Rule of law must take its course in Speaker’s corruption case
THE position of a Speaker in the National Assembly is a highly esteemed one as the incumbent has the onerous responsibility of ensuring that the conduct of the members of parliament, at all times, befits their status and responsibility to ensure the decorum of parliament and the principles of democracy enshrined in the Constitution as they have taken an oath of office to serve with honour and dignity.
Against the background of findings in the Zondo Commission that investigated corruption in government, the conduct of the Speaker in the National Assembly, who has taken special leave following an investigation into allegations of corruption and is accused of receiving bribes amounting to R2.25 million from a defence contractor when she was the minister of defence, is most depressive and disconcerting.
This must be deemed as “a blatant disregard for ethical conduct and the rule of law”.
The Speaker has taken special leave amid protests calling for her resignation as no such “privilege exists in the rule book”.
The rule of law must takes its course; guilt must be proven in a court of law. The conduct of a public servant goes beyond the doctrine of the law; their moral commitment and integrity governs their conduct as public servants.
In a mature democracy such as Britain, politicians resign on a mere whiff of a scandal. Here in South Africa, a dangerous precedent has been set where a politician, when confronted with charges, invokes two concepts: presumed innocent until proven guilty and the sub judice rule.
The notion of “innocent until proven guilty” evolved over centuries and avoids trial by emotion rather than rational thought.
That “innocence” is also implied in the Constitution that assures the dignity of the individual.
Politicians and public officials swear not only to abide by the Constitution, but also to the provisions of the Public Service Act and the Code of Conduct “to promote exemplary conduct” and to execute their duties in a “professional and accountable manner”.
They have a moral and ethical duty in respect of their conduct and are held accountable to the public and the highest standard of competence, integrity and professionalism.
When a charge is laid against an official, institutional integrity is of greater gravitas than personal reputation. Before an official is charged, an investigation as complete as possible is done to collect sufficient evidence.
We trust in the integrity of the police and that they are guided by the law in the performance of their duties.
Our nascent democracy is put to the test with respect to its concept, function, performance and conduct, as envisaged in the Constitution, when members take an oath to serve with integrity and when they seek refuge in the law to protect their misconduct.
The pattern of corruption is endemic throughout every sphere of government, from the smallest municipality to the highest level of government.
The President's conduct in the Phala Phala matter certainly does not set a standard of good governance. That conduct of non-accountability filters down with impunity, defying ethical governance.
An election is impending. Does this bring the electorate the expectation of a refreshing change?
Does it mean that the people will be respected, dignity will be restored, a new set of politicians will reboot our democracy and that honesty, integrity and the highest standard of governance will restore the hope held in 1994, or will it be more of the same with new actors in the drama?