One can learn a lot from reading the legal opinions provided to Ministers. This week I learnt a new word - longiloquent (meaning long-winded) – by reading a legal opinion provided to Lindiwe Sisulu, who is the Minister of Defence and is also known as The Princess.
I also learnt that when Ministers account to Parliament they are members of the executive fulfilling a constitutional function and that, when they do this, they are therefore not really “persons” bound by the Constitution at all. No wonder The Princess has been looking a bit otherworldly lately: according to her legal advisor, as Minister of Defence she has ceased being a person at all and has instead become some otherworldly creature who is not bound by the Constitution. (Sadly, the legal opinion is silent about whether the Minister only stops being a person when it is full moon or when she consults with her advisors.)
Wonderful stuff, this. I wonder if the legal advisor responsible for this fantastic piece of fiction has ever considered writing movie scripts for Hollywood. I suspect he or she (but probably “he” because the legal opinion is couched in the aggressive and haughty prose I associate with deeply wounded and angry men) would be great at writing movie scripts.
The legal opinion was written to justify the refusal of The Princess to account to Parliament as she is obliged to do in terms of the Constitution. The Defence Committee wants the Minister to produce two “interim reports” that she had commissioned about the state of the military. She has already acted on some of the recommendations contained in these reports, but for some bizarre reason (pride? something to hide?) she is refusing to provide the reports to the National Assembly committee.
Section 56 of the Constitution is pretty clear on this point as it states (in the wonderful plain language used throughout most of the Constitution) that the “National Assembly or any of its committees” may:
- summon any person to appear before it to give evidence on oath or affirmation, or to produce documents;
- require any person or institution to report to it;
- compel, in terms of national legislation or the rules and orders, any person or institution to comply with a summons or requirement in terms of paragraph (a) or (b);
Section 55, read with section 92 of the Constitution, also makes clear that any Minister is accountable to the National Assembly and that the National Assembly has a constitutional duty to exercise oversight over the work of a Minister. Members of the cabinet are accountable to Parliament collectively (which means they are accountable for decisions taken by the cabinet as an institution) and individually (meaning they are accountable to Parliament for decisions and actions they have taken themselves) “for the exercise of their powers and the performance of their functions”.
So when the Minister makes a decision as the Minister – whether it is full moon or not – (say by commissioning a report or adjusting the pay scales of soldiers) or fulfils her duties (by reading the report and proposing ways of dealing with its recommendations), the Minister is accountable to Parliament for this. In order for the National Assembly to fulfil its accountability and oversight function, it can rely on section 56 to obtain any information from the Minister regarding the management of her portfolio.
The piece of fiction prepared by the Minister’s legal advisor holds differently though. The “legal opinion” argues that because the “interim reports” had not yet been considered by cabinet (although they had been considered by the Minister and acted upon by her) they do not concern matters under her control. So, not only is the Minister not a person when she is a Minister, she is also a creature that can act on a report which she herself has commissioned without that report being under her control or without her performing any function as a Minister.
This is a miracle!
Besides, the argument (such as it is) ignores the fact that the Minister is not only collectively accountable to Parliament, but also individually accountable for her actions. So, while the Minister is not accountable to Parliament when she acts in her personal capacity (by having her hair done, say, or attending a wedding), she is individually accountable for what happens in her department and for decisions taken by her as Minister. She consequently has a constitutional duty to provide the National Assembly with the information it requires to help it exercise its oversight over the Minister’s actions as an individual Minister. Whether the cabinet has considered the report on which the Minister has already acted is therefore completely irrelevant.
The piece of legal fiction masquerading as a legal opinion also states that section 56 of the Constitution (mentioned above):
does not mean that ministers may be forced to produce documents will-nilly (sic). Any portfolio committee foolish enough to issue a summons to a minister on a matter pending before cabinet or the executive will be met with an iron-clad claim of executive privilege. Generally speaking, ministers take an oath to respect confidentiality of certain matters serving before cabinet. Until a matter has been discussed by cabinet and government position has been formulated, cabinet deliberations and candid and confidential matters before cabinet cannot be disclosed to parliamentary committees or anyone else.
God forbid that Ministers must willy-nilly provide information to Parliament. What next – will Parliament actually demand that Ministers come and talk to it? What an outrage! Who do these bloody Parliamentarians think they are? One would not be surprised if they think we live in a democracy and that Ministers are not Royalty who are above the law!
I suspect the person who wrote this document might not have been trained in South Africa, hence his or her reliance on the American concept of “executive privilege”, which does not exist in our law and is not mentioned in our Constitution. (Dick Cheney loved executive privilege and often used it to try and stop the US Congress from holding him to account.) Details about discussions that occur in the cabinet are of course confidential and Ministers should not divulge what was discussed in cabinet. Once a decision is made by cabinet, Ministers must defend those decisions and should not divulge information about the discussions that led to the decision. If they cannot defend the cabinet decision, they should resign or shut up.
Reports commissioned by the Minister (and already acted on by her) are obviously not covered by this rule because a report is not a cabinet discussion. Cabinet considers reports and pieces of legislation all the time and most of these reports or draft Bills are in the public domain before they are discussed by cabinet. The reports are public, but the discussions about the reports in cabinet are not.
There is a difference - even when the reports were commissioned by a Minister who is not a person and even when it is not full moon. The Parliamentary Committee is not asking the Minister to divulge secrets about what happened at cabinet discussions. They are asking for reports (already leaked to newspapers) commissioned by the Minister and acted upon by her. Whether these reports will later be tabled at cabinet is irrelevant.
The interpretation of the Minister’s legal advisor would thwart the very essence of accountable government as any Minister who wished to hide something from Parliament would merely say that a matter had not been discussed yet by cabinet so it was protected by “executive privilege”. So, a Minister might be asked whether he had stayed in five star hotels for six months and he would respond that the issue had not yet been discussed by the cabinet so he is not allowed to say whether he stayed there and what it might have cost if he did. This is so absurd that, once again, it is the kind of fiction that bad Hollywood movies are made of.
In the end the issues here are not very difficult – despite the longiloquence (ha, there, I have used the word!) of the Ministers legal advisor. There are reports. The Minister commissioned them. She then acted on some of the recommendations in the reports. Parliament is asking for copies as they are entitled to do by the Constitution. The Minister is refusing to give Parliament what it wanst and what it is constitutionally entitled to. The Minister, with the support of her legal advisor, is thus unlawfully refusing to provide the reports as she is required to do by the Constitution.
Now, I do wonder who this legal advisor of the Minister might be. He or she sure is entertaining and longiloquent. Pity about the fact that he or she shows such a disdain for the Constitution and for our democratically elected Parliament.
Ha Ha Ha Ha!
It would be hilarious if it wasn’t serious ; or is that it it would be serious if it wasn’t so funny?
I wonder who else in the Exec. takes legal advice from this person – it would certainly account for some of the weirder things we have heard.
Hey Pierre,
Please read Sect 56 again.
Take careful note of “any person”.
Consider that this is not just “any person”. It is unbecoming to regard royalty in everyman’s terms.
And the way the legal advisor is referred to, could easily be misconstrued as referring to someone who is a fugitive from US justice. But I could be wrong.
The minister is indeed accoutable to parliament. Even declaration of war- call it national defence in the language of the Constitution is approved by Parliament. The minister will certainly account. The legal advisor is perfectly wrong. Can we see the legal opinion in full.
I posted the opinion in the Seminar Room
Pierre De Vos says:
August 3, 2010 at 13:15 pm
Hey Pierre,
“I posted the opinion in the Seminar Room”
If that opinion is correct, does it mean that MPs are a just little more than oxygen thieves, toothless ones at that?
Kinda like decorations on a Christmas tree (except needing to be paid and fed)!
If so, it’s no wonder that so many go to sleep during sessions.
p.s. present company excluded.
p.p.s Is it true that General Cele signs so many documents that he does not know what he is signing?
p.p.p.s Is it true that General Cele does not know where the police headquarters will be until told by Public Works?
Parliament has teeth. very sharp ones. You will see it in action. I must mention that SCOPA will proceed with the Defence hearing in due course. It is only a matter of scheduling. The minister and the officials are not unwilling to appear before SCOPA. THey will soon appear. We certainly will not discuss national security but financial accoutability. That will happen. No minister had been summoned using the constitution. We have cordial relations with ministries. We have not experienced any recalcitracy.
But why the author of this Legal Opinion from the Ministry of Defence writes with such venom? Is he intending to strike fear in the heart of the Minister so that the latter can only listen to him or her alone. The author, even goes to the extend of insulting the relevant portfolio committee by insinuating that if they differ with the opinion then they are foolish. The author needs to tone down his/her language. Because of the anger displayed in the legal opinion, one is not able to determine on his own whether the legal opinion is well-informed. Anyway, such author has opened himself for attack from Prof. de Vos.
ISHMAEL MALALE says:
August 3, 2010 at 13:48 pm
Hey Ishmael,
If your account is correct then it must mean that the legal opinion is either wrong or will be ignored by the Minister.
That should be of concern to parliament.
Parliaments own legal advisor has written an opinion for the committee completely at odds with the Ministers comedic version. Who will triumph?
“Mr. Ngobeni is charged with four separate counts of larceny and one count of Illegal Practice of Law. The present status of the case is ‘Rearrest Ordered’, and he is considered a fugitive from justice by the State of Connecticut.” (Communications Officer for the Division of Criminal Justice in the State of Connecticut Mark A. Dupuis, 12 March 2010)
“Mr. Ngobeni is a brilliant legal brain, and I have no reason to question his integrity.” (L. Sisulu in a letter to A. Trollip, 15 March 2010)
ISHMAEL MALALE says:
August 3, 2010 at 13:48 pm
Hey Ishmael,
It was just reported on eNews that Defence Committee Chairperson is contemplating court action to get the report and the Min has called Booi a liar.
The teeth are being bared – so maybe parliament is not so toothless.
Maybe dishonest, if the report is correct.
Oops I see that the longliloquent report was in response to Adv Vassens report.
A pupil that ends a legal opinion with “thank you” won’t pass the bar exams! Never seen that in my life.
I wonder….if the new secrecy legislation currently being considered by parliament were already passed, whether this leak to the prof might have illegal/criminal. The author certainly would have classified it as “Top Secret”.
Well…., maybe rightly so – it’s contrary to the national interest as it exposes the minister’s favorite legal advisor as incompetent, and it’s contrary to the national interest that that information should be in the public domain….
State vs The prof and his “source” – held also “in camera”, to prevent the top secret document from getting public.
The person who drafted the not so legal opinion quite correctly stated that he does not have a South African legal qualification but that he is aware of the general ambit of the law. Or something to that effect.
@ Henri
“A pupil that ends a legal opinion with “thank you” won’t pass the bar exams!”
With respect, Henri, there is no reason that a lawyer should not interpose a word of thanks.
Many thanks.
The frightening thing is that this is apparently also the standard of individual engaged to draft legislation!
Henri says:
August 3, 2010 at 16:09 pm
“A pupil that ends a legal opinion with ‘thank you’ won’t pass the bar exams!”
Thank you at the end can mean many things.
In this case it probably means “Thank you”.
Just ask Dworky!
Henri: I was wondering why Fass was missing today, but I see he has now offered his thanks, above. Perhaps Fass either wrote the Legal Opinion to the Minister of Defence, or is in fact advisor to our not so dear fugative from US justice.
Prof: apart from the Princess, the over riding issue these days as you well know, is the very potential threat against media. This is not an ANC loose canon, (although it is certainly out of control) it is a loaded, cocked gun. And my bet is the ANC will be itself the victim.
Partly I’m worried, but mostly I think this is the straw about to break the ANC camel’s back, and even possibly the miracle we’ve been waiting for.
By entertaining threatened press restrictions… the ANC has unwittingly taken on not just Democratic SAfricans, but the Democratic world. And in effect they’ve handed a return of sympathy for the minority white SAfricans which was lost during apartheid.
If ever a foolish fight was chosen, this one is it.
Thank Gawd the criminally wasteful SWC is over; now we can get down to business, the survival of Democracy in Africa.
@Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
August 3, 2010 at 16:57 pm
“Many thanks.”
So you do have a heart.
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
August 3, 2010 at 16:57 pm
Clearly you wrote the legal opinion, Mr Fassbinder, that thank you gave you away!
On a more serious note, I read this opinion and couldn’t believe my eyes.
Hey Pierre,
Long time no speak!
Brilliant article… I too live to learn from our esteemed leadership every day… new English words, new terminology, now new classifications of MPs… wunderbar!
So we now have “Princesses”, non-persons, longilquence(?), and of course the total idiocy of “mediagate”… it is time people realised tha we are NOT living in a Democracy, we are living in a One-Party-State, or maybe just a Dominant Party System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominant-party_system) and this gives the ruling party carte-blanche.
Until SA comes up with a strong, credible Opposition Party we will continue to go the route of Zimbabwe.
Over an out from this non-person
Chris: don’t you have a sense of humor?
Hey Billi: great post. Maybe you’ll get it hopefully that you are not a ‘non person’.
“Until SA comes up with a strong, credible Opposition Party we will continue to go the route of Zimbabwe”. I agree, many others have siad this, however…
“The times they are a changin”, said one of the greatest western wise men, and a musician no less.
Wisdom is arising. Ironically, we can congratulate the ANC for touching precisely the right chord to produce the change we must have in SA.
I applaud all those on the web, in print repose letters, on the various blogs and personal communications. Freedom of speech and press will not be lost. Within the black community, apart from fan boys, this is freedom even they do not want to loose. We finally have common ground.
Hi sirjay,
I agree, “the times are a changin”, and as I posted on my FB page the other day, I do advocacy for various things, and no law that the ruling party bring in will stop me from doing what is right or from campaigning for what is right!
Yes, I think they may have made a HUGE mistake with this one, and they are not going to be able to “wag the dog” this time round…
One thing they need to remember is that the internet was not around when the Nats did the same thing… ordinary people today have far too many ways of getting the news “out there”, so they can make whatever laws they want and gag the media (or try to) but they will not and cannot gag the ordinary “non-person”!
I shout for a crime-free, corruption-free, well governed South Africa!
A very successful old businessman told me a story about respect. He was about 6 years old and at the time and he kicked a lump of earth on the edge of a small dike into the small stream flowing towards a patch of potatoes. His father admonished him and asked why he would kick it. The boy said that it was only some dust. His father asked him to take a clump and smell it after which he let the sand dribble through his fingers.
Lessons such as that had a massive influence on the long term success of this person.
Please [p]rincess (and your brethen) take the time to consider the long term effects of your decisions, try your best to make quality long term decisions. We know it is so very difficult with all your communist bed fellows. Kick them out. You are the government of the day and you will be measured accordingly.
Pierre has made a mountain out of a molehill. Read the parliamentary rules. Ministers are not required to report on incomplete matters (rule 55, 68, 61). Same applies to questions
Since the topic is space cadets and parliamentary oversight I give you the names of those I think were at the epicentre of parliamentary oversight during the period Commissioner of the SAPS Jackie Selebi did the crime for which he was today told he should do the time.
I ask you for a show of hands on each name: ‘Resign and withdraw from public life or not?’
MINISTER C NQAKULA
SAFETY AND SECURITY PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
Mr M Booi (ANC)
Ms P Daniels (ANC)
Mr N Diale (ANC)
Mr K Khumalo (ANC)
Ms D Kohler-Barnard (DA)
Mr S Mahote (ANC)
Mr F Maserumule (ANC)
Rev K Meshoe (ACDP)
Mr M Moatshe (ANC)
Mr V Ndlovu (IFP)
Ms B Ntuli (ANC)
Ms M Sotyu (ANC)
Ms A Van Wyk (ANC)
Secretariat for Safety and Security
As of the 31 March 2007 management was structured as such:
Mr Mathe in the Office of the Secretary,
Director Legal Services: Ms T Lupuwana,
Director Policy: Mr F M Menziwa,
Director Legal: Mr A Soman and
Director of Monitoring and Evaluation: Mr M Mogatusi.
@ Brett,
Interesting suggestion. However, in light of this post by Pierre, it is pretty evident that the Parliamentary Portfolio Committees have absolutely no real impact on the Executive, despite their supposed oversight role. Hell, they can’t even get their relevant Ministers to attend their meetings!!
Montana, how do the parliamentary rules trump the Constitution?
Montana,with respect, you are mistaken and do not know what you are talking about.
Rule 55 states: 55. Expression of regret
(1) A member of this House who has been suspended or named may submit to the Speaker a written expression of regret, and if the Speaker approves such expression of regret, he or she may discharge the suspension or permit the member to take his or her seat, and the Speaker shall inform this House accordingly.
(2) An expression of regret approved by the Speaker shall be recorded in the Minutes of Proceedings.
Rule 61 states: 61. Reference to member by name
No member shall refer to any other member by his or her first name or names only.
Rule 68 states:68. Rule of anticipation
(1) No member shall anticipate the discussion of a matter appearing on the Order Paper.
(2) In determining whether a discussion is out of order on the ground of anticipation, the presiding officer shall have regard to the probability that the matter anticipated will be discussed in this House or at a joint sitting within a reasonable time.
None of these rules has anything to do with committees and how they operate, they relate to the operation of the National Assembly when it sits as a chamber.
Regarding Committees the following Rules apply:
138. General powers
For the purposes of performing its functions a committee may, subject to the Constitution, legislation, the other provisions of these Rules and resolutions of the Assembly —
50
(a) summon any person to appear before it to give evidence on oath or affirmation, or to produce documents;
(b) receive petitions, representations or submissions from interested persons or institutions;
(c) conduct public hearings; (d) permit oral evidence on petitions, representations,
submissions and any other matter before the
committee; (e) determine its own procedure; (f) meet at a venue determined by it, which may be a
venue beyond the seat of Parliament; (g) meet on any day and at any time, including —
(i) (ii) (iii) (iv)
on a day which is not a working day; on a day on which the Assembly is not sitting; at a time when the Assembly is sitting; or during a recess;
(h) exercise any other powers assigned to it by the Constitution, legislation, the other provisions of these Rules or resolutions of the Assembly.
325. Summonsing of witnesses
(1) No committee shall summons a witness without first having satisfied the Speaker that the evidence of such witness will be material to the enquiry.
(2) For the examination of every such witness the committee shall sit de die in diem.
Thank you.
Samantha, in which democracy would the Minister of Police not take Ministerial responsibility for the fall from grace of his top cop by resigning?
If we are talking federal systems where police forces are locally controlled in which municipality would the Mayor not take responsibility for the fall from grace of his top cop by resigning?
The bottom line is that
1) The entire idea of a Police Secretariat has been held up as farce
2) That Minister was the least competent of some real bums
3) The ANC members on that committee need to hang their heads in shame!
Brett, we don’t live in a democracy, unfortunately. To steal a phrase from Helen Zille, we currently live in a kleptocracy and certainly one of the main features of this state is that no-one is EVER accountable unless caught red-handed. And even that will not necessarily result in any form of sanction, as we all know.
It would be nice though, if it happened. Although, then I might lose my bet with Maggs, and I hate to lose.
Pierre De Vos says:
August 3, 2010 at 22:00 pm
“Thank you”.
Eish Pierre, this blog has a family rating.
Good lord people I just read the legal opinion Prof posted in the seminar room..do yourself a favour if you haven’t..no proofreading was done, not to mention proofthinking. Worse than some first year university students’ essays I have read..Didn’t the Princess kiss the frog first before she entrusted this mandate to him (or her..oeps)?
Is this not be the same person who wrote the “clumsily edited” ANC paper referred to in
http://www.dispatch.co.za/article.aspx?id=423088
INSIGHT
Stanley Uys
THE ANC is about to launch a double-barrelled attack on the South African press. One barrel is the Protection of Information Bill and the other a statutory Media Appeals Tribunal. Both Bills have been described as “terrifying” and “sinister”. The question is: why is the ANC doing this?
An ANC paper on the future of the media in South Africa will be discussed at the party’s National General Council meeting in Durban from September 20-24.
Clumsily edited and needlessly long (22-plus pages), it makes a pretence at academic detachment and then hardens its language as it proceeds, revealing increasingly how the ANC with its impeccable “democratic” credentials intends to muzzle the press.
Among the proposed instruments will be (a) the Protection of Information Bill; (b) creating the Media Appeals Tribunal as “an independent statutory institution” under direct parliamentary jurisdiction to do the ANC’s censorship work for it, and handling complaints from the public for whom libel actions against the press in the courts are “too expensive”; (c) reshaping the media’s “ideological outlook” so that it contributes to the ANC’s “transformation” programme, and considering the creation of a Media Charter ; and (d) breaking up the present media ownership and control and put the brakes on “unbridled capitalism”.
About that “opinion”…….
1/ Surely legal etiquette requires the author to append their name. This is the case with every legal opinion that I have ever seen
2/ What happened to the excutive summary. It is probably quite brief and says something along the lines….”tell them to get stuffed”
3/ Does anyone know an expert on Constitutional Law in the USA. Has this all been said before in a different context.
In any event the opinion is good for a laugh
anton kleinschmidt says:
August 4, 2010 at 8:44 am
Hey Anton,
The author is “Thank you”.
Just ask Pierre. Or maybe Dworky.
I can’t make up my mind as to who’s ‘thank you’ says more.
@Pierre
@Brett
Sorry, wrong rule. Rule 157 provides for the sight of confidential documents that remain confidential. Otherwise you might as well put all ministerial correspondence on Wikileaks. Similarly, members don’t ask questions about issues (legislation) that are under committee review while it is under committee review …
157. Publication or disclosure of proceedings, evidence, reports, etc.
(1) All documents officially before, or emanating from, a committee or
subcommittee are open to the public, including the media, but the following
documents may not be published, and their contents may not be disclosed,
except with the permission of the committee, or the parent committee in
the case of a subcommittee, or by order of the Speaker, or by resolution of
the Assembly:
(a) The proceedings of, or evidence taken by or placed before, the
committee or subcommittee while the public were excluded from a meeting
in terms of Rule 152(1).
56
(b) Any report or summary of such proceedings or evidence.
(c) Any document placed before or presented to the committee or
subcommittee as a confidential document and declared by it as a
confidential document.
(d) Any document —
(i) submitted or to be submitted to members of the committee
or subcommittee as a confidential document by order of the
chairperson of the committee or subcommittee; or
(ii) after its submission to members declared by the chairperson
as a confidential document.
(2) The permission, order or resolution authorising the publication, or the
disclosure of the contents, of documents mentioned in Subrule (1) may provide
that specific parts of, or names mentioned in, the document may not be published
or disclosed.
(3) For the purposes of Subrule (1) a document is officially before a committee
or subcommittee when —
(a) the presiding member places the document, or permits the document
to be placed. before the committee or subcommittee; or
(b) a person appearing before the committee or subcommittee as a
witness or to make representations, presents the document to the
committee or subcommittee.
(4) Subrule (1)(c) and (d) applies only to documents that —
(a) contain private information that is prejudicial to a particular person;
(b) are protected under parliamentary privilege, or for any other reason
are privileged in terms of the law;
(c) are confidential in terms of legislation;
(d) are subject to a media embargo, until the embargo expires; or
(e) are of such a nature that their confidential treatment is for any other
reason reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society.
The way the ANC pisses daily on our constitution while everybody remains powerless like rabbits in the headlamps, I bet one day you will be Professor of ex-Constitutional Law.
Montana, once again with respect, you do not know what you are talking about. The rule you quote allows a committee of the National Assembly who ALREADY possess documents in very restricted circumstanmces not to make thoise documents public. It has absolutely NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING to do with documents held by a Minister (who belongs to another branch of government). As the Minister is not a Committee of the National Assembly (her being a Minister and all), the rule does not apply to her when she acts as MInister.
Montana – back to the drawing board or is that Constititional Law 101?
The Hawks have just arrested journalist Mr Wa Afrika of the Sunday Times for fraud and defeating the ends of justice. Looks like whether we have a tribunal or not the ANC governement will adopt the same tactics the nationalists did. Apparently it was one of those “shock and awe” arrests with far more police than needed. Feeling intimidated anyone? Maybe feel like shelving that government expose you were planning?
Listen, Pierre, I think I know what I am talking about, but I certainly don’t know what you are talking about.
I thought the argument went something like this.
1.Can Minister Sisulu refuse to appear before the Committee?
No she cannot. There is no ambiguity in S 56. She cannot refuse.
2. Does Minister Sisulu have to make an interim report available to the Committee?
No she does not. Ngobeni is quite right in his advice (not a legal opinion) to his minister. S 56 only refers to documents. It does not say which documents.
3. Is Ngobeni correct to say that the report/commission has to go to cabinet before it goes to the committee?
Probably not. In which case or in any case rule 157 applies. The Minister can make the interim report/commission available to the Committee on a confidential basis. (Parliament sits on tons of confidential material relating to the arms deal.) But this is not what the DA wants. It wants to embarrass the minister by making an interim document, on which she may or may not have acted, publicly available.
So you tell me about open government. How would you run government if all the various drafts of ministerial advice were made available to the respective committees. I am not talking about ministerial committees that have to be published. But even here drafts that reports go through are not available for public examination. Take all the other documents that are excluded under the access to information act. Suppose even all the advice offered to ministers in DG clusters or even ministerial clusters was made available to the PC “willy-nilly”? And not just the formal advice that is published – some public entities advise ministers but routinely make their advice available to the public – but the informal and in draft form advice? Is this how you interpret s 55, 56 and 92?
Montana, your answer to 2. is not based on any legal rule or principle but on what you think ought to happen. The Constitution refers to aodcuments. It does not qualify this. No other rule or legal provision qualify it. Thus your veiw cannot be sustained. In any case, your quoting of National Assembly Rules, I gather, you now admit was completely misplaced and not applicable to the MInister. I cannot argue about that because one need not argue about things like the fact that the earth is round. Obviously the MInister may want to negotiate with the Committee about not divulging the content of the report if national security was at stake. This she has not done and her legal advisor has not argued. They refuse point blank to provide the documents as they are required to do. This is the problem.
montana says:
August 4, 2010 at 14:16 pm
Hey Montana,
Help settle the debate with Ishmael who says that parliament has teeth.
What do you say?
montana says:
August 4, 2010 at 14:16 pm
On “But this is not what the DA wants. It wants to embarrass the minister by making an interim document, on which she may or may not have acted, publicly available.”
I heard that it is the Defence portfolio committee chairperson, Nyami Booi (an ANC MP) that is insistent on getting the report.
So what’s with the DA attack?
You are correct De Vos the rules enable the Parliament to receive reports of a confidential nature, including those bearing national seculity matters. By the way, the three branches of goverment are perfectly entitled to deal with issues, including national security.
No single person may abrogate to himself or herself the exclusive right to have access to reports with national security ramifications to the exclusion of arliamentary committees. Our Parliament has a commitee on national intelligence whose members are vetted. This commitee receives reports with almost any implications.
Issues of the morale of the soldiers in not too close to the national security issues. Issues of financial accountability on how monies have been spent to cater for military operations is not tantamount to military operations strategies, plans and activities. We need military experts to venture into the debate and explain or decipher, unravel the concept of national security.
We are not in a state of war but state of robust financial accoutability and substantive performance appraisal. The porfolio on defence must be entitled to receive reports on defence matters in total observance of the veil of secrecy or rather confidentiality to the extent of national security issues.
The can and must critique the issue of curtailing of the Constitution. The right to join and/or partake in unionism had beed settled by the courts. It would seem this right is being subverted. The committee must protect the sovereigty of the Constitution and the subservience of the executive and legislators thereto.
Montana, you are correct that the documents may be given to parliament in an environment of confidentiality. The Arms deal reports are public documents to which the media had and still have access and there is a frenzy about the analysis and interpretation of the contents thereof.
Mr. Richard Young has the records and had given them to anybody he wishes to give including tabling the documents before parliament. There is not any secrets in parliament on the matter.
There had been plenary debates in SCOPA on the matters. No secrecy. The arms deal had been laid bare long ago. You may google the report and find, I believe.
ISHMAEL MALALE says:
August 5, 2010 at 5:25 am
Hey Ishmael,
There’s some pretty hectic stuff in your comment which is admirable.
“No single person may abrogate to himself or herself the exclusive right to have access to reports with national security ramifications to the exclusion of arliamentary committees”.
Montana seems to think differently.
“2. Does Minister Sisulu have to make an interim report available to the Committee?
No she does not. ”
On :
“Issues of the morale of the soldiers in not too close to the national security issues”.
“We need military experts to venture into the debate and explain or decipher, unravel the concept of national security.”
“The can and must critique the issue of curtailing of the Constitution”.
“The committee must protect the sovereigty of the Constitution and the subservience of the executive and legislators thereto”.
Whew!
test test
it wont post … i give up … just as well
montana says:
August 5, 2010 at 11:09 am
Happens sometimes when there are several links embedded in the post.
@ Pierre
Aha. I see. The PC on Defence is fighting over the interim report of a hybrid commission. But this Commission has already reported on its interim findings to the PC on Defence. The record of the meeting is on the PMG web, but the Commissioners did not make their interim report available.
I don’t know what the difference is between a ministerial committee and commissions of this nature. There is legislation governing the formation of mincoms and submission of mincom reports, but hybrid commission like this one on Defence appear to be governed by ??? dunno.
I see General Holomisa is on the commission.
So what was all this De Vossian thunder about? Was it a case of Ngobeni’s red rag to De Vos’s bull.
Does Minister Sisulu not also herself have a law Degree (from Fort Hare as I recall)?
The Minister of Defence and Military Veterans, Lindiwe Sisulu is concerned that an impression has been created that she does not want to handover the interim report of the Interim National Defence Force Service Commission to the Portfolio Committee on Defence and Military Veterans. Some have gone as far as saying the Minister is hiding “a ticking bomb” in the SANDF.
The Minister wants to clarify that she has never denied Parliament the report, but indicated that in line with Cabinet rules, any Commission appointed by Cabinet must report back to Cabinet before it submits a report to Parliament or any other body. It is a process the Portfolio Committee has accepted and has been used before in relation to the report of the task team on Military Veterans.
The Minister also wants to state that after the Portfolio Committee meeting of July 29, 2010, (minutes attached) which was preceded by a meeting of the ANC study group in the morning, the Committee meeting resolved that the Minister would be allowed to submit the report to Cabinet before making it public and the public hearings on the Defence Amendment Bill would continue, as happened on 3 and 4 August 2010. The Chairperson also concluded that if there is a need for additional information on the Defence Amendment Bill, they would ask the Department to appear before them and clarify these to the members.
The Minister also indicated that there is no relation between the Defence Amendment Bill currently before Parliament and the Commission’s report. The Bill deals with the establishment of a new dispensation that will cater for the unique requirements of the Defence Force in the same way that the Public Service Commission regulates the public service. After the clarification, the legal opinion which was received before the Committee meeting of 29 July 2010, which argued that the members needed the Commission’s report to consider the amendments, was cancelled and the hearings started on Tuesday 3 August 2010.
The Minister added that the Defence Amendment Bill seek to establish a permanent Commission that will not only regulate the Defence Force but will advise the Minister on a number of issues including the conditions of service. The conditions of service are an executive responsibility. The legislature does not determine the salaries of employees but deals with legislation that guides Ministers in executing this responsibility.
The Portfolio Committee accepted Minister’s explanation that since the report is interim, and that Cabinet still has to express itself on the matter, it will be prudent to await a final report.
It must also be clarified that the legal opinion which the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee released to the media was received a day before the said Committee’s meeting and that of the study group. When the Chairperson ruled that the Committee will wait for the Cabinet process to be completed before receiving the report, he already had the legal opinion.
It is of serious concern to the Minister that the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee who summarised the Committee’s decision at the conclusion of a formal meeting of Parliament and who then changed this decision unilaterally after the meeting. The Minister takes the meetings between her and the Portfolio Committee very serious and regards the outcomes thereof binding to all, including the chairperson.
The Minister would like to re-emphasize that she respects the oversight role of parliament, and together with the Department of Defence have been to parliament more than twenty times. Upon her appointment, the Minister invited the Committee for a two days workshop to share with them the programmes and priorities of the Department. The Minister and the Department remain available when members are available.
An impression has also been created that the Minister is hiding something. The interim report has nothing to do with the period of office of the current Minister, the time it covers was when Mr Terror Lekota was Minister of Defence.
Issued by
Ndivhuwo Mabaya
Head of Media Services
Date: August 5, 2010
Mabasa your explanation is accepted. I would like to suggest that the fact that Justice Mojapelo was making so reverting remarks about conditions in the military may have created a strong impression that the recommedations of the Commission are being acted upon. It would seem the amendment bill is the incident of the discoveries made by the commission. I however give you the benefit of the doubt on this one.
I have a fundamental problem with the issue that nothing is said of the fact that there is a decision of the CC that military unionism is not an anathema to discipline but an intrument of elevating grievances to the Department of Defence and that CC also expressed a view that the military members cannot strike or disobey military orders have not been highlighed to members of the commitee.
More astonishing no mention of union representation and recognition of unions is contemplated in the proposed commission. Don’t you think the pecuniary ramifications of the establishment of a permanent commission will further squizze our already strained capacity.
This establishment simply subverts section 23 of the Constitution and undercut prevalent constitutional jurisprudence on the question of military unionism. I think we should not let public opinion, premised on momentary disappointment with unlawful and disgraceful protests by a military cloud our appreciation of the democracy we fought so hard to build.
Don’t you think the establishment of an independent Commission will require parliamentary participation in terms of appointment and removal thereof to secure independence and objectivity?
Do you know that the unions will not be done away with without the amendment of section 23 of the Constitution as to exclude the military forces. This amendment cannot be effected by another law of general application but facing the very foundational instrument of our seminal democratic dispensation, the Constitution.
I should think the Minister and the unions must find one another on the advancement of human rights in the military structures themselves without prejudicing national security, military discipline. The fears of veteran Hon. Mlangeni were precisely addressed in the CC judgment.
I should think by now the department could have finalised the proposed regulations to guide engagement between the department and the unions.
The framework would resolve some of the concerns rased by the department. I expressed such views at a political forum where such a matter was debated. We should manifestly and undoubtedly show confidence and affirmation of our Constitutional Court.
The soldiers also deserves their own direct and meaningful voice in an open and democratic society as ours. Do we want to deliberately deny them because they inadvisedly marched to parliament and did only wrongs things?
On matters of accoutability your department had always committed itself to account to parliament and I honestly trust that cannot be faulted.
ISHMAEL MALALE says:
August 5, 2010 at 20:13 pm
Hey Ishmael,
“Mabasa your explanation is accepted”.
Then by extension you accept that the eye of the storm is the Defence Committee Chairperson.
“It is of serious concern to the Minister that the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee who summarised the Committee’s decision at the conclusion of a formal meeting of Parliament and who then changed this decision unilaterally after the meeting”.
If Mr Booi is such a political skelm, is it right that he remains the chair of such an important committee?
The Statement by the MInistry of Defence holds no water, sadly. It states:
“in line with Cabinet rules, any Commission appointed by Cabinet must report back to Cabinet before it submits a report to Parliament or any other body.”
This is rather surprising to say the least and not in line with the Constitution. According to the Pharmaceutical judgment, one can only exercise public power in terms of authority provided by the Constitution and the Law. The cabinet can only make rules that binds others if they are authorized to do so by the Constitution or law. No provision in the Constitution or the law authorizes cabinet to make rules that overrule or limit the provisions of the Constitution. Any rules purported to be made to limit the constitutional power of the Parliament are therefore unlawful and the fact that cabinet purported to make such rules is a fundamental attack on the Rule of Law and the Constitution.
According to Premier of Western Cape judgment, moreover, members of the executive including the cabinet cannot make laws (as this would interfere with the principle of separation of powers). The statement that Cabinet rules have been made that limit the powers of Parliament as set out in the Constitution is therefore shocking – as it is no less than an admission of unlawful action by the cabinet. Cabinet has NO power to make such rules and if such rules were made they are null and void and of no effect. THey can and must be ignored by anyone respecting the Constitution.
If the MInister respects the power of Parliament to fulfill its oversight role, she needs to provide the documents as she is constitutionally obliged to do by section 56 of the Constitution, read with the rules of the National Assembly. A cabinet decision or rules cannot be made that purports to limit the constitutionally granted power of Parliament. Such rules would prevent Parliament from fulfilling their task and would be an attack on the separations of powers and on the Constitution. Claiming that cabinet can make such rules displays a profound lack of respect for the power of parliament to hold the executive to account.
I have noted some comments, let me further explain.
1. The Minister will submit the report to Cabinet first.
The Minister of Defence and Military veterans is not a member of the Portfolio Committee, is a Cabinet Minister governed by rules of Cabinet? Can Parliament force Cabinet to submit a Bill before is approved by Cabinet or State law advisors? What would be the status of that document when it is submitted to Parliament?
Like we said before, Minister has never refused to submit a report to Parliament, but the Commission work is a draft, it is work in progress and we will not be irresponsible to submit drafts reports to Parliament.
It is not our fault that some members cannot read Amendments Bills, the initial arguement was that the interim report is required to consider the Bill, the information in the report has nothign to do with the Reserve Force, the MCC or the Permanent Commission. But condition of service.
The same members accepted that they will receive the Military Task Team report after it has gone to Parliament. Cabinet has its own rules, not designed to frustrate Parliement, but for order and accountability.
2. Unions in the SANDF
I think we must all accept and start realising that Unions are going to be removed from the SANDF. The President, The Minister, the ANC at Luthuli and yesterday the ANC in Parliament (Cape Argus) also called for unions to be removed.
The responsibility of caring for soldiers is vested with the Minister and Chief of SANDF, we do not need Unions to remind us of that, we are Government. The problem with the current leadership of SANDU and SASFU for example is that they are disrespectful to Minister and the leadership of the SANDF. They eencouage soldiers to embark on illegal activities and thats against the section of the Constitution that says the SANDF must be a disciplined force.
But some of us understand this things, when you collect a membership fee of R40 for 13 000 soldiers every month you must make some noise, you must be seeen to be doing something. We actually see this Unions as money making machines and doing nothing for the soldiers. SANDU strategy of going to court every minute is designed to intimidate, maybe they intimidated Terror Lekota, but we have no time for games. They have lost 4 cases against us in recent time and we are sending them the Bill fo legal fees.
Unions must admit that they are victims of thier own irresponsible national security compromising behaviour.
Actually as we sit today there is no formal recognition of SANDU and SASFU. They both do not meet the threshhold of 15 000 and as the result there is no bargaining chamber.
With the National Defence Force Service Commisssion we want to design a structure that will manage the new dispensation and ensure that WE as Government who are taske dby the Constitution are able to look after soldiers out of the Public Service.
There is this arguement that we cannot do that, those who say that are those who have not been observing in the past few months, we are capable of miracles, we have adjusted salaries by 100% for lower paid soldiers, from 28 000 to 56 000 within 100 days of tkaing office, we have returned the soldiers to the borders, we have done many other things. They must watch this space.
Some of you think we did not go to school, you think we will amend the Defence Act in order to remove Unions, no we are better than that.
Unions have already provided enough evidence to be removed from the Defence Force, let me state some:
1. Organised and coordinate an illegal strike (This is not only a threat to national security but violation of section 200 (1) which says the SANDF must be a disciplined force, in this case the action of unions of mobilising soldiers to do illegal things is enough.
2. The unions have not been compplying with Labour rules for years, and so on.
3. They do not meet bargaining chamber and so on.
Then what is the option:
The famous constitutional court case that led to the introduction of unions in the SANDF never talked of Unions but talked of Bargaining and representation. The Commission will provide a better tool for that, and then we can have professional associations representing soldiers.
Unions will not be in the SANDF in the near future, we must accept that reality.
Peter, I think your website or blog can do a lot to enhance debate, but stop insulting people, it is a said day when a senior person like you has to insult people to make his point. I think you can do better. We expect better from you as young people. By the way I am not a lawyer, I am a journalist.
Fiction might be a better career path….
This says it all: “Can Parliament force Cabinet to submit a Bill before is approved by Cabinet…?”
Ndivhuwo Mabaya says:
August 5, 2010 at 23:50 pm
“Some of you think we did not go to school, you think we will amend the Defence Act in order to remove Unions, no we are better than that.”
Our President did not go to school.
What’s your point?????????????
Ndivhuwo Mabaya, thanks for your reply. But with respect, it seems you did not understand my previous post. The cabinet cannot circumvent the clear provisions of the Constitution. If a Committee of Parliament decides that it needs information held by a Minister it can require the MInister to provide it. Of course, in most cases it would not need to be provided with a Bill (which would normally be in the public domain in any case) before it was approved by Cabinet and it therefore would not ask for it. Here it is asking for reports, not Bills. Section 56 states any person has to provide the Committee with documents it thinks it needs. A Cabinet member cannot decide when to obey this provision of the Constitution and when not. The assertion by you that it can, is a rather startling declaration of the intention of the MInister to disobey the provisions of the Constitution.
Second, you claim Unions is a thing of the past and that the CC never said that the Constitution guarantees the rights of soldiers to join trade unions. Maybe as a journalist you are in need of a Media Tribunal (only joking!) because in the first case O’Regan concluded the courts decision (declaring invalid the provision of the defense act that bans Unions) as follows:
“I conclude, therefore, that the total ban on trade unions in the Defence Force clearly goes beyond what is reasonable and justifiable to achieve the legitimate state objective of a disciplined military force. Such a ban can accordingly not be justified under section 36 and section 126B(1) is accordingly inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid.”
In other words, your statement above is false and relies on a misinterpretation of the case law. I assume as a non-lawyer you relied on the legal advice from the Department for your view (which is understandable). This is probably the same lawyers who wrongly advised the MInister that she can defy section 56 of the Constitution. As the above quote makes clear, your information is not correct. If the Department wants to ban Trade unions in the Defence Force it will have to amend the Constitution. I am not so sure Cosatu is going to be very happy with such an amendment.
Ndivhuwo Mabaya says: August 5, 2010 at 17:47 pm
“The interim report has nothing to do with the period of office of the current Minister, the time it covers was when Mr Terror Lekota was Minister of Defence.”
Ndivhuwo Mabaya says: August 5, 2010 at 23:50 pm
“Like we said before, Minister has never refused to submit a report to Parliament, but the Commission work is a draft, it is work in progress and we will not be irresponsible to submit drafts reports to Parliament.”
@ Pierre
“Section 56 states any person has to provide the Committee with documents it thinks it needs.”
This is a very broad interpretation of section 56, based on the principle of interpretation that if a noun is unqualified a broad rather than a narrow interpretation follows? But what is the point of the access to information act then?
Say a Portfolio Committee wants to see the submission the Minister of Minerals signed when she awarded mineral exploration rights to an off-shelf company, then the Minister must comply?
Say a Portfolio Committee wants to see the report the Minister of Science and Technology asked a Board Chair to undertake in the wake of disciplinary proceedings against a prominent astronomer, then the Minister must comply?
Say a Portfolio Committee wants to see the proceedings of an inter-ministerial committee on energy but is not quite sure what it is looking for, then the Minister of Public Enterprises must comply with proceedings from say 2005 to 2010?
Isn’t this interesting!
This debate makes clear that the more things change, the more they stay the same. The heart of the rot during the Emperor’s reign was that Parliament was simply the Emperor’s rubber stamp.
Now we have a spokesperson for the Executive asking: “Can Parliament force Cabinet to submit a Bill before is approved by Cabinet…?”
Please may I call someone a dumbass???
Of course, the blame rests on the ConCourt. After the shambolic election of 94 overseen by Kriegler J – in which half of Zimbabwe voted and multitudes of voters did not have their ballots counted – the last thing the ConCourt wanted to oversee was a referendum refusing to ratify the Constitution.
Hence, the wishy-washy compromise rendition of the trias politicas doctrine that allows the Executive to legislate and throw vloermoere if Parliament looks stroppy about reaching for that rubber stamp.
Montana, the Promotion of Access to Information Act does not apply to documents of cabinet members. In nay case PAIA is an ordinary Act so it cannot amend the provisions of the Constitution. The answer to your questions are yes, yes and yes. It is called oversight and accountability.
ISHMAEL MALALE says:
August 3, 2010 at 13:48 pm
“Parliament has teeth. very sharp ones.”
LOL!
“Cabinet decided that Minister Sisulu was not obliged to table the Defence Force Service Commission Interim Report to the Defence Portfolio Committee for the following reasons: Firstly, she has not yet received the final report and secondly, in terms of existing Cabinet convention, she is obliged to table the report to Cabinet first for consideration, before tabling it to Parliament,”
http://www.timeslive.co.za/incoming/article614657.ece/Cabinet-backs-Sisulu-in-row-with-parliament
Maggs Naidu – maggsnaidu@hotmail.com says:
August 20, 2010 at 18:23 pm
Ok Ishmael,
I withdraw and apologise for not accepting your wisdom despite what Cabinet had to say.
It seems that parliament does have teeth after all.
Time will tell if those are permanent or false ones.
The battle between MPs and Defence and Military Veterans Minister Lindiwe Sisulu escalated when they refused to process a defence bill until she reversed a decision not to release interim reports on the state of the military.
Members agreed that committee chairman Nyami Booi would write to Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe to formally request that the reports be produced within 30 days.
Failing this, he could as a last resort compel Cabinet to release the reports.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article633384.ece/MPs-block-bill-until-Sisulu-releases-report
Err, Ishmael,
Speaker lays down law
Boycotting portfolio committee ordered back to work on defence bill
Sep 6, 2010 1:32 AM | By CAIPHUS KGOSANA
National Assembly Speaker Max Sisulu has ordered the defence portfolio committee to resume work immediately on a bill they boycotted because his sister, Defence Minister Lindiwe Sisulu, has been reluctant to provide them with crucial reports.
Booi told The Times that in light of the letter from the Speaker, the committee had no choice but to process the bill. “You can’t dispute the Speaker,” he said.
So far it’s leaning to play-play teeth.
As everyone knows, blood is thicker than Booi & Co!
David Maynier has some choice words on this issue:
“He (Max Sisulu) effectively overruled Obed Bapela, the House Chairperson of Committees in Parliament, who had advised the portfolio committee in a letter dated 30 August 2010 that work on the defence legislation would only resume once the reports had been made available.”
”
FRONT PAGE
FEATURES
NEWS
COMMENT
RESOURCES
SUBSCRIBE
home
RESOURCES
# PARTY
# DOCUMENTS
Home > Politicsweb > RESOURCES > PARTY
PARTY
Click here
Click here
Lindiwe Sisulu knowingly misled parliament – Maynier
David Maynier
05 September 2010
DA MP says defence minister’s claims in letter to speaker were false
Sisulu deliberately misled Parliament
The Democratic Alliance (DA) believes that the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans, Lindiwe Sisulu, deliberately misled the Speaker of the National Assembly, Max Sisulu, and Parliament on the question of the reports of the Interim National Defence Force Service Commission.
On 02 September 2010 the Speaker of the National Assembly, Max Sisulu, wrote to Nyami Booi, Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Defence and Military Veterans, informing him that:
* it is “speculative” that the reports of the Interim National Defence Force Service Commission will inform the Defence Amendment Bill; and
* therefore there was no reason for the portfolio committee not to continue its consideration of the Defence Amendment Bill.
He effectively overruled Obed Bapela, the House Chairperson of Committees in Parliament, who had advised the portfolio committee in a letter dated 30 August 2010 that work on the defence legislation would only resume once the reports had been made available.
The Speaker therefore completely failed to assert the powers of the legislature and has turned constitutional democracy on its head by supporting the executive rather than supporting the legislature in the tug-of-war over the reports of the Interim National Defence Force Service Commission.
He based his conclusion on a letter received from the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans, Lindiwe Sisulu, dated 31 August 2010 claiming that there is no link between the reports of the Interim National Defence Force Service Commission and the Defence Amendment Bill.
The Speaker simply accepted the word of the minister and failed to do his own “due diligence” on the reports and satisfy himself that there was no link between the reports and the defence legislation.
The fact is it is the opinion of the committee that there is a link between the reports and the defence legislation.
One of the objects of the Defence Amendment Bill is “to establish a permanent Defence Force Service Commission”.
The Acting Chairperson of the Interim National Defence Force Service Commission, Aboobaker Ismail, briefed the portfolio committee on 16 March 2010 that the Second Interim Report of the Interim National Defence Force Service Commission, which was submitted on 10 December 2010, focused on inter alia establishing a permanent National Defence Force Service Commission.
He went further and briefed the portfolio committee that the recommendation, contained in the report submitted on 10 December 2010, to establish a permanent National Defence Force Service Commission had been approved by the Ministry of Defence and Military Veterans.
His presentation also suggested that the report contained draft legislation making provision for the establishment of a permanent National Defence Force Service Commission.
There is then clearly a link between the objects of the Defence Amendment Bill, which is to establish a National Defence Force Service Commission and the reports, which make recommendations for the establishment of a National Defence Force Service Commission.
The Minister of Defence and Military Veterans, Lindiwe Sisulu, has therefore deliberately misled Max Sisulu, Speaker of the National Assembly, and Parliament.
“The DA will therefore be writing to the Speaker of the National Assembly, Max Sisulu, requesting him: -
* to scrutinize copies of the reports of the interim national defence force service commission and satisfy himself that there is no link between the reports and the defence legislation; and
* if this proves not to be the case (1) to act firmly in the interests of the parliament and insist that the reports be made available and (2) to recommend what actions should be taken against the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans, Lindiwe Sisulu, for deliberately misleading Parliament.
The Speaker cannot allow the minister of defence and military veterans to ride roughshod over Parliament.”
http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71654?oid=196989&sn=Detail&pid=71616
Max is covering sussie’s ass.
What do you guys think the Police Parliamentary Portfolio Committee will do about Bheki Cele?
Call him in and confront him with the fact that his generals say in the Sunday Times he lied to Parliament?
Reading what the Generals in the procurement have been up to and the accusations against Cele, I suspect its too early to take sides. It is common practice that public servants are allowed early retirement at 55 that is not always considered a golden handshake.
Lets wait for the promised press conference.
The elevated status of cabinet is of our own making, for far too long parliament and judiciary were reduced to rubber stamping cabinets wishes. The new found teeth in these two institutions is welcomed and I hope it goes far to hold responsible cabinet individually and collectively for all its decisions. We just need the citizens to strengthen their grip on MP’s.
there is clearly the lack of accountability in parliament, how can the portfolio commettee sudenly become soft on this matter? oooh that happened exaclly after ANC voiced out its support to the minister… this is damn unbelievable, ANC itself promised to uphold and respect the constitution. as for the minister, the word “any person” also applies to her the same way as it does to me and the minute she becomes a minister she does not ceas to be a human. And the accountability in section 92(2) and section 56(2) nust be respected regardless of whether you are notr just”any person” but a minister who was appointed to account to parliament individually and collectively…. m damn angry at the commeettee ANC and the minister… pls Prof de Vos help in this matter
The journalist who wrote this article must get real. But wouldn’t this be awesome?: http://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/2011/02/03/sisulu-faces-fine-and-jail