JOHANNESBURG, 4 November 2025– In a development that has sparked notable commentary across Africa’s political circles, former South African president Jacob Zuma once again finds himself under scrutiny following a high-profile meeting with Ibrahim Traoré, the leader of Burkina Faso. The meeting, described by hosts as part of a broader agenda of “African liberation” and self-determination, raises pointed questions: is this simply diplomatic engagement, or a more calculated move by Zuma?

The meeting took place in Burkina Faso’s capital, Ouagadougou, where Traoré granted Zuma an audience at the presidential palace. According to reports, the two men discussed themes of economic sovereignty, regional security and “ways Africa must liberate itself from foreign influence”.

Zuma also delivered remarks emphasising that “Africa belongs to Africans” and called for an end to external domination of African resources.

Traoré has presented his government’s policy direction as one that challenges established foreign dependencies and emphasises local control. That alignment, however, introduces a striking tension: Zuma is intimately associated with a legacy of corruption and the state-capture scandal with the Gupta brothers, which many observers say deeply damaged public trust in governance in South Africa.

So the question arises: what does it mean that this former president, embroiled in allegations of misuse of state power, is meeting with Traoré, a figure casting his political identity around liberation and anti-corruption narratives? Is this merely an exercise in diplomacy, or is it the launching pad for a broader campaign strategy by Zuma?

If the meeting is part of a calculated bid to rebrand or reposition himself politically, the strategy faces significant headwinds. Public perception of Zuma remains tainted by his state-capture ties, and aligning with a leader celebrated for “liberation” rhetoric may look more ironic than credible to many.

For such a strategy to sell, Zuma would need to convincingly address the raised inconsistency: a leader once accused of entrenching corrupt networks now aligning with a purportedly anti-corruption liberation figure. The symbolic power of the meeting is high, but the credibility gap is equally substantial.

Ultimately, whether this meeting proves to be a genuine shift in trajectory or a tactical manoeuvre remains to be seen. What is certain is that the optics of the situation invite sharp scrutiny: a former leader marred by scandal reaching out in a meeting to a rising leader styling himself a liberator, the divergence is stark. And for Zuma, navigating that divergence may define his political fortunes going forward.