Executive Accountability: Speaker admits oversight mechanisms are unconstitutional

On Monday, I received a letter from the Speaker, Hon Max Sisulu, in response to concerns I had raised about a parliamentary reply from the Presidency that is now five months overdue. Far from upholding the parliamentary rules of which he is custodian, the Speaker's response was an admission that written questions do not require the Executive to be held to account. In a profoundly concerning attack on democratic values, it seems that the Presidency and parliament are working together to pervert accountability of the Executive.

A copy of the Speaker's letter follows below.

It is difficult to conceive how the Presidency has, after a 190 day delay and with a staff complement of 589 employees, failed to respond to the DA's question. This question sought to obtain details of the administration and expenditure of the President's five official residences.

The Zuma administration has become characterised by its attempts to systematically undermine executive accountability. The disdain for parliamentary mechanisms displayed by certain rogue ministers, such as Minister of Defence Lindiwe Sisulu, has served as a direct attack on Parliament's constitutionally mandated oversight role. The scale of the problem has become such that the Deputy President, Kgalema Motlanthe, has had to step in, on more than one occasion, to implore ministers to fulfil their responsibilities in this regard.

It is unfortunate that the Presidency and, by extension, the President, now finds itself in the middle of this conflict.

Parliamentary questions are a constitutional mechanism, established in line with Chapter 4, Section 55.2 of the Constitution. As they stand, the rules of parliament do not require ministers to respond to parliamentary questions within a certain time period. This glaring oversight threatens to undermine the very purpose of these mechanisms.

In his letter, the Speaker states that "you should be aware that (National Assembly Rule 117) does not prescribe a time limit within which a reply should be provided," thereby attesting to this shortcoming. He goes on to argue that this rule places a "particular responsibility" on members to hold the executive accountable. In essence, what the Speaker is admitting is that this oversight mechanism cannot fulfil the Constitutional requirement that necessitated its creation, and he is asking MPs to play the role that the parliamentary rules cannot.

This is a profound statement. It means that our oversight mechanisms fail their primary Constitutional test. Put simply, they are unconstitutional.

And, perhaps even more disturbingly, the Speaker- the final arbiter in this regard- is not prepared to enforce them. In other words, he is not prepared to ensure they fulfil that constitutional requirement. Written questions, according to the Speaker, do not require the Executive to be held to account. Any response is not an obligation, it is merely an option.

In light of the Speaker's deeply concerning response, I have written to the Deputy President, in his capacity as Leader of Government Business. I will also be submitting a question to the President, to ask whether parliamentary questions are an adequate means of holding the executive to account and how he relates his response to the Presidency's recent conduct.

Which leaves one final question- why has the Presidency not responded to what is a simple factual request? By doing nothing, it is undermining the Constitution. What does the President have to hide?

Text of the letter:

12 October 2010
Mr A Trollip, MP
Parliamentary Leader of the Opposition
National Assembly
Parliament

Dear Mr Trollip

FAILURE TO RESPOND TO PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION REGARDING
PRESIDENTIAL RESIDENCES

I acknowledge receipt of your letter of 12 October 2010 regarding question 1600 on
Presidential residences.

Not too long ago I wrote to the Deputy President and Leader of Government Business in a letter dated 28 September 2010 regarding a number of questions to which replies were delayed. The question about which you have written to me was amongst those that I have drawn to the attention of the Deputy President and Leader of Government Business in respect of which replies have been outstanding for six weeks and longer.

With regard to National Assembly Rule 117 that you have brought to my attention, you should be aware that it does not prescribe a time limit within which a reply should be provided, but it does provide a member with a remedy to request the transfer of a question for written reply to oral reply after it has not been replied to within 10 working days. It therefore puts a particular responsibility on yourself as a member in holding the executive accountable. The Minister in the Presidency: Performance Monitoring and Evaluation as well as Administration in the Presidency was in the National Assembly on Thursday, 19 August 2010, to reply to questions and you may have taken this opportunity to use this remedy.

I would like to encourage you, Hon. Member, in the future to exhaust the remedies that the rules provide you with in order to hold members of the executive accountable for their responsibilities.

Yours faithfully

MV Sisulu MP
SPEAKER OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

Statement issued by Athol Trollip, MP, Democratic Alliance parliamentary leader, October 24 2010

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