James Myburgh’s searing account of the Virodene affair in the late 90s is more than a helpful history of a disgraceful saga – it shines an early spotlight on Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma’s attitude towards checks on her executive power. It reveals a Minister with a profoundly worrying view of democratic accountability and the balance of powers.

Twenty two years later, Dlamini-Zuma has more power, as the Minister under whose regulatory diktats we all now live.

In one seemingly small but critically important part of her duty – to answer parliamentary questions frankly and completely, Dlamini-Zuma shows her attitudes have not changed much.

In refusing to answer parliamentary questions, Dlamini-Zuma treats Parliament with disdain, arrogantly refusing to subject herself to the one of the basic requirements of oversight and accountability.

To use a now-common phrase, she was a constitutional delinquent in 1998, and remains a constitutional delinquent today.

The institution of parliamentary questions is an important mechanism of parliamentary oversight of the Executive. MPs can ask up to 3 written questions every week, which Cabinet Ministers are obliged to answer. Ministers are also required to attend ‘oral question’ sessions to answer questions in person.

These questions, written and oral, are an essential tool for MPs and for the functioning of Parliament. They allow MPs to get detailed information about what is happening in government departments, to hold Ministers’ feet to the fire for underperformance, to expose malfeasance, and to press for action on behalf of members of the public.

The South African Parliament has a long history of respecting the requirement of the Executive to answer questions. During apartheid, predecessor parties to the Democratic Alliance (DA), and in particular Helen Suzman, used the mechanism of parliamentary questions to great effect to subject the apartheid government to real scrutiny.

There are many Ministers who do not respect their duty to be accountable to Parliament through the mechanism of parliamentary questions. There are still more who answer evasively, and do not respect the expectation that replies should be full and frank. Timely and comprehensive answers to our questions remain the exception rather than the norm.

The following fifteen members of the Cabinet have the highest percentage of unanswered questions as of 20 May 2020:

*Ministers are supposed to reply within 10 working days as set out in National Assembly Rule 145(5), but few seldom adhere to this Rule.

In total, 51% of our written questions (141 out of 305) remain unanswered, with many dating back to early February 2020.

Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma’s record

You will notice that Dlamini-Zuma, as Minister for Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs, is not on this list. Her disregard for Parliament is more sophisticated than her colleagues, only making it more egregious and malign.

Dlamini-Zuma issues a standard response to every question posed to her: “The information requested by the Honourable Member is not readily available in the Department. The information will be submitted to the Honourable Member as soon as it is available.”

Only, the information is almost never passed on. It is not clear that there is any effort to even obtain the information sought.

Every indication is that this formulaic response is only meant to tick the box of replying, without doing any work, and frustrating any real accountability to the legislature.

In every single one of our 24 written questions posed to her since 13 February 2020, the Minister has replied with this same cursory reply.

‘Busy few months’, you may say. ‘Give her time’. Well, let’s look at her 2019 record.

Last year, Minister Dlamini-Zuma “replied” with this same dismissive response to 108 out of the 110 written questions we posed to her!

In announcing the move to “Level 4” lockdown on 29 April, Dlamini-Zuma referred now infamously to the more than 2000 submissions received supporting the ongoing irrational tobacco ban. She also made reference to the more than 70 000 submissions received in total, assuring the public that their inputs were appreciated and considered.

The DA submitted a parliamentary question (reference IQP 723 Macpherson MP) to ask exactly how many submissions had been received, how they were evaluated, and how many people were involved. This information was surely directly available to her, since she had just made reference to it, and it was her Department responsible for the receipt and handling of all of submissions. And yet, you guessed it, her response was the same.

Often the information requested could only possibly come directly from her office, and yet still the Minister replies cursorily that the information is not available. Here are a few of the most inexplicable examples, paraphrased for brevity:

- Whether the Minister intends introducing legislation to devolve certain functions to local municipalities. This is a question about what the Minister herself intends doing on a matter of policy. By definition she does have this information. (Reference IQP 226 Steenhuisen MP)

- What number of official international trips the Minister has undertaken, or is planning to undertake, and the details thereof? Again, only the Minister’s private office would have this information. (Ref IQP 355 Bagraim MP)

-  What action the Minister has taken against municipalities with poor audit results? (Ref IQP 311 Hoosen MP)

- Whether the Minister hosted a function or cocktail for her 2019 budget speech? ( Ref IQP 736 Cachalia MP)

There are countless more, but you get the point. To all of them, the same answer. Dlamini-Zuma is either not even reading these questions, or is just shamelessly contemptuous of Parliament.

Importantly, DA MP Mike Waters recently asked Dlamini-Zama whether she could provide evidence that her office was indeed seeking the information that she had earlier replied would be forwarded once obtained. Could she provide proof of correspondence, meeting minutes, anything to show that her response was not just a lie? Her reply: the information requested is not readily available.

Her dismissive and perfunctory treatment of questions is a deeply worrying insight into her understanding of the Constitutional requirement that she account to Parliament.

This approach to accountability is unacceptable, and should earn the Minister the President’s reprimand at the very least.  

It is also dishonest - by simply responding in this unacceptable manner, Minister Dlamini-Zuma fulfils in only the most perfunctory sense the obligations placed on her by the Rules of the National Assembly. But in substance, she will not answer to MPs.

We have written to President Ramaphosa calling on him to institute disciplinary steps against Minister Dlamini-Zuma.

She should face strong sanction, both in Parliament and from the President, for failing in her responsibility to account to the legislature for the exercise of her powers and the performance of her functions.

Geordin Hill-Lewis is a DA Whip in the National Assembly and Shadow Minister for Finance