Submission by Prof Ben Turok MP To The National Assembly on the Investigation of Allegations Against the Former Minister Of Communication, Dina Pule MP

Parliament, Tuesday 20 August 2013 - As the Co-Chair of the Joint Committee on Ethics and Members' Interests and Chairperson of the Panel appointed to consider the allegations against the Hon Dina Pule, I wish to present the Report of the Committee.

The Report was adopted unanimously both by the Panel and the Committee as a whole after a long and difficult process. We hope that the House will also support the findings in the same non-partisan spirit.

I need to make some preliminary remarks with respect to the role of the Ethics Committee. This is a multi-party committee with members from both the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces (NCOP). We have the difficult task of overseeing the proper compliance with the annual declaration by Members of their financial interests and those of their close family members.

In doing this we act as the instrument of Parliament, fulfilling your requirements as an important institution of the country, maintaining public trust in its integrity. The Code of Conduct requires us to place public interest above our personal financial interests and those close to us.

We have to be objective in complying with the Joint Rules of Parliament. We cannot be politically partisan, we cannot allow bias or prejudice to enter into our considerations, we must base our judgements on facts and where there is a conflict on the facts we have to discover the truth. We must be fair and be seen to be fair. In all this we are guided by the will of this House and the NCOP, by the national interest and by the Constitution.

Parliament has a duty to reflect a common purpose and common values. And when it acts in the national interest the whole must be greater than the sum of its parts, that is, Parliament rises above the specific concerns of parties and individuals.

Our powers of investigation are substantial, but we are not a court of law. We must respect the rights of Members and follow due process. Where we investigate the ethical conduct of a Member, we do so in closed session, we are sworn to observe confidentiality, and our findings are based "on the balance of probabilities".

While our investigations centre on the proper declaration of Members' interests, these investigations often introduce evidence that goes much broader than the immediate declaration. We have to exercise much discretion on how far we go and what evidence is relevant.

Finally, on the general approach of the committee, we draw a distinction between a breach of ethical conduct and a breach of some rule or law. Both are undesirable and we have to act on both. Too often a person may act within the rules or within the law, but the conduct is unacceptable on ethical grounds and is therefore liable to sanction.

I come to the Hon Pule. In the allegations against the Hon Dina Pule, we uncovered both these transgressions and our findings are according to these criteria.

The central issue in this case was the relationship of Hon Pule with Mr Mngqibisa and how her public office was used to benefit him improperly. She denied in an affidavit that the relationship went beyond "longstanding friendship". Mr Mngqibisa stated under oath that "my private life is private" and refused to answer questions about the relationship.

However, evidence emerged during the hearings that Hon Pule and Mngqibisa had travelled together to several foreign destinations such as Mexico, New York, Kuala Lumpur, Paris and Prague. They shared road transport and they shared hotel accommodation. The Panel obtained proof that at least one of these trips was paid for by the Department of Communications and Mngqibisa was listed for purposes of that trip as Hon Pule's "spouse".

The Panel had great difficulty in obtaining other travel papers and the file for the Mexico trip was "lost". Officials were uncooperative and gave contradictory evidence on how travel companions were recorded.

What is remarkable about these trips is that Mngqibisa had no formal status at these meetings and when asked what his role had been he was unable to answer. It is clear, therefore, that he benefited from several privileges through his association with Hon Pule, none of which were declared. 

More seriously, the Hon Pule seems to have been instrumental in enabling Mngqibisa to advance from being a minor player to a dominant position in the ICT Indaba. He not only gained R6 m for his company Khemano but he steadily positioned himself to become the main player with prospects of further substantial gains. None of this was declared.

Hon Pule allowed herself to be in a position where her private interests were in direct conflict with the public interest. Hon Pule did not act to prevent this and indeed promoted this undesirable situation.

I need to refer to some serious attempts to interfere with the work of the Ethics Committee and, therefore, Parliament:

1. The witness Mngqibisa came to give evidence accompanied by a bodyguard. This man stood outside the door of the committee room while it was in session and during the coffee break he asked the Registrar several questions which she found intimidating. There is no place for private bodyguards in Parliament and he should have been removed.

2. Throughout the hearings it was clear that there was collusion between Hon Pule and some senior officials in presenting a false version of her activities.

3. The Head of Parliament's Protection Services and the Registrar met with a certain Mr X who alleged that he had been approached (a) to forge certain documents which would be served on the Panel to reverse its decisions, (b) to arrange a "hit" on the Registrar and myself but he was afraid to do that. The consequence of this threat was that both the Registrar and I have been provided with security. We call for a thorough investigation of this matter.

4. In recent weeks three persons, including an official of the Department, who had given evidence, were subjected to bullying to try to get them to reverse their testimony.

Parliament needs to take note of these attempts to intimidate the Ethics Committee and interfere with the proceedings of Parliament.

In the light of all these findings, the Ethics Committee recommends the maximum penalty allowed in the Joint Rules of Parliament, namely,

• A reprimand in the House
• A fine of 30 days' salary and
• Suspension of privileges and Hon Pule's right to a seat in Parliamentary debates or Committee for a period of 15 days.
• She must also submit full details in respect of non-disclosure and correct the incomplete declaration for the respective years.
• We further recommend that:
• the Presidency considers measures to address the relationship between the DOC and other entities;
• the Public Service Commission investigate the possible misconduct of certain officials in the DOC;
•  the report be referred to the South African Police Service and the National Prosecuting Authority for possible breaches of the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act 4 of 2004;
• we also recommend the House support the speedy revision of the Code of Conduct; 
• the penalties for transgression be increased.

This has been a long drawn out affair, requiring a great deal of research and scrutiny of the Rules and legislation. We must record the tenacious work of the Registrar of the Committee Ms Fazela Mahomed and her support team, the excellent legal advice of Parliament's Legal Advisers, Adv Zuraya Adhikarie and Ms Fatima Ebrahim, and, finally, the extraordinary commitment to finding the truth by the Members of the Ethics Committee. 

I thank you.

Statement issued by Parliament, August 20 2013

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter