Quote of the week

Regard must be had to the higher standard of conduct expected from public officials, and the number of falsehoods that have been put forward by the Public Protector in the course of the litigation.  This conduct included the numerous “misstatements”, like misrepresenting, under oath, her reliance on evidence of economic experts in drawing up the report, failing to provide a complete record, ordered and indexed, so that the contents thereof could be determined, failing to disclose material meetings and then obfuscating the reasons for them and the reasons why they had not been previously disclosed, and generally failing to provide the court with a frank and candid account of her conduct in preparing the report. The punitive aspect of the costs order therefore stands.

KHAMPEPE J and THERON J
Public Protector v South African Reserve Bank (CCT107/18) [2019] ZACC 29 (22 July 2019)
18 July 2007

Should sins of the wife be visited on husband?

The wife of ANC Western Cape secretary Mcebisi Skwatsha (pictured) has paid a fine of R1 000 after pleading guilty to theft. Nolusapho Skwatsha admitted reversing the transactions of four people who had paid their television licences at the post office at parliament, where she was employed. She then pocketed the money.

Skwatsha initially represented herself during the proceedings, but a later application for a Legal Aid Board lawyer was granted. Her attorney would not comment when contacted by the Cape Times.

Now, I am not a great fan of Mr. Skwatsha, who is part of the Africanist faction in the Western Cape ANC and who seems to be a rather ungenerous and shifty individual. But should Mr. Skwatsha be judged and condemned for something his wife did?

When the wife of Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Aziz Pahad was twice caught for drunken driving, I felt quite sorry for the guy. He was obviously married to an alcoholic, so I did not feel he should in any way be blamed for what his wife did.

Why do I then think this case is different? Is it because I do not like Mr. Skwatsha, or is it because the crime here was a premeditated act of dishonesty perpetrated by someone who probably got a job at the post office in Parliament because of her husbands connections?

The theft by his wife does and should reflect badly on the Cape secretary of the ANC and on the ANC itself. After all, Mr. Skwatsha chose to marry a woman with a deeply flawed grasp of public morality. At best it reflects badly on his judgment of character. At worst it suggests that he might share the lack of public morals displayed by his wife.

She also worked in the post office at Parliament and perpetrated the theft there. This suggests that she was placed in a position of trust because of her connections with the ANC and Parliament.

If the ANC had a better grasp of what kind of public morality was expected from public officials, Mr. Skwatsha would issue a statement to say that in the spirit of ubuntu he stands by his wife, but that what she did was despicable because it completely abused the public trust placed in her and that the ANC condemns such dishonesty in the strongest possible terms.

So far no such statement has been issued. Instead Mrs. Skwatsha first denied that she was married to the ANC secretary and then refused to answer the phone. This suggests that Mr. Skwatsha is not wanting to deal with the matter as he will probably claim it is a private matter that has nothing to do with the voters.

Of course being married to a convicted thief must be embarrassing – especially if one is a public official and a political leader. The only honorouble way to deal with it is to deal with it. By hiding away one may well create the impression that one is complicit with one’s spouse or that one shares the criminal attitude of one’s spouse. Surely that is not the impression Mr. Skwatsha wants to convey?

SHARE:     
BACK TO TOP
2015 Constitutionally Speaking | website created by Idea in a Forest