Is respect deserved?

CHARACTERISTIC of an unusually turbulent beginning, the fifth parliament has been running multiple parallel probes.

We’re told the outcome of one of these investigations will restore integrity to parliament.

However, the proceedings of the other two committees threaten to undermine the supposed attempts at regaining integrity.

Frankly, the three outcomes combined may even yield a facade that is likely conceal the real problem, leaving it to persist unresolved.

The inquiries in question relate to:

l The recent parliamentary fracas involving a trio of Economic Freedom Fighters, the President of the Republic, Jacob Zuma, and the speaker of parliament, Baleka Mbete. It was conducted by the rules and privileges committee;

l Inappropriate expenditure of public money on President Zuma’s private home, Nkandla, probed by an ad hoc committee; and

l The one into the qualifications of the chair of the SABC board, Ellen Tshabalala, by the portfolio committee on communications.

No one doubts the merit of the investigation by the rules committee.

The president should never be evacuated from parliament, rescued from aggressive howls coming from across the isle demanding accountability. A head of state should be allowed to provide satisfactory answers to questions posed in a civil manner by MPs in their exercise of accountability.

Similarly, the speaker of parliament, whose responsibility it is to ensure parliament functions optimally, should ensure that the executive takes the National Assembly seriously instead of simply going through the motions giving meaningless answers.

None of the above happened on that historic day of parliamentary upheaval. Something is obviously wrong in parliament. Any attempts to ensure that all parliamentary business happens as it ought to should be applauded. It is not clear though, if the rules committee can ever devise rules that strengthen executive accountability.

Nor is there any indication that the current speaker of parliament can lean on the executive to answer parliamentary questions candidly.

And, there are no guarantees that the opposition will remain silent when parliament is reduced to a cheerleading contest.

It is still early in the life of the fifth parliament, but one is skeptical that the outcomes of this committee will restore respectability to the institution.

This leads me to the proceedings of the other two committees. They don’t inspire hope either, but rather add to one’s despair.

While  the rules committee feels some contrition at making claims purporting to restore decorum to parliament, the ad hoc committee on the Nkandla report has made no such promises.

Indeed it has dispensed with any pretence towards noble goals. This committee is determined that parliament remains a lapdog.

In its zeal to empty parliament of any meaning, the Nkandla committee has not only ignored precedence, but has invented fanciful, if not pseudo-legal, arguments.

Mathole Motshekga, an MP representing the ANC on the committee, says the Public Protector, Thuli Madonsela, cannot tell parliament what to do. If Madonsela was allowed to do so, that would be a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers.

A legal scholar and demonstrating what is apparently his own understanding of the law, Motshekga goes on to add that complying with Madonsela’s recommendations would “mean that the public protector was elevated (above) the jurisdiction of the parliament”.

The implications of what Motshekga is saying make his argument quite intriguing. It means Zuma has had it wrong all along.

The man has fired many of his ministers purely on Madonsela’s recommendations.

This also means that even the president’s legal advisors have been wrong. Remember the president would have sought their advice, especially on firing Bheki Cele. The general was a trusted friend and the president would most likely have explored some loopholes to avoid firing him.

But, fire him he did, which means Madonsela’s recommendations are binding and can only be overturned by court.

And where was Motshekga all along with the rare legal insight to relieve the president of what must have been a painful experience in complying with Madonsela?

Could it be that Motshekga is a legal genius?

Maybe, but this is clearly political manoeuvring rather than a constitutional breakthrough.

Of course the recent judgment by the Western Cape High Court on Madonsela’s recommendations to suspend SABC chief operating officer Hlaudi Motsoeneng hasn’t settled the issue. The court ruled that the public protector’s recommendations cannot be ignored – unless a rational reason for this is provided.

For this reason, the judge sided with Madonsela. Motsoeneng had to be suspended. The Minister of Communications Faith Muthambi had not provided a rational reason for ignoring the public protector’s recommendations.

But then the question is, who decides if the reasons given for ignoring Madonsela’s recommendations are rational?

Contestation over Madonsela’s findings is likely to persist until the court rules decisively on the matter.

In the absence of this, the Nkandla committee will continue its charade.

If the latter is complicit in stifling parliament then the proceedings of the third inquiry – the portfolio committee on communications’ – suggest Mbete is indifferent, if not approving, of parliament’s downward slide.

Chaired by Joyce Moloi-Moropa, this committee doesn’t seem to be getting any help from the parliamentary leadership when it is clearly doing its work.

While  undertaking its investigating into claims that Tshabalala lied about her qualifications, the committee recommended she be suspended.

This a decision that can only be implemented by the president. But, the president hasn’t done any of this and the Presidency now claims  the speaker never forwarded the recommendation to their office.

It is now reported that Cedric Frolick, an ANC MP and chair of the National Assembly, rescinded the committee’s decision.

Frolick’s intervention is bizarre. The committee did not arrive at their decision lightly. It has been dealing with this matter for almost four months. Because of the self evident case of deception, one would have thought Frolick would support the committee.

It has correspondence showing that Tshabalala does not have the qualifications she claims to hold.

Anyway, surely she would have furnished these by now if she had them? Yes, she submitted an affidavit to parliament claiming her certificates were in a bag that was stolen when her house was burgled. But the university in question has no record of her passing any BCom subjects, let along granting her a degree. This is why the committee is also charging her with breaking the law by submitting an affidavit with false information.

Frankly, Tshabalala’s attitude has been downright disdainful towards the communications committee.

And she has done so in a manner that suggests she’s untouchable.

She was  furious that the committee even dared to suspend her. She wrote to them accusing them of being motivated by malice and claiming their actions were unjust. That letter was also copied to the president who Tshabalala clearly wanted to know that she didn’t like the way parliament had treated her.

But, why would the president care if Tshabalala was hurt?

Or maybe she was trying to tell tales to the president about the chair, Moloi-Morope.

But, again what could possibly give Tshabalala the confidence to think the president of the republic would side with her over the duly elected lawmakers? I truly don’t know and can’t even venture a guess.

Now the portfolio committee – with powers vested in it by the constitution – has to wait for Tshabalala to fit them into her busy schedule.

Yip, that’s what she said when she showed up on October 14 for what was meant to be the beginning of the inquiry process.

But it never started because her lawyer needed time to familiarise himself with her situation. And it wasn’t clear when the inquiry would start either.

Tshabalala was clearly not keen to go to parliament. She explained: “I am a non-executive director, I don’t suck my thumb all my life waiting for things to happen… I’m running a business. The date must be reasonable for me to have consultations with my lawyers”.

She’s now gone to court, funded by public money, to have the judge give clarity about whether parliament is putting her through a disciplinary hearing or an inquiry. And she still has not produced her “qualifications”!

Clearly Tshabalala has no regard for parliament. But then, shouldn’t Frolick, Mbete or even the president say something to suggest that parliament actually matters?

Perhaps parliament doesn’t deserve respect…?

Dr Mcebisi Ndletyana  is the head of the faculty of political economy at Mistra