It seems as if the the precious jewel that is the constitutional state of South Africa, lacks the constitutional capacity to protect itself in the event that the head of state is held captive, under some form of duress: by impulses internal to himself that he is unable to control; or by a syndicate, business or criminal, that he may be beholden to by patronage; or by a leader or leaders of powerful countries with hundreds of years of history, who spot an opportunity for geopolitical leverage by exercising a hold over a relatively strong country with a weak, gullible leader who holds the illusion of cold war solidarity sentiments and loyalties that they know are dead; or who is in his personal life a cash-strapped leader, but who wields total control over his political party, which is beholden to him for the popular vote.
What recourse does such a country have in the face of such a toxic mix? It is a constitutional issue that demands to be addressed before the next national election and which must be a decisive electoral issue.
We must reach a point where even the suspicion of a corrupt relationship between the president and suspicious benefactors suspected of corruption carries the threat of severe consequences that can lead to impeachment and loss of power by constitutional means.
Currently, South Africa seems vulnerable to a popular political party that feels little obligation to constitutional probity, even if that lack of obligation placed the party against its own historical convictions.