PUBLIC PROTECTOR AND PARLIAMENTARY OVERSIGHT

4 May 2015

The Office of the ANC Chief Whip rejects with the contempt it deserves the misguided view amongst the opposition and their collaborators in the media that any criticism of Public Protector Thuli Madonsela amounts to attack of her person and office.

This notion has been peddled in the media since the Public Protector’s appearance before the portfolio committee on justice and correctional service last week, where she accounted on her office’s operations and expenditures. As with many state agencies and government departments that appear before Parliament, difficult questions were asked by MPs in line with parliament oversight function.

Institutions that account to Parliament often face a litany of probing questions aimed at shedding some light on their operational activities, and some are even sent packing if unable to provide satisfactory answers to the legislators. The aim of this oversight exercise is not to embarrass, but to ensure that Parliament intervenes decisively where necessary to ensure that those institutions succeed in line with their founding legislations.

It is regrettable that when it comes to the Public Protector, the opposition and its sycophantic liberal media would want to see Parliament bending the rules, asking sweetheart questions or abandoning its oversight responsibilities altogether. This can only be the thinking of those whose support for the Public Protector is not innocently based on the institution’s excellent work against corruption and malfeasance, but a self-serving and mischievous agenda which views the institution as some potent political pawn against the ANC. Such dishonourable motives, which saw the opposition MPs in that committee falling over themselves to ingratiate themselves to the Public Protector while attempting to block any question from the ANC MPs, only serves to weaken not only the office of the Public Protector but Parliament’s oversight function. No institution is above criticism or parliamentary oversight.

The issues that the ANC raised with the Public Protector were genuine and substantive, and were raised in the spirit of strengthening the institution. For instance, the scathing and unprecedented personal attack the Public Protector directed at the Western Cape High Court judge Ashton Schippers, lambasting his ruling against her as“a cut and paste judgement from the UK” was troubling and unacceptable, and the committee was correct to raise the issue directly with her.

The committee was also correct to emphasise the need for Parliament to have a look at the nature of cases various chapter 9 institutions are dealing with before any appeal for drastic budget increase such as the one asked by Adv Madonsela can be entertained. This is to ensure that the important issue of overlap or duplication of functions amongst state institutions, which may in certain instances put extraordinary burden on some institutions at the expense of others, can be addressed.

The Public Protector has requested an increase of R200m over and above her current allocation of R246m. As the ANC, we have consistently supported the drastic increases of the Public Protector budget over and above those of other Chapter 9 institutions in the last six years. The Public Protector’s budget, for instance, is currently standing at R246m, more than double that of the sister chapter 9 institution, the SAHRC, which is currently at around R140m.

We have supported these increases due to the ever increasing cases which places additional burden on the investigative capacity of the institution. However, we agree that our national fiscus does not have bottomless purse and therefore avoiding duplications or overlap of functions will go a long way in ensuring these state institutions share the burden, which would lift financial drain on others.

Unlike the opposition parties, our oversight over the Public Protector is not driven by narrow political expediency, but genuine and constructive criticism aimed at ensuring effective and successful chapter 9 institutions.

In this regard, the nonsensical complains made against the chairperson of the committee by the DA and EFF are nothing but a populist grandstanding, which we dismiss with contempt they deserve.

Statement issued by the Office of the ANC Chief Whip, May 4 2015