ANC IN PARLIAMENT WELCOMES THE PUBLIC PROTECTOR’S APOLGOGY TO JUDGE SCHIPPERS
29 April 2015
The ANC study group within the National Assembly’s justice portfolio committee wishes to welcome Public Protector Advocate Thuli Madonsela’s apology to Western Cape High Court Judge Ashton Schippers.
The Public Protector made the apology today during a meeting of the justice portfolio committee at which her spending plans for the financial year lying ahead were interrogated by members of parliament.
During the meeting, ANC MPs serving on the committee expressed unease with the Public Protector’s comments earlier this month that judge Schipper’s recent judgement that her recommendations were not binding was “ a cut and paste job” from a United Kingdom court of law.
At today’s meeting the Public Protector conceded that her comments were inappropriate and that they should not have been made and therefore apologised to the Judge Shippers and the judiciary at large.
As ANC MPs we welcome her apology as heads of state institutions ought to show the necessary respect to the judiciary, who are the guardians of the rule of law in our country.
We would also wish to make it clear that we reject any notion that suggests ANC members of the justice committee are hell-bent on making the life of the Public Protector and her office difficult.
It cannot be correct that when ANC MPs ask questions on the operations of the Public Protector and how she arrives at certain decisions, such are construed by some sections of the opposition as attacks on the person of the Public Protector.
We reject such claims with the contempt it deserves because our members are merely conducting oversight on the Public Protector as they do usually do with all state or government organs. Today’s attempts by the DA and EFF to block probing questions on the operations of the institution were pure grandstanding that would do nothing to strengthen parliamentary oversight. The DA and EFF’s sweetheart approach when it comes to the institution is hypocritical when contrasted with their attitude towards other institutions.
The notion that the Public Protector is above criticism or may not be subjected to probing oversight can only come from those who seek to abuse the Office of the Public Protector for their narrow political agenda. The ANC asks difficult questions to all institutions appearing before the committee in the interest of building better, effective and efficient institutions.
While a final decision has not been taken, ANC MPs have also indicated that they are not in favour of a sizeable increase in the budget of the office of the Public Protector by up to R200 million as per her request.
However the ANC study group will take a final decision on this specific matter during the course of next week.
In this tough economic climate, such an increase would be difficult to justify and we would like to urge public entities to find measure of doing more with less in line with the national treasury’s austerity measures. It is also important that, as per the recommendations of the Asmal Commission, there should be agreements amongst chapter 9 institutions to avoid duplications or overlap of functions.
It must be emphasised that the committee has always been and continues to be supportive of the office of the Public Protector, hence it has drastically supported increases to her budget more than those of other Chapter 9 institutions in the last six years. The Public Protector’s budget, for instance, is currently standing at R246m while the SAHRC’s budget is at around R140m.
Statement issued by Dr Mathole Motshekga, Chairperson of the ANC Study Group on Justice and Correctional Services, April 29 2015
