By: Paul Ngobeni
Our rudderless President Ramaphosa has been exposed not only for his lack of leadership but also for his gross misunderstanding of the country’s constitution. We all know that he was a victim of alleged theft but it is the origin of the vast amounts of US dollars in his possession that has aroused suspicion of criminal wrongdoing. Additionally, Ramaphosa’s non-compliance with the constitution and other anti-corruption laws has unleashed the chorus of condemnation and vociferous calls for his investigation for corruption. Ramaphosa’s failure to report the theft of large sums of money in foreign currency in accordance with the law arouses suspicion that the money he squirreled away in furniture on his farm emanated from illicit activities, including money-laundering, bribery and others. Accordingly, his loud protestations that the stolen money comes from legitimate transactions can legitimately be ignored. His bizarre argument that reporting the matter to the police or making public the theft occurrence would have caused panic to the farming community is so asinine that it must be rejected outright. He set in motion a series of unlawful activities with predictable consequences. The head of Presidential Protection is a member of the SAPS and had a duty to report the theft and suspicious foreign currency to the Hawks. That was derailed by Ramaphosa’s unlawful instructions. Rhoode allegedly assembled a posse of vigilantes who managed to track down, apprehend, interrogate and even torture the suspects who ultimately returned the loot. A proper police investigation will deal with the criminal aspect of all that. For now I only deal with the violation of Section 96 of the Constitution.
The pivotal legal question is as follows: Has Ramaphosa violated Section 96(2) of the Constitution which prohibits the President and members of cabinet to (a) undertake any other paid work; and (b) act in any way that is inconsistent with their office, or expose themselves to any situation involving the risk of' a conflict between their official responsibilities and private interests? If so, is this violation serious enough to warrant impeachment under Section 89 of the Constitution?
Undoubtedly, Ramaphosa has through words and deeds admitted that he regularly engages in the business of farming, as evidenced by his recent auctions held at his farm. He knowingly engaged in unlawful acts in contravention of section 96(2) of the Constitution because he undertakes “any other paid work” through his farming activities. Contrary to the narrative of his spin doctors, this requires that we focus not just on whether the President has abused his office for personal gain. We must decipher whether the self-standing provision of Section 96(2) (a) proscribing “any other paid work” prohibits him from actively carrying on his business as a farmer who buys and sells cattle at auctions conducted on his farm. His handlers have argued that so long as he has declared these activities to the Secretary of Cabinet. he must get away Scott-free. That is simply misplaced.
The interpretation of Secton 96 of the Constitution requires that we consider the United Nations Convention against Corruption, (UNCAC) which was adopted on 31 October 2003 and entered into force on 14 December 2005. South Africa signed the Convention on 9 December 2003 and ratified it on 22 November 2004. See, Glenister v President of the Republic ZACC 6; 2011 (3) SA 347 (CC) (17 March 2011). Article 8, entitled “Codes of Conduct for Public Officials” deals most explicitly with conflicts of interest. It encourages the promotion of ethical behaviour and the implementation of codes of conduct, as well as the establishment of disclosure requirements, complaints processes, and disciplinary measures for breaches of codes of conduct. Article 8 (5) refers to the “private interests” to be disclosed namely, “their outside activities, employment, investments, assets and substantial gifts or benefits from which a conflict of interest may result with respect to their functions as public officials.” Article 8 (6) requires that signatory states “shall consider taking, in accordance with the fundamental principles of its domestic law, disciplinary or other measures against public officials who violate the codes or standards established in accordance with this article.” Ramaphosa knows that South Africa has an obligation that arises from the ratification of the UNCAC and the enactment of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act (PRECCA). Further, this obligation arises from the positive obligation of the state to protect the rights in the Bill of Rights which is imposed by section 7(2) of the Constitution as informed by South Africa‘s obligations under the Convention.
Remarkably, at the very inception of our democracy, the Mandela-led ANC government implemented a Code of Conduct which was contained in the Ministerial Handbook of 1994 which remained in force until substituted by an updated version on 5 May 1999, which contained similar provisions. In addition to explicitly compelling a Minister and/or Member of Cabinet to observe and uphold the Constitution, the Code specifically provides inter alia that:
1.3 (d) Ministers shall not play any active role in profit making institutions.
1.3 (g) Ministers may only accept small gifts and gifts offered on official occasions, provided that they have satisfied themselves that the gifts are not being presented to influence them in an improper manner.
Clearly the prohibition against Ministers playing "any active role in profit making institutions" can have no other meaning than engagement in business or enterpreneurial activities.
Under President Mbeki, the Executive Ethics Code of 2000 promulgated in terms of Section 2(1) of the Executive Members Ethics Act (1998) applied to the President in his capacity as President and member of Cabinet. It too imposed a duty on him to maintain the highest standards of ethical propriety and expanded on his constitutional duties by prohibiting him from, inter alia,:
(a) willfully misleading the legislature;
(b) undertaking any other paid work;
(c) acting in any way that is inconsistent with his office;
(d) exposing himself to any situation involving the risk of a conflict between his official responsibilities and his private interests; …
(f) acting in a way that may compromise the credibility or integrity of his office or of the government.
The Executive Ethics Code furthermore imposed a duty on Ramaphosa to disclose the same financial interests to the Secretary of Cabinet.
In addition, in 2007 Mbeki introduced an amended Code of Conduct contained in the Ministerial Handbook of 2007 which remained in force until recently. It states on clause 2.3 that Cabinet Members may not: “(a) Deliberately or inadvertently mislead the President, or the Premier or, as the case may be; the legislature… (f) receive remuneration for any work or service other than for the performance of their functions as Members.” Receiving remuneration for farming activities at auctions is clearly a flagrant violation of the Code of Conduct.
A cursory survey of analogous provisions in the constitutions of other countries with written constitutions comparable to ours reveals that the scope of the prohibition against “undertaking any other paid work” is broad to render Ramaphosa’s self-admitted farming activities a serious violation of the constitution. Some countries are far more explicit in describing what is proscribed while others appear to regard it as intuitively obvious that moonlighting as a businessman while at the same time holding elected position as president or head of government are incompatible.
In the first group are those which expressly outlaw “entrepreneurial activities”. For an example the constitutions which expressly outlaw business activities are the following:
· Armenia (Article 88 states “A member of the Government may not engage in entrepreneurial activities, hold office in state and local self-government bodies or in commercial organisations not connected with his duties, or be involved in another paid work, except for academic, pedagogical and creative activities.”);
· Ukraine (Article 103 states: “The President of Ukraine shall not …perform any other paid or entrepreneurial activity, or be a member of an administrative body or board of supervisors of an enterprise that is aimed at making profit. In addition, Article 120 states: “Members of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine and chief officers of central and local bodies of executive power do not have the right to combine their official activity with other work, except teaching, scholarly and creative activity outside of working hours, or to be members of an administrative body or board of supervisors of an enterprise that is aimed at making profit.”);
· Belarus (Article 86 states: The President may not hold other offices or receive any monetary remuneration other than his salary, apart from royalties for works of science, literature and art.);
· Kazakhstan(Article 43 states: “1. The President of the Republic of Kazakhstan shall not have the right to be a deputy of a representative body, hold other paid offices and engage in entrepreneurial activity.”);
· Azerbaijan (Article 122 states thePrime-minister …, his deputies, ministers, heads of other central bodies of executive power may not not be involved in business, commercial and other payable activity except scientific, pedagogical and creative activity, may not get remuneration other than their wages and money for scientific, pedagogical and creative activity);
· Cyprus (Article 41 states: “2. The President and the Vice-President of the Republic shall not, during their term of office, engage either directly or indirectly, either for their own account or for the account of any other person, in the exercise of any profit or non-profit making business or profession.);
· Georgia (Article 72 - The President may not …engage in entrepreneurial activity, receive salary or another permanent remuneration for any other activity.);
· Lithuania (Article 99- The Prime Minister and Ministers may not … be employed in business, commercial or other private institutions or companies, and may not receive any remuneration other than the salary established for their respective Government offices and compensation for creative activities.);
· Peru (Article 126 - Ministers shall neither be manager of their own interests or of third parties, nor engage in profitable activities, nor be involved in the administration or management of private enterprises or associations); Slovakia:(Article 109 - (1) The Government shall consist of the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Ministers and Ministers. (2) The discharge of the post of a member of the Government shall be incompatible .. with an entrepreneurial activity, with membership in governing or control body of a legal person, which pursues an entrepreneurial activity or with another economic or gainful activities apart from the administration of his or her own property and scientific, pedagogical, literary or artistic activity);
· Spain (Article 98 - Members of the Government may not perform representative functions other than those derived from their Parliamentary mandate, nor any other public function not derived from their office, nor engage in any professional or commercial activity whatsoever.)
In the second group are those countries whose constitutions are not as explicit in terms of the nature of the activities proscribed but are very clear that outside employment in income generating activities is incompatible with one’s duties as a head of government. For an example, the constitution of Austria, Article 61 simply states: “During his tenure of office the Federal President may not belong to any general representative body nor exercise any other occupation.” The constitution of Germany provides as follows: Article 55 Debarment from other office
(1) The Federal President may not be a member of the government nor of a legislative body of the Federation or a Land.
(2) The Federal President may not hold any other salaried office nor practise a trade or profession nor belong to the management or supervisory board of an enterprise.
Article 66 Debarment from other office
The Federal Chancellor and the Federal Ministers may not hold any other salaried office nor practise a trade or profession nor belong to the management or, without the consent of the Bundestag, the supervisory board of an enterprise.
The constitution of Hungary is also pellucid and states on Article 12 that:
“The President of the Republic may not pursue any other gainful occupation and may not accept remuneration for other activities, with the exception of activities falling under the protection of intellectual property law.”
In the third group are those countries where the emolument from other sources is proscribed. In Ireland, Article 12 of the Constitution states: “3o The President shall not hold any other office or position of emolument.” The Slovenian constitution, Article 105 entitled “Incompatibility of Offices” states the “office of the President of the Republic shall be incompatible with other public offices or other employment.”
Viewed with this prism Ramaphosa has a serious constitutional case to answer. This is no time for casuistry but for concomitant action. A purposive interpretation of our Constitution by a serious-minded citizenry determined to root out corruption is what we desperately need now.
No comments:
Post a Comment