Mkhwebane contradicts himself and makes no sense in Bosasa's report

2019-07-24 05:00

According to the Protecteur du citoyen, by becoming president, Ramaphosa had benefited from his campaign and was therefore obliged to declare each donor. It sounds totally weird, written Melanie Verwoerd.

You do not have to be a lawyer to badyze the
Bosasa Report of the Protecteur du citoyen.

With just a little bit of logic, even the most
politically informed person will be able to come to the conclusion that there
are fundamental errors in his report. My legal friends and my family tell me
that there are also a number of legal errors, but I will leave these points to
the courts to decide. However, it is very clear to me that the public
Protector does not understand the political system and the functioning of Parliament,
which is a little problematic since it is an important part of his work.

Let's just remember that the President
response to the Bosasa question in Parliament was in response to a follow-up or
supplementary question from Mmusi Maimane, leader of the DA. The original question was
relationship with VBS, the question of Bosasa was therefore not submitted to Ramaphosa
in advance, as some badysts have said in the media.

The Québec Ombudsman wonders why the President
chose to answer this follow-up question because the rules of the Parliament
clearly indicate that a supplementary question must relate directly to the
original question.

It's a fair point, but it happens often.
The fact that President Ramaphosa does not need to answer the question has not
means that he should not have answered it. We had nine years of constant
avoid the hard questions under President Zuma. From the beginning of
his presidency, Ramaphosa was different. He was open and willing to
answer the questions.

In his response to the Protecteur du citoyen's speech
investigation, the president said that he had heard about his son's contract
with Bosasa two months ago and had badumed that was Maimane's question
referred. It is only after his departure from the room that one of his country companions
officials informed him that this was related to the financing of the CR17 campaign. After
investigating the matter, he reimbursed the money and then wrote to the speaker
make things clear.

The Protecteur du citoyen accepts that Ramaphosa
acted in good faith but said that since the rules of Parliament do not
explicitly provide for such written apologies (and since he's "admitted"
in his answer, he had made a mistake), he had misled Parliament.

It seems to me that there is a contradiction
right here. On the one hand, Mkhwebane admits that he acted in good faith, but on the other
On the other hand, she insists that he deliberately misled Parliament. Would she
did he prefer to remain silent after realizing the mistake? She can not have both
manners.

In its conclusion, it also asks the Parliament
change the rules in presumably explicitly provide for corrections written by
Cabinet members. I guess the reason it's not a rule is that
it is not necessary to create a situation in which such a provision becomes a loophole for
ministers to lie to Parliament and then on occasion when they are
caught, simply have the opportunity to correct it by a letter.

Although it sometimes happens that
ministers write to Parliament and correct an answer, it is still rare and not a
way to avoid the truth.

Mkhwebane then raises the issue of personal benefits to the president
and his family. After reviewing bank accounts and contracts, etc., it seems that
that the Protecteur du citoyen does not worry about the participation of Andile Ramaphosa
with Bosasa.

However, she argues that by becoming
President Ramaphosa benefited from the campaign and was therefore placed under the
obligation to declare each donor to his campaign. It seems totally
weird for me

First, if this argument is true, it would be
means that the leaders of the different political parties and most of the deputies should
declare the funding of all their political parties as part of their personal activities.
statements of interest. They all knew that they were on the list and so – by
soliciting funds for their political party – they had a chance to be
elected to Parliament.

In addition, CR17 donations were part of
a political party campaign and not a state affair. There is a
distinction in our legislation between the funding of political parties and personal
statements of interest. In America, for example, political candidates
(including the President), are elected directly. Thus, any political financing for
their campaigns must be declared since they go directly to the individual.
However, this is not the case in our system.

The campaigns CR, NDZ, Sisulu, etc. have been
about the election of the president of the ANC, not the president of the country. he
is no different from the prosecutor electing Maimane or EFF Julius Malema. Yes the
the expectation was that whoever won the presidency of the ANC would become president of the
the country – but this has never been guaranteed.

Despite this, Ramaphosa and the key CR17
fundraisers have sworn oath that he never knew who the donors were
because they did not want anyone who thinks they can claim favors
after, should he win. By not disclosing the identity of the individual
donors, they were trying to stay in the spirit of the legislation, that is to say
prevent elected officials from using their leverage to profit corruptly from donors
or benefactors.

According to point 5.3.20 of his report, the public
Protector says about this question, "Although I've been informed
by those responsible for the CR17 campaign that the deliberate concealment of donors and
the amounts given by them of President Ramaphosa was to avoid creating a
the perception that his good will can be bought, the main reason in my opinion,
should have been any capture situation of the president that could
compromise its decision-making in the future ".

Can any one please explain the difference
between "buying goodwill" and "compromising his future decision
to do "and how, by naming them now, would that remedy?

The Protecteur du citoyen also protests that
Ramaphosa spoke at donor meetings. Of course that he did, but they were fat
groups of potential donor
and according to everyone involved, he never knew if anybody actually donated as a result of
these meetings.

Mkhwebane finally asks money questions
laundry. Despite saying that this is not within its jurisdiction, it is clear
that she believes that there is a problem here. Surely there were serious doubts
it should have been managed by the Financial Intelligence Center (FIC)? She
provides a bit more than a flowchart as evidence on this serious matter,
throw very serious suspicions on the president.

Ramaphosa is right to take this case on
urgent examination. If the Public Protector loses, Parliament should send it back.
The ruling issued by the Constitutional Court on Monday seems to confirm its incompetence.
If she also erred in this report on something as serious as the President
integrity with potentially disastrous implications for the country, she has no rights
occupying a position that aims to protect the rights of all
citizens, even presidents, abuse of power – including false accusations.

– Melanie Verwoerd is a former member of the ANC and South African ambbadador to Ireland.

** Do you want to reply to the columnist? Send your letter or article to [email protected] with your name, profile picture, contact information and place of residence. We encourage a diversity of voices and opinions in the submissions of our readers and we reserve the right not to publish all submissions received.