Public Protector must investigate, Zuma must recuse himself, Presidency must account for comments

Yesterday afternoon the Democratic Alliance (DA) submitted a formal request to the Public Protector to investigate President Jacob Zuma's failure to disclose his financial interests, in breach of section 5 of the Executive Ethics Code.

We made this submission in terms of section 3(1) of the Executive Members' Ethics Act. The Act compels the Public Protector to produce a written report.

A copy of my letter follows below. The Office of the Public Protector confirmed receipt of the letter this morning.

In terms of section 3(2) of the Act, the Public Protector's report must be finalised within 30 days - on or before 7 April 2010. The Act also mandates that a report compiled by the Public Protector is passed to the President for review. As I stated in my letter to the Public Protector, given that this investigation concerns the President, it seems inappropriate that the President himself should consider a report on his own conduct. It is the DA's view that, in these circumstances, and without the law offering any guidance on an alternative course of action when faced with a conflict of interest of this nature, that the report be submitted to Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe for his consideration.

We believe that the way in which the Public Protector handles this request, given that it is absolutely clear that the President stands in violation of section 5 of the Ethics Code, will say a great deal about whether that institution remains a lapdog of the ANC, as it was under Lawrence Mushwana. The Public Protector must investigate this matter openly, independently, and without fear, favour or prejudice, as they are mandated to do by section 181(2) of the Constitution.

For its part, the Presidency must cease to hide behind the ridiculous claim that it has been busy taking legal advice. No-one believes that it takes 10 months to get legal advice - particularly on a matter that it as open and shut as this.

Presidential spokesperson Vincent Magwenya made two other remarks yesterday that are equally nonsensical. The first was that "[Zuma] wanted to declare his interests, but there was a difference of opinion in his office on whether he was required to" (see source) This makes no sense at all. If the President genuinely desired to declare his interests, what difference would it make whether there was a difference of opinion over whether he was required to do so?

Secondly, Magwenya was quoted as saying that "if the president was hiding something he would not have given such an open and forthright response" (see source) The fact is that if the President was not hiding something, he would have declared his interests within 60 days of taking office! This comment from Mr. Magwenya also implies that when the President in future finds himself guilty of some or other wrongdoing, that we can expect him not to open and forthright with the South African people.

The Presidency must stop hiding behind nonsensical arguments; they must be open with the South African public, and President Zuma must apologise for blatantly violating a quite critical component of the Ethics Code.

Office of the Public Protector
Private Bag X677
Pretoria
0001

Re: Request for your office to investigate President Jacob Zuma's apparent breach of Section 5 of the Executive Ethics Code

Dear Adv. Madonsela

It emerged this weekend that President Jacob Zuma has failed to disclose his financial interests, assets and liabilities within sixty days of taking office. This constitutes a breach of Section 5 of the Executive Ethics Code (Government Gazette 21399/41). As a Member of Parliament I am lodging an official complaint, in terms of section 3(1) of the Executive Members' Ethics Act of 1998 (‘the Act'), against President Zuma for failing to comply with the aforementioned disclosure legislation.

The Executive Ethics Code states that:

• "every member" must disclose the particulars of all of their financial interests (Section 5.1)
• Disclosure takes place within 60 days of their taking office (Section 5.2)
• A "member", is defined to include a "cabinet member"; in turn, section 1(ii) of the Act states the following about the definition of a "cabinet member": "‘Cabinet member' includes the President". It should also be noted that section 91 of the Constitution includes the President in its definition of "the Cabinet".

Section 3.1 of the Act places an obligation on your office to finalise and submit a report on this complaint within 30 days of receipt of this correspondence - on or before 7 April 2010.  In terms of the Act, a report compiled by the Public Protector into a matter such as this would be passed to the President for review. Given that this investigation concerns the President, it seems inappropriate that the President himself should consider a report on his own conduct. We believe, in such circumstances, and without the law offering any guidance on an alternative course of action when faced with a conflict of interest of this nature, that the report be submitted to Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe for his consideration.

The President was obliged to disclose his financial interests by 8 July 2009, and he failed to do so.

In accordance with section 4(2) of the Act, included in this correspondence you will find my particulars, including my address. I have no further disclosure to make in terms of section 4(2)(c) of the Act.

It is essential that the President of the country is held to account for his behaviour, and is forced to comply with the Executive Ethics code. That he has failed to do so up until this point is a matter of manifest seriousness, which I trust your office will investigate with due diligence and vigour.

Yours sincerely

Athol Trollip MP

DA Parliamentary Leader

Statement issued by Athol Trollip, MP, Democratic Alliance parliamentary leader, March 9 2010

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