South Africa does not have a corruption problem alone. It has a selective outrage problem. The Constitutional Court's Phala Phala ruling of last week may be the moment South Africa discovers whether our society is capable, finally, of applying the same standard to those it admires as to those it despises.

If South Africa wants to meaningfully and effectively combat corruption, it must abandon its stance of selective condemnation.

We see it every day, especially when a political opponent is accused: due process becomes an afterthought, and the allegation alone is treated as a conviction, without a single minute of court or disciplinary proceedings. But, when an ally is accused, due process suddenly becomes a fortress: every procedural question is raised, every technicality explored, every delay welcomed. Impressive creativity is used to offer inexplicable justifications for why accountability should be measured, contextualised or deferred.

This pattern runs across the political spectrum, practised by parties that built their identities on fighting corruption and then discovered flexibility when their own leaders faced scrutiny, by commentators who pivoted from demanding accountability to debating legal technicalities. In my experience, it happens across other sectors, including within civil society itself.

Follow us on WhatsApp | LinkedIn for the latest headlines

The Phala Phala scandal calls for exactly this kind of about-turn. As an activist who has worked in this space, it can become deeply frustrating, even infuriating, to watch mainstream actors in news media and politics backslide on the core principles that underpin the anti-corruption struggle.

The Phala Phala saga has been, in this regard, painfully...