One of the more refreshing aspects of the new South Africa is the sight of government bureaucrats being called to account. Johnny de Lange’s justice committee this week gave a particularly vivid demonstration of the contribution parliamentary oversight can make to good governance with its hearings on the offices of the
The highlight of the hearings was the appearance of KwaZulu-Natal’s Tim McNally, whose performance raised a number of important questions about the office of attorney-general.
McNally defended his record in office — in the face of fierce criticism over his handling of “political” prosecutions — on a narrow interpretation of what was required of him by law. As might be expected of the country’s senior AG, a man of considerable intellect, he put his case forcefully. But one could not help but sympathise with De Lange’s complaint that, to McNally, “a crime is a crime is a crime”.
The office of attorney-general cannot be an island unto itself. It is part of the machinery of government and as such the incumbent has a responsibility to contribute to the stability of society. Of course the AG cannot be expected to “go out on the highways and byways with a pair of handcuffs”. But in a province suffering a condition approaching localised civil war something more can surely be demanded of the office, in the way of a pro-active approach to the maintenance of law and order, than might otherwise suffice in more normal circumstances.
The point leads on to another question raised by DP and Nationalist MPs on the justice committee, who protested at what they saw as the hounding of McNally. It is obviously not desirable that the dignity of a high judicial officer should be undermined at public hearings. But responsibility for that state of affairs needs to be appreciated. From 1926 to 1992 the office of attorney-general fell under the control of the minister of justice. Then, in the dying days of apartheid rule, the De Klerk administration passed a law giving the AGs an extreme form of independence from government.
The AGs are now jealously guarding that independence. But they need to be reminded that such independence is relative; one way or another, they are still answerable to society. If they will not be answerable through the government of the day then they must be made answerable by other means. If they object to appearing before politicians baying for their blood in front of television cameras we can only suggest they re-think their position.