The Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) has concluded that South Africa’s High Commissioner to India, Anil Sooklal, did not organise, facilitate or take part in any private meetings between former president Jacob Zuma and businessman Ajay Gupta during Zuma’s recent visit to India.
DIRCO describes support as routine protocol
DIRCO spokesperson Chrispin Phiri said in a statement on Wednesday that the department had completed consultations with the High Commission in New Delhi following Zuma’s private trip from 25 to 27 June. According to the department, information from the High Commission showed it did not facilitate any substantive engagement between Zuma and Ajay Gupta during the visit.
Phiri said the assistance provided by the mission consisted of the kinds of administrative and logistical support routinely extended to former presidents through official channels. He listed examples including ceremonial lounge arrangements, airport courtesies, liaison with host‑country authorities and travel facilitation.
"The Mission did not facilitate any substantive engagement between former President Jacob Zuma and Mr Ajay Gupta during the visit," Phiri said.
Footage and photographs prompted recall for consultations
The department’s internal review followed the circulation of photographs and video showing Sooklal, Zuma and Gupta at a religious ceremony in Haridwar, in which Zuma addressed local media and referred to Gupta in familiar terms. Clips from the event show Zuma describing Gupta as his "friend and brother" and speaking about a return to political power. Those images prompted public criticism and led to Sooklal being recalled to DIRCO headquarters for consultations in early August.
The reaction to the footage included a public rebuke from the Minister in the Presidency, Khumbudzo Ntshavheni, who said the scenes showed a disregard for South Africans’ concerns. DIRCO’s statement does not appear to have addressed directly any ministerial critique; it confined its findings to the role of the mission and the High Commissioner.
Context: Gupta family and state capture legacy
The Gupta family left South Africa in 2018 amid intensive investigations into alleged corruption and state capture during Zuma’s presidency. The judicial commission chaired by Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo documented extensive evidence of the family’s influence over state decisions and protection by some political actors. The Haridwar footage has revived public scrutiny of relationships between former office‑bearers and individuals linked to those state capture allegations.
DIRCO’s description of its role emphasises official protocol and logistical support. It stopped short of commenting on the propriety of the private interactions captured on video, or on whether those interactions have political or legal implications.
- Who was involved: Jacob Zuma (former president), Ajay Gupta (businessman linked to state capture), Anil Sooklal (High Commissioner to India), DIRCO (department conducting review).
- Where and when: Religious ceremony in Haridwar during Zuma’s private visit to India, 25–27 June.
- Outcome: DIRCO found the mission did not facilitate substantive engagement; assistance was routine protocol and logistical support.
| Date | Event | Role |
|---|---|---|
| 25–27 June | Zuma’s private visit to India, Haridwar ceremony | High Commission provided protocol and logistical support, DIRCO said |
How the matter develops may hinge less on the department’s finding about diplomatic protocol and more on political reaction. The images added fuel to ongoing debates about accountability for state capture and about how former presidents and officials should conduct themselves internationally when linked, even informally, to controversial figures.
For the government, DIRCO’s statement provides a narrow administrative conclusion: the mission did not arrange substantive meetings. For opponents and critics of Zuma, the footage itself — and Zuma’s remarks — remain politically potent, reinforcing long‑running concerns about the Gupta family’s reach. The review does not alter the judicial record compiled by the Zondo Commission, nor does it address any potential law‑enforcement lines of inquiry that may arise from the visit.
DIRCO’s public account closes this particular internal line of enquiry. But in South African politics, appearances and associations continue to matter: officials, diplomats and former presidents alike will be judged as much by what is seen as by what is formally authorised.
