Speaker in the dock

Frene Ginwala, Speaker of South Africa's National Assembly, is the latest target of the ANC's rivals. M. S. Prabhakara reports.

CAN THE Speaker of a democratically-elected Parliament function professionally and impartially despite remaining a member of the political party to which he/she has belonged all along?

This is the central issue in the ``crisis'' that has once again beset South Africa's Parliament, in particular the National Assembly, as the Opposition has opened a new front in its attack on the African National Congress-led Government. The target is the Speaker of the National Assembly, Dr. Frene Ginwala, member of the ANC's National Executive Council, its highest policy- making body. She is thus, by definition, in the eyes of the media and the Opposition, incapable of acting independently, though in most constitutional democracies, the independence of the Speaker is not seen as being compromised by membership of a political party.

Like almost every other aspect of the current political polemics in the country, this confrontation too is related to the controversy surrounding the alleged corruption in the strategic defence procurement package, the so-called arms deal, the recommendation by Parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Public Accounts (Scopa) for a ``special forensic investigation'' into the deal and the inclusion of the Special Investigative Unit (SIU) headed by Judge Willem Heath in the investigation, the exclusion of the SIU from the investigation following a Constitutional Court ruling, and the alleged stalling of the very investigation at present. The villain in the scenario drawn by the Opposition and the media is Dr. Ginwala. The citing of the media and the Opposition as acting in tandem is unavoidable given the unique historical context of South Africa, its past and present. ``Hark, in thine ear: change places and, handy- dandy, which is the justice, which is the thief?'' (King Lear, IV, 6, 153- 5).

On May 14, in an ``open letter'' to the Speaker on the ``legitimacy of the probe into the arms deal'', the leader of the United Democratic Movement, Mr. Bantu Holomisa, accused her of ``stalling'' the Scopa report recommending such an investigation. ``Your public pronouncements both inside and outside Parliament leave much to be desired and have cast more shadow on the credibility of the investigation. It can be inferred that you and the executive are monitoring and directing the investigation by these agencies while Scopa is systematically sidelined.'' Among others who have accused Dr. Ginwala of interfering in or unduly influencing the investigation are the Chair of Scopa, Dr. Gavin Woods, and the leader of the Democratic Alliance, Mr. Tony Leon.

What role has the Speaker played in the controversy? Despite some vague allegations of kickbacks even before the arms deal was clinched in September 1999, it was only in September last year that the Auditor- General in his Report ``Special Review'' to Parliament referred for the first time to ``allegations about possible irregularities'' and recommended a ``forensic audit''.

This Report was duly referred by the National Assembly to Scopa which in its Report dated October 30 last year expressed more specific concerns, in particular about possible malpractices in the deal. Para 7 of the Scopa Report, headed ``special forensic investigation'', has this passage, whose interpretation seems to be at the root of the controversy.

``In noting the complex and cross-cutting nature of the areas to be investigated, the Committee feels that the investigation would be best served by combining a number of areas of investigative expertise and a number of differing areas of legal competence and authority. It, therefore, recommends that an exploratory meeting, convened by the Committee, be held within two weeks of the tabling of this Report in the National Assembly. The Auditor- General, the Heath Special Investigating Unit, the Public Protector, the investigating Directorate of Serious Economic Offences and any other appropriate investigative body should be invited so that the best combination of skills, legal mandates and resources can be found for such an investigation.''

Did the National Assembly formally adopt the Scopa Report and so bind itself to including the SIU in the investigation? According to the media and the Opposition parties, the adoption (``laying on the table of the House'' in parliamentary parlance) of the Report by the National Assembly on November 3 means, yes, it did. Thus, the letter to the President, Mr. Thabo Mbeki, on December 8 by Dr. Gavin Woods, seeking the inclusion of the so-called Heath Unit in the investigation, though, by then, the Constitutional Court had made its ruling.

It was in this context that the Speaker issued a statement on December 27 clarifying that she was not aware of any ``resolution of Parliament or the National Assembly'' instructing the President to issue the necessary proclamation to include the so- called Heath Unit in the investigation. She also said that Scopa had exceeded its authority.

The Opposition (and the media) wants the issue to be referred to a so-called `non-partisan' committee of Parliament. The ANC has instead proposed a debate in the House on a vote of confidence in the Speaker. Naturally, this proposal is seen as another instance of the ANC playing `party politics' on issues which ought to be above it. The very majority support that the ANC enjoys in the House, a fair reflection of the support it has in the country, is once again being seen by the Opposition and the media as the greatest threat to democracy!

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Ugly in Oldham
Next     : The numbers game