Public protector must uncover what the president is trying to hide

This morning I have asked our leader in Parliament Athol Trollip MP to write to the Public Protector, Adv. Thulisile Madonsela, to request that her office investigates President Jacob Zuma's apparent breach of section 5 of the Executive Ethics Code (Government Gazette 21399/41), insofar as he has failed to disclose his financial interests, assets and liabilities within 60 days of taking office. The Public Protector is obliged to carry out an investigation upon receipt of a complaint from a member of parliament over any alleged breach of the Ethics Code - as is stipulated by section 3(1) of the Executive Members' Ethics Act of 1998. The Public Protector will also be obliged to finalise and submit her report on this matter by 7 April 2010.

Presidential spokesperson Vincent Magwenya stated yesterday: "When he came into office there was a discussion about the need for him to declare. In the course of that discussion there was a lack of clarity on whether he really needs to declare. The lack of clarity was on the interpretation of the language in the act. There was a feeling that no, he does not need to declare - and also, there was a consideration of what has been the precedent."

No-one who is innocent of wrongdoing behaves like this. The Presidency is going out of its way to find a reason for the President not to declare his financial interests. This is the behaviour of a man with something sinister to hide. If he had nothing to hide, after all, he would simply declare his interests, and the Presidency would not be doing legal somersaults to find a reason for him not to declare.

Fortunately, the Executive Members' Ethics Act, and the Executive Ethics Code that has been promulgated in terms of that Act, are very clear, both about what they require of members of the executive, and about who they do and do not apply to.

• Section 5.1 of the Executive Ethics Code requires that "every member" must disclose the particulars of all of their financial interests, and section 5.2 then requires that this disclosure takes place within 60 days of their taking office.
• A "member", is defined by the Ethics Code 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".

In other words, the Executive Ethics Code and Executive Members' Ethics Act explicitly envision the President and other members of the executive as being required to disclose their financial interests within 60 days of taking office. There is no "lack of clarity" or "interpretation" issue. Certainly President Mbeki never thought so. President Zuma was obliged to disclose his financial interests by 8 July 2009, and he failed to do so.

Of course, if the President were a man of principle, he would not need to be compelled by law to disclose his interests - he would desire to do so, of his own volition. But this President has demonstrated disdain for both moral principle and the rule of law. In this case, he is in breach of both.

Statement issued by Democratic Alliance leader, Helen Zille, March 8 2010

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