A call to Parliament: Swiftly institute an inquiry into the fitness of Shaun Abrahams to hold office, amend the National Prosecuting Authority Act on the appointment of the National Director of Public Prosecutions
27 October 2016
These twin resolutions on the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) and the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) were adopted by the Political Bureau of the South African Communist Party (SACP) at its last meeting, held on Friday 21 October in Johannesburg. In addition, the Political Bureau called for the prohibition of direct foreign and private funding to state organs established in terms of Chapter 9 of our country’s constitution to be prohibited.
Parliamentary inquiry into the fitness of Abrahams to hold office
The behaviour displayed by Abrahams in bringing charges against the Minister of Finance Pravin Gordhan left much to be desired. It was amateurish, to say the least. It also fed into the concerns that state institutions were being used to target leaders who were being isolated for standing in the way of certain private interests amidst the widespread problem of corporate-capture in the state and state owned enterprises, corruption and rent-seeking.
Abrahams used a press conference earlier this month to announce his decision to charge the Minister. He spent a lot of time talking about the so-called South African Receiver of Revenue (Sars) rogue unit. After that he changed the terms and announced a completely unrelated and highly defective charge.
Abrahams later said he could consider changing his decision to charge Minister Gordhan if he was to make representations to him as the NDPP. There is no doubt that he took this new decision under duress, as a result of public pressure. He however never shed any shred of legally valid reason why, in the first place, he did not offer the Minister an opportunity to make those representations before charging him and broadcasting the decision to the media in a highly problematic manner that starkly reminded us of one notorious style of work by former NDPP Bulelani Ngcuka.
Amendment of the NPA Act
Section 179 of the Constitution correctly establishes the President as the appointing authority of the NDPP. The Constitution does not prohibit a democratic public participatory process in particular public nominations and a Parliamentary selection process for recommendation to the President for consideration in making the appointment. This process is followed for example in the appointment of the Public Protector.
Its absence in the NPA Act easily opens up space for allegations of partisanship in certain cases and errors committed by the NDPP, with wider implications to the President who appoints the NDPP without that process. In fact the public nominations and Parliamentary selection process must be made a standard principle governing the appointment of the heads of all independent state organs established in terms of Section 9 of the Constitution to support our embryonic democracy.
Foreign or private funding directly destined to the office of the Public Protector
The Political Bureau expressed serious concern about possible influences foreign or private funding directly destined to the office of the Public Protector could have on its independence and integrity. The recent revelation that the office of the Public Protector received funding destined to it by the USAID does not bode good news for its independence no matter how the transfer of the money was administered. As a matter of principle and in order to safeguard their independence Chapter 9 institutions should not receive or rely on foreign or private funding directly aimed at any aspect of their work.
Issued by Alex Mohubetswane Mashilo, Spokesperson, SACP, 27 October 2016
