Sign Fica bill, Zuma told

THE Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution (Casac) has written to President Jacob Zuma, asking that he sign the Financial Intelligence Centre Amendment (Fica) Bill immediately, failing which the organisation will take him to the Constitutional Court to force his hand.

Corruption Watch has threatened to follow suit as the Progressive Professionals Forum (PPF) ups the ante in its opposition to the bill.

PPF president Mzwanele Manyi said yesterday the PPF would decide whether to contest the bill in the Constitutional Court once it had studied the final version signed by the president.

Zuma has had almost two months to sign the bill, which was readopted by parliament at the end of February and which is required for South Africa to meet its international commitments to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).

These include instituting measures to strengthen the fight against money laundering and the financing of terrorism as provided for in the bill.

If South Africa does not get the Fica bill on its statute books by June, it could be declared delinquent by the task force, creating difficulties for South Africa’s banks in their relationships with foreign banks.

Such relationships are vital to effect payment for imports and exports. The first deadline in February was missed.

It is important for South Africa to demonstrate its commitment to the sound financial management of the economy, especially in the wake of the recent credit ratings downgrades which indicated a lack of international confidence in the country’s fiscal prudence.

The president sent the bill back to parliament late last year, after a delay of about six months, because of his concerns over the constitutionality of a provision for warrantless searches.

Observers said on Wednesday there was no reason for Zuma’s long delay as he only had to satisfy himself on the single issue of warrantless searches and not the bill in its entirety, which he had considered previously.

“The time is completely reasonable for the president to have signed the bill by now,” Corruption Watch executive director David Lewis said.

Banking Association of SA MD Cas Coovadia said: “There are not any constitutional issues involved.”

By not promulgating the bill, South Africa was sending out the message that it was not serious about dealing with money laundering and financing of terrorism.

There is nothing in law which prescribes the period within which Zuma has to act on bills, but Casac executive secretary Lawson Naidoo said the constitution did require the president to perform his duties diligently.

“We would argue that he has not been diligent with regard to this bill, given the need for SA to comply with FATF regulations and to fight corruption,” he said.

Zuma did not have the power to effectively veto legislation passed by parliament. — TMG