ONE of the biggest questions about parliament’s aborted ad hoc committee, assembled to scrutinise President Jacob Zuma’s response to Public Protector Thuli Madonsela’s report on his Nkandla home, is: did opposition parties on the committee handle their tactics intelligently?
The Nkandla issue has been bubbling along since 2009, shortly after Zuma was elected to office at the last national and provincial elections. It could have been dealt with, if not settled outright, at least a year ago.
Madonsela’s report, titled “Secure in Comfort”, found that Zuma did unduly benefit from the R246-million worth of taxpayer monies being spent on the security upgrades of his Nkandla private residence.
The ANC’s argument that the opposition parties wanted the issue to come to parliament so they could use it in their electioneering is partially valid.
But all MPs swear an oath to uphold the constitution, and part of that task is to ensure that the executive is held accountable.
So, knowing this, what did the opposition parties do to ensure some form of accountability was extracted from the ad hoc committee?
The committee met for only about five-and-a-half hours.
The first session was held on Thursday of last week, when it met for just more than 90 minutes to elect its chairman and to begin considering its programme.
The second meeting, on Monday, April 28, did not even get into the issue at hand, before the ANC used its majority muscle to shut it down by referring the matter to the next parliament that will be formed after the May 7 elections.
Comments made by the ANC MPs during the meetings made it clear their loyalty was to their party and issues of constitutionality were of no consequence whatsoever.
They emphasised the point that the Nkandla issue was a serious matter and they really wanted to deal with it, but (and the important point always comes after a but) there was not enough time for the committee to do its work in a fair manner, nor a manner that would get to the truth of the issue.
Time, rather than the issue, was the main enemy of this committee.
With the current parliament set to expire at midnight on May 6, and its business then falling into abeyance, it means that the next parliament does not have to resurrect anything it doesn’t want to.
The DA proposed a work schedule for the committee that can be described as ambitious, if not overreaching. They wanted Madonsela to testify, and they wanted the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) to brief them on their investigation, apart from several other parties and personalities. The DA also wanted other people or organisations that felt they should make submissions to be heard as well.
The ANC agreed with this. Its argument was that this was such a serious issue, all those people had to be heard — and many others, such as those being probed by the SIU.
“But there will not be sufficient time to do all of this and write the report before May 6. We are also all very busy on the campaign trail, so we must leave this up to the next parliament so full justice can be done,” was the message the ANC gave the opposition.
African Christian Democratic Party MP Steve Swart tried to get the committee to deal with some part of the issue, such as Zuma’s letter to parliament, which was part of his submission. Swart’s point was just to get something going even it appeared to be very little. However, no other party would listen to him.
Delaying, vacillating, and obfuscation have become the hallmarks of the executive and the ANC tactics in dealing with the whole issue.
Zuma delayed responding to Madonsela’s queries by nine months and then did not answer 28 other questions.
An inter-ministerial task team set up by the security cluster of ministers came out with its own report clearing the executive arm of government of any wrongdoing and, using a tried and trusted tactic, sought mid-to lower-level managers to use as scapegoats.
Zuma has also ordered the SIU to probe the matter.
His letter to parliament stated that he was awaiting the outcome of that probe.
A victim who is being slowly smothered seeks every tiny extra moment to live, even if the struggle is ultimately futile. The opposition parties should have used that principle to extract every bit of extra time to extend the life of the committee, by an hour or even a day.
Postponing the death vote could have been done through filibustering, reading the covering letters slowly, and so on, to gain some extra time to glean the chance of a revelation or a concession from the ANC. But alas, by sticking their necks out and proposing a serious plan of action, the DA just gave the ANC the chance it needed to press the pillow tighter and squeeze the last breath out of the ad hoc committee.
Paul Vecchiatto writes for Business Day
DA’s bungled tactics could mean end of Nkandla saga
The Nkandla issue has been bubbling along since 2009, shortly after Zuma was elected to office at the last national and provincial elections. It could have been dealt with, if not settled outright, at least a year ago.
Madonsela’s report, titled “Secure in Comfort”, found that Zuma did unduly benefit from the R246-million worth of taxpayer monies being spent on the security upgrades of his Nkandla private residence.
The ANC’s argument that the opposition parties wanted the issue to come to parliament so they could use it in their electioneering is partially valid.
But all MPs swear an oath to uphold the constitution, and part of that task is to ensure that the executive is held accountable.
So, knowing this, what did the opposition parties do to ensure some form of accountability was extracted from the ad hoc committee?
The committee met for only about five-and-a-half hours.
The first session was held on Thursday of last week, when it met for just more than 90 minutes to elect its chairman and to begin considering its programme.
The second meeting, on Monday, April 28, did not even get into the issue at hand, before the ANC used its majority muscle to shut it down by referring the matter to the next parliament that will be formed after the May 7 elections.
Comments made by the ANC MPs during the meetings made it clear their loyalty was to their party and issues of constitutionality were of no consequence whatsoever.
They emphasised the point that the Nkandla issue was a serious matter and they really wanted to deal with it, but (and the important point always comes after a but) there was not enough time for the committee to do its work in a fair manner, nor a manner that would get to the truth of the issue.
Time, rather than the issue, was the main enemy of this committee.
With the current parliament set to expire at midnight on May 6, and its business then falling into abeyance, it means that the next parliament does not have to resurrect anything it doesn’t want to.
The DA proposed a work schedule for the committee that can be described as ambitious, if not overreaching. They wanted Madonsela to testify, and they wanted the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) to brief them on their investigation, apart from several other parties and personalities. The DA also wanted other people or organisations that felt they should make submissions to be heard as well.
The ANC agreed with this. Its argument was that this was such a serious issue, all those people had to be heard — and many others, such as those being probed by the SIU.
“But there will not be sufficient time to do all of this and write the report before May 6. We are also all very busy on the campaign trail, so we must leave this up to the next parliament so full justice can be done,” was the message the ANC gave the opposition.
African Christian Democratic Party MP Steve Swart tried to get the committee to deal with some part of the issue, such as Zuma’s letter to parliament, which was part of his submission. Swart’s point was just to get something going even it appeared to be very little. However, no other party would listen to him.
Delaying, vacillating, and obfuscation have become the hallmarks of the executive and the ANC tactics in dealing with the whole issue.
Zuma delayed responding to Madonsela’s queries by nine months and then did not answer 28 other questions.
An inter-ministerial task team set up by the security cluster of ministers came out with its own report clearing the executive arm of government of any wrongdoing and, using a tried and trusted tactic, sought mid-to lower-level managers to use as scapegoats.
Zuma has also ordered the SIU to probe the matter.
His letter to parliament stated that he was awaiting the outcome of that probe.
A victim who is being slowly smothered seeks every tiny extra moment to live, even if the struggle is ultimately futile. The opposition parties should have used that principle to extract every bit of extra time to extend the life of the committee, by an hour or even a day.
Postponing the death vote could have been done through filibustering, reading the covering letters slowly, and so on, to gain some extra time to glean the chance of a revelation or a concession from the ANC. But alas, by sticking their necks out and proposing a serious plan of action, the DA just gave the ANC the chance it needed to press the pillow tighter and squeeze the last breath out of the ad hoc committee.
Paul Vecchiatto writes for Business Day
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending Now
Latest Videos