Double standards of DA accountability
10 May 2021
Politicians don’t need academic qualifications to serve as public representative but, as a minimum standard, should exhibit degrees of honesty and integrity.
The extent to which senior representatives of the ruling party have failed in this regard is well-documented. But does making a big noise about holding them to account necessarily afford members of the opposition free tickets to be economical with the truth?
Over the past six weeks, in nomination season for candidates ahead of Local Government Elections, members of the DA have been leaking compromising information and misinformation about their rivals and members of opposing factions.
The leaks have effectively reduced the number of DA candidates to stand for the plum position of mayor of Cape Town from three to one, as well as sullying the reputations of other of its leaders.
Mindful of not doing the DA’s dirty work, and equally mindful of the duty to hold the dishonest to account, GOOD initially maintained a close watching brief.
It was thus no surprise when it emerged that MEC and DA provincial leader Bonginkosi Madikizela had lied about his qualifications. He admitted to his lie and hoped for forgiveness but was quickly suspended – and then resigned.
Then questions began being raised about DA Chief Whip, Natasha Mazzone. After GOOD’s attention was drawn to alterations to her qualifications on Wikipedia, a brief sweep of the Internet picked up what appeared to be a pattern of descriptions of Mazzone having some or other “legal qualifications”. There were also a number of disclaimers from Mazzone herself stating that she didn’t have a degree.
While questions about Madikizela on social media drew no ire, similar queries about Mazzone had Twitter on fire. She was very rigorously defended by her party. No investigation, no suspension. Instead, questions for clarification were stonewalled while GOOD Secretary-General Brett Herron’s was crudely attacked for questioning the apparently unquestionable.
Ultimately, the DA said, Mazzone had no degree but had completed legal articles.
In terms of the Attorney’s Act in force at the time, it was possible to do five years of articled clerkship and then be admitted to practise law. Because of the intensity of the training, it had to be done fulltime – unless special permission was sought from the Law Society. If no permission was sought it rendered the contract of articles void from the beginning.
The reason for the Attorney’s Act insistence that articled clerkship should be undertaken full-time is that, besides being an intensive training programme, articled clerks do the work of real qualified attorneys with real clients who have real legal problems and pay real fees for advice and legal services.
This is not the kind of work that can be squeezed between completing a university assignment and attending council or caucus meetings.
Mazzone was a part-time student at Unisa, a very active DA member, an articled clerk as well as a City Councillor – all simultaneously.
Herron wrote to the Legal Practice Council (which replaced the Law Society) to clarify the matter.
The Gauteng Legal Practice Council confirmed that Mazzone was registered as an articled clerk by a partner at Hahn and Hahn Attorneys, and that it hadn’t received any notice of suspension or cancellation of her clerkship.
Hahn and Hahn is a specialist intellectual property law firm in Tshwane. Mazzone’s husband at the time was another of the firm’s partners.
Director of the Legal Practice Council, J Van Staden said, there was no record of an application to conduct other work.
According to the 1979 Attorney’s Act, without such permission from the Law Society “the articles shall be void ab initio and service rendered thereunder shall be ineffectual unless the court on good cause shown otherwise directs”.
That appears to be the status of Mazzone’s articles. Will the DA suspend her? No. To those pulling the strings she is not expendable like Madikizela.
Issued by Brett Herron, Secretary-General, GOOD, 10 May 2021
