The appointment of Mcebisi Jonas as South Africa’s Special Envoy to the United States has sparked much speculation and debate across political, academic, and diplomatic circles. While some have celebrated the move as a strategic deployment of a respected statesman, others have questioned the underlying motivations. I offer this opinion not as an ultimate answer, but as an additional lens through which we might begin to connect the dots — those visible, hidden, and historical.

To borrow from theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, “It is the nature, and the advantage, of strong people that they can bring out the crucial questions and form a clear opinion about them.” This is what I attempt to do here: to raise uncomfortable, yet necessary, questions in pursuit of clarity.

Let us begin with a basic understanding of the role of a Special Envoy. Unlike a traditional diplomat stationed permanently in a foreign mission, a Special Envoy is typically appointed for a specific purpose, usually of high-level strategic importance. They can be drawn from a wide range of backgrounds — politicians, businesspeople, clergy, or media figures. Their appointment signals urgency or importance beyond routine diplomatic relations. So, why was Mcebisi Jonas chosen?

One of the prevailing theories, discussed in various reputable publications, links Jonas’ appointment to his past involvement with MTN Group, where he served as Chairperson. Many believe his MTN appointment was facilitated by President Cyril Ramaphosa as a reward for his role in exposing the infamous Gupta bribery attempt—allegedly involving R600 million — and for implicating Duduzane Zuma and others in the broader State Capture narrative.

However, to understand the significance of this MTN connection, we must examine the deeper history. Ramaphosa himself served as Chairperson of the MTN Board and had business ties with key figures in the company. Consider Sifiso Dabengwa, former MTN CEO, who was once married to Phuti Mahanyele, a former CEO of Ramaphosa’s Shanduka Group and later of NASPERS. These interlocking relationships suggest a network of influence where political and corporate interests converge.

Furthermore, investigative journalism by Amabhungane revealed the existence of a scheme dubbed “Project Snooker,” allegedly involving bribery and manipulation within MTN. In transcripts linked to the testimony of whistleblower Chris Kilowan, top executives, including Dabengwa and Phuthuma Nhleko, were named. At the time, Ramaphosa was reportedly on MTN’s board. These dots, though scattered, begin to form a pattern.

Jonas, now positioned as Special Envoy to the US, could very well be expected to protect the interests of this powerful network, especially in an international arena where scrutiny of South Africa’s corporate and political activities is intensifying.

Another layer to this complex narrative involves alleged reports that the US is probing the ANC’s financial dealings with Iran. Claims have surfaced—however unverified — that Iran may have contributed funds to settle ANC debts. Even if these reports are mere propaganda, they have geopolitical implications. The US government has, in the past, labelled groups and governments as “terrorists” based on shifting alliances. Osama bin Laden was once hailed as a freedom fighter, then branded a terrorist. Nelson Mandela himself remained on the US terror watch list until 2008.

These examples are not offered to equate the ANC with terrorism, but rather to highlight the subjectivity of such labels in global politics. The concern is not just about funding, but about influence, transparency, and alignment with US foreign policy interests. In this climate, the deployment of a figure like Jonas — a man widely perceived as clean, ethical, and brave—may serve as a strategic buffer to deflect attention from the current administration and redirect it toward the Zuma-era scandals.

In that context, Jonas fits a very particular profile. He is the celebrated whistle-blower. The man who refused Gupta's money. The face of resistance to State Capture. His credibility is unblemished in the eyes of many, and he presents a stark contrast to the controversies that continue to surround others within the ANC.

The plot thickens when one recalls the infamous “hidden mattress dollars” found at Phala Phala—the scandal that raised more questions than answers. The involvement of US dollars potentially drew the interest of US authorities, particularly through agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which investigates financial crimes, illicit transactions, and the movement of unaccounted wealth into or out of the United States. Their reach is broad, and their curiosity is not easily appeased.

Against this backdrop, Jonas’ appointment could serve several purposes: restoring faith in South Africa’s international image, managing fallout from ongoing US investigations, and safeguarding the interests of powerful entities with both political and corporate stakes. Whether intentional or not, the dots seem to connect to a broader narrative of political damage control and strategic realignment.

Let us also not forget South Africa’s stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict and its role in bringing the genocide case against Israel to the International Court of Justice. This bold move strained relations with Western powers, particularly the US, which maintains strong ties with Israel. The appointment of Jonas could be seen as a diplomatic softener— an attempt to cool tensions and reestablish dialogue amid a geopolitical storm.

As we examine these interwoven threads, I am reminded of Steve Jobs’ famous words: “You can’t connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards.” We may not yet see the full picture, but the pattern becomes clearer with each new development.

Yet, caution must be exercised. As author Seth Godin argues, there’s a difference between connecting dots and merely collecting them. The former requires insight, context, and critical thinking; the latter can easily lead to conspiracy without substance. Still, history often provides us with the clues we need to see present decisions in their true light.

So, where does that leave us?

In my view, Jonas’ appointment is not merely about diplomacy. It is about narrative control. It is about shielding and shaping perceptions, both international and domestic. It is about who gets to represent South Africa at a time when reputational damage, past sins, and current complexities converge.

In the end, we must consider the old Setswana saying: Maru ga se pula, mosi ke ona molelo—clouds don’t always bring rain, but smoke always signals fire.

And in this case, the smoke is thick. Whether we acknowledge it or not, there is something burning beneath the surface.

Prof. Boitumelo B. Senokoane is a Professor in the College of Human Sciences at UNISA. The views expressed are his own.