Zuma simply needs to play by the rules

"We should not have to be dragooned into setting high standards in public life. We should willingly seek maximum openness about what our public representatives do, and receive." These words are as true today as they were in 1996, when senior African National Congress member Kader Asmal said them.

Intrinsically connected with the advent of a democratically elected Parliament was an attempt to build a culture of integrity among elected representatives. A code of ethics was drawn up for MPs and members of the executive to declare their assets. In Parliament, an ethics committee was set up to further increase accountability. The watchwords were transparency, accountability and openness.

The codes of ethics for both MPs and the executive clearly envisage that elected representatives not "expose themselves to any situation involving the risk of a conflict between their official responsibilities and their private interests" or use their public positions for private gain.

In addition, the codes clearly state that interests that must be disclosed include shares, sponsorships, gifts, benefits, foreign travel and land. The code governing the executive clearly states that even liabilities must be disclosed, as well as the interests of spouses and dependent children.

When the codes were put in place, the emphasis was on building a culture of accountability and ensuring elected representatives and officials "did the right thing". The central aim was never really punitive, but preventative.

In 2003, the Institute for Democracy in SA (Idasa) released a report titled Ethics in Post-apartheid SA, outlining the difficulties in the ethics regime and its often patchy implementation. Scrutinising the records of cabinet disclosures at the Union Buildings proved difficult and it was never clear how extensive executive declarations actually were.

Again in 2006 the auditor-general reported that "declarations of interest by ministers, deputy ministers and government employees" was cause for concern. Also, the Public Service Commission found that, on the face of it, 14 out of 20 ministers and most deputy ministers had not disclosed their financial interests, as required in terms of the Executive Members' Ethics Act and pursuant codes.


It is therefore cause for concern that it appears that President Jacob Zuma has not yet disclosed his financial interests as required by law. The usual practice is that the secretary to cabinet monitors disclosure. In terms of the Executive Members Ethics Act as well as the related Executive Ethics Code, members of the cabinet must disclose all financial interests and liabilities as well as those of their spouses and dependent children, within 60 days of assuming office. Zuma is therefore in breach of the law.

The main aim of the legislation is to prevent blatant conflicts of interests which result in personal gain trumping the interests of the country. That the Presidency does not seem concerned about this breach of the rules is not only undesirable but sets an unhealthy precedent. Why should ordinary MPs or ministers disclose their assets if the president has failed to do so?


Despite what appears to be obfuscation by Zuma's advisers, there is no ambiguity about the law - he must disclose. During the trial of Schabir Shaik, the president's former financial adviser, information about Zuma's then chaotic financial affairs came to light.

Recently there have been reports of one of Zuma's wives benefiting from a catering contract in KwaZulu-Natal and questions were raised regarding the allocation of the contract . It thus becomes a source of discomfort when the president appears casual about disclosure, when the rules state clearly that this ought to have happened .

If elected representatives do not follow the rules of disclosure of financial interests, the public's right to know is blunted. Zuma has made much about the need for a "moral code" and a discussion about morality. It is probably undesirable for him to try to initiate this type of discussion. All citizens really expect of their elected representatives is to provide leadership and to adhere to the rules of the game. If Zuma wants to provide more leadership, the ethics disclosure forms would be a place to start.

Asmal: Militarisation of police is 'craziness'

Deputy Police Minister Fikile Mbalula's idea of militarising the police service is "craziness" and smacks of "low-level political decision-making", former minister Kader Asmal said in Cape Town on Monday. "The new administration is referring to the militarization of the police," Asmal told the Cape Town Press Club. "I have this former head of the youth league [Mbalula] who aspires to be secretary general of the ANC. Ha, really, I hope I won't be alive," he said. "He said we must militarise the police. We spent days and days in 1991 to get away from the idea of a militarised police force. Extraordinary. "This is a kind of craziness all of us have to take into account. It is part of that low-level political decision-making without reference to the Cabinet."

Mbalula has said he wants the police service transformed into a paramilitary force, with military ranks and discipline. It has been reported in the media that he has been canvassing African National Congress offices to elect him as the party's secretary general in 2012. Asmal said it was remarkable how the current administration's "political memory" had failed, hinting that it was showing signs of re-establishing apartheid-era security organisations such as the Bureau of State Security (Boss). "So the police service is wrong. According to the president it must be a police force. "We have a minister of intelligence now called minister of state security. Shew. Bureau of State Security. Boss it was known as. It is remarkable how political memory totally recedes into the background."

Asmal said the government would have to change the Constitution to "militarise" the police ranking system. "If a station commander is made general, what is going to happen to the national commissioner of police? "He is going to be 'generalisimo' or 'il duce' or Field Marshall. "According to the Constitution the president appoints the national commissioner of the police. You have to amend the Constitution and become the laughing stock of the world just to change a name."

Source: Mail & Guardian

Why Kader Asmal resigned from Parliament

Former Cabinet minister Kader Asmal resigned from Parliament because he did not want to vote for the disbanding of the Scorpions, he said in a lecture on Tuesday evening. It would have been immoral of him to vote for the disbanding of the elite crime fighting unit, Asmal told an audience at the University of Johannesburg, Beeld newspaper reported on Wednesday. He said he had made it clear that he did not want the Scorpions to be disbanded and that he stuck to his principles by retiring.

Asmal also said the so-called Travelgate MPs should not have been allowed to vote on the disbanding of the unit. "The issue here is not whether the member of Parliament is legally entitled to vote, the issue is how it is perceived as a matter of ethics. Is it right to take actions against the very body that has completed the investigation against you?," asked Asmal, according to Sowetan newspaper.

MPs implicated in the Travelgate scandal were allowed to vote on the Scorpions last week after businessman Hugh Glenister failed in a court bid to block them. Glenister insisted that because MPs allegedly involved in the travel-voucher scam had been investigated by the Scorpions, there was a conflict of interest. The National Assembly last Thursday approved legislation to disband the unit, which was responsible for criminal investigations against African National Congress president Jacob Zuma and suspended police National Commissioner Jackie Selebi.

Source: Mail & Guardian