
exchange, even the South African government, dissipating our state-owned entities
and all of those things, that’s what we are fighting for there has not, has never been,
an even distribution of giving our black people an opportunity to share in the wealth
of this country, equitably. Our people are suffering. I’m not talking out of this
because I’m trying to be political, I know the situation, I have relatives which I have
to visit I have to ask myself a question, “What kind of an African am I having my own
people living like this when I’m among the most successful?” So those are the things
we’re fighting for. When we say let’s transform the country, we are on the opposite
situation, Susan. (indistinct) middle class.
SC: Can I ask –
AN: (indistinct) poor and living in shacks.
SC: Can I ask, you've been an outspoken supporter of nuclear.
AN: You’re fading out, hey.
SC: I’m sorry, you’re been an outspoken supporter of nuclear.
AN: I can’t hear you at all, you’ve completely gone.
SC: Can you hear me now?
AN: Yeah.
SC: You’ve been an outspoken supporter of nuclear. How do it how does that fit into
Transform RSA’s objectives?
AN: What do you mean? Energy sovereignty is one of the things we’ve been fighting for.
SC: But nuclear power is certainly not any kind of distribution of the wealth of the rest of
the country. I mean, we'd be talking about bringing in a foreign company to produce
and own our power.
AN: No (indistinct) coming from the Russians is exactly what the president is doing
throughout the whole world: raising capital in order to fund our growth. There is
nothing wrong with that.
SC: Well, can I ask what, why do you have such a strong opinion on nuclear power?
AN: Nuclear is about energy sovereignty and power of the country. (Indistinct) that we
produce, energy that is reliable, cheap by the way, the only cheapest source of
electricity in South Africa today at 22c or 26c coming out of nuclear by the way,
right, and the aspect of nuclear technology in terms of advancing our society and our
sciences in our communities. Remember our people were given an inferior
education, apartheid education and all sorts of things which we didn’t want. We
know for a fact that through nuclear we will advance our society generations and
advance the future of African people in the continent and around the world in terms
of science, not just in mathematics and as well as science but in all other sciences of
our lives, and nuclear itself is an energy generation source. Every society that has
developed, including the Arabs recently are going into nuclear in massive numbers.
So how is nuclear a political issue, I don’t know.
SC: I think it would be naive to say that nuclear isn't a political issue, particularly when
you see –
AN: (Indistinct) Mbeki had nuclear, I even stated it in my Maverick talk, former president,
what do you call it, was it Mandela? Yeah, Mandela, there was already a programme
around nuclear. Nobody had an issue about it.
SC: I mean I guess the, I guess the reason that people raise questions about it is that it
seems that that you and Transform RSA, and a number of other members of for
instance the Twitter Storm WhatsApp group have picked up issues that are
perceived as being dear to the former president, and promoted them. And because
they're such a strange collection of issues, the common denominator that people see
is the former president, which leads people to say, “This looks like a group who is out
here lobbying and astroturfing for the former president's interests”.
AN: No, that’s all wrong. Totally wrong analysis. Whoever did it really did a terrible job,
I’m telling you now. If we were not in this country, and we were not realistic about
what is going on in South Africa, we would not be raising these issues, okay? The
reason is out of real pertinence, I told you, you cannot disagree that the majority of
black people are living in squalor –
SC: Yes.
AN: – and throughout the continent it’s even worse. You cannot disagree that the
redistribution of what we should have had as a modern society, upwardly mobile in
terms of going up into (indistinct) you cannot disagree that the eradication of what
we are sitting with, which was a legacy of apartheid, huge townships that were
created by the way in order to belabour poors and keep our people in perpetual
slavery was created as a means to literally make sure that we never come up
anywhere in the world. So when we fight for those issues where does Zuma get into
it?
SC: Well I guess the issue is that when one looks at the content of the tweet storm
whatsapp group one doesn't see those issues coming up one sees an anti-
Ramaphosa message and pro-Zuma message, one does not see people saying “Let's
go out there and highlight issues around inequality”. It's, “Let's go out there and call
for a special NGC meeting”.
AN: No, there was no such. There’s no such. As I said, whoever gave you all of that thing
lied to you, you paid wrong people. Bring that money to us we can give you better
work, better value for it.
SC: (Laughs)
AN: Seriously man (laughs).
SC: Look I’m going to –
AN: We can collaborate and work with you guys and really develop something strong. I
can see you guys are struggling with understanding. There is a really issue in South
Africa and black people are not going to sit anymore to be seeing themselves as the
last beneficiaries of the revolution that we fought for that only benefitted the one
racial class, which is the white people. Whether you like it or not, whether you don’t
see it as a benefit, that fact that there is still unequal distribution whether there is
wealth, companies invest and everything, it is always sidelining the majority black
people. There will always be an issue and very soon this country will go into what we
experienced with the Arab, what do you call it, Arab Spring –
SC: Arab Spring, yeah.
AN: – because inequal redistribution, inequal.
SC: Mr. Nchabeleng I think we, I just want to make sure that I've that I've understood
the, I mean I understand what you're saying, but I want to make sure that I've
understood –
AN: You know what Susan, I’m calling you, I’m giving you this insight, it’s not an
interview, I’m talking off record.
SC: I'm sorry you're not talking off the record. This is not off the record. (Laughs)
AN: (indistinct) off record and non-off record conversation.
SC: No, I'm sorry, Mr. Nchabeleng, we're asking you questions. This is not an off the
record conversation, 20 minutes.
AN: Why don’t you say it’s off-record unless you (indistinct)
SC: Well it’s –
AN: I didn’t give you permission to put it on record. I’m saying to you, I’m giving you an
off record and unless you guys want to do this for your own agendas, which is
normal, it’s fine, but my views are quoted off record.
SC: I’m sorry Mr. Nchabeleng but you have to actually, you have to actually ask for that
upfront and –
AN: Let’s do this if you want an on-record conversation with me, please let me know –
SC: Okay.
AN: And I can prepare myself.
SC: Okay, well, look, I'm quite happy that the comments that you've given us cover what
I wanted to discuss. I would like to send you –
AN: Yes, but it’s off the record.
SC: It’s not off the record, it’s on the record Mr. Nchabeleng.
AN: No, it’s off the record.
SC: It’s not.
AN: Unless you want to (indistinct) with me and force it to be an on-record matter, it’s a
different issue.
SC: Mr. Nchabeleng –
AN: I made it totally clear it’s an off record –
SC: Mr. Nchabeleng, the you the first time you mentioned off the record was 20 minutes
into the phone call. So if you would like to say from this point onwards.
AN: (Indistinct) usually do you have to say it before you say it?
SC: Mr. Nchabeleng, when you speak to a journalist there's an understanding that you
understand that unless you say it's off the record that it's on the record.
AN: Okay, anyway, you people, really, you’re involved in a very evil trade.
SC: I mean, look, if you want to send me, if you want to send me comments –
AN: No I’m not having this conversation because you are being unfair. It’s as simple as
that. I mean I don’t know how (indistinct) you people are, when people give you
their rights and their position you still focus on your own position. I’ve engaged you
on the basis that I saw your missed call and then you asked me “There is this thing”
and I said, “No actually this is not what it was intended for”, but anyway –
SC: Mr Nchabeleng, if you’d like to send me, if you’d like to give me an on-the-record
statement I can take that down –
AN: No, call me.
SC: – but if you feel, if there are things that you have said in this conversation already
which is on the record –
AN: No, you know what you should do, call me, maybe tomorrow. I’ll give the call to my
guys and say, “Listen, there is an inquiry in terms of what we are doing, what do you
want to have on-record?” And then they will respond, the people who are involved
in the group, will respond kindly and say, no this is what and what we want to
discuss –
SC: Mr. Nchabeleng, unfortunately it's not up to the people in the group to decide
what's discussed. If you want to give me –
AN: I just told you it’s an off-record –
SC: It’s not off the record Mr. Nchabeleng.
AN: How can you be a journalist who is pushing an agenda and wanting to have things
the way you want them when I’m giving you a position which is completely contrary
to what you are saying? The thing you are told you just made up. They have no
factual sense of anything.
SC: I’m sorry?
AN: (Indistinct) of the things that you guys are making up about what these groups are
existing for are unfactual.
SC: Well Mr. Nchabeleng, that’s why I’d like to send you the extracts that we are
interested in and that we may quote in the story, and I'd like you to comment on
those because specifically the issues around that you saying that the group was not
coordinating Twitter activity, I think it's very clear that the group was coordinating
Twitter activity and I'd like to show you point you to the messages that that clearly
show that.
AN: No, let me explain to you. Unless you are telling me there are people in the group
that are doing activities, that’s a different thing. But from our point of view, there
was no co-ordinated activity. But then you (indistinct) you cook up things the way
you want them, and you have them as your outcome, it’s fine. (Indistinct) state very
clearly, I should have recorded your conversation so that I run it back to you and I
and give it to Twitter guys, here’s the view, here’s what you wrote.
SC: Well, should I send you a couple of, should I send you over WhatsApp or email then
the specific things where I want to show you that I think that the message is
contradict what you're saying?
AN: Okay, send it please.
SC: What email address should I use or do you want me to send it to you on WhatsApp?
AN: Send it to me on WhatsApp.
SC: I’ll send it to you on WhatsApp. Okay, I'm gonna send that to you now. Thank you.
Bye.
AN: Okay bye.