Licence to conceal
THE ANC majority in the eThekwini council denies that the controversial by-law it passed last week, allowing it to bar the media and the public from meetings, will lead to the withholding of crucial information.
According to the by-law‚ the council may close its meetings if there might be a disclosure of confidential information regarding any person, any investigation, report or internal audit report that could be compromised by its public disclosure. eThekwini spokesperson Tozi Mthethwa quotes the constitution and the Municipal Systems Act, both of which provide for certain meetings to be closed, subject to the nature of the issues being discussed.
It is this last which is concerning: any “discussion” will be subject to the whims of the ANC, which also has the majority in the executive committee. And given the party’s record of concealing or withholding reports concerning corruption and the wastage of public resources, there’s no reason to believe the by-law will not be abused. Important decisions – such as the awarding of tenders or reports of investigations into misconduct and corruption – could be hidden from the public.
An opposition councillor says the by-law “is a threat to the democratic functioning of the council. It allows for arbitrary and autocratic decision-making by the Speaker and committee chairpersons‚ gags councillors and the media, and would derail the functioning of the council”.
The councillor has a point.
In June, the auditor-general found that 377 tenders were awarded by the municipality to suppliers with fraudulent documents. Given the council’s abysmal record of “consequence management” – no officials have yet been held accountable for billions in mismanaged funds previously identified by the auditor-general – there is no reason to believe that this situation will change.
In fact, it is only likely to worsen with the council’s new ability to stifle the disclosure of information.
The council is elected by the public, and represents the public. Now the ANC – and some smaller parties – want to take decisions on behalf of that public, but without the public being privy to the discussions which inform such decisions.
Constitutional justification aside, we cannot imagine a situation where this is acceptable in what should be a democracy with access to information as a foundational principle.