funding
Gaye Davis
SHOULD political parties make public details of who gives them money, and how much? Does the public have a right to know who’s paying what and to whom?
These vexed questions have sprung to the fore with Bantu Holomisa’s allegations that hotel magnate Sol Kerzner bought favours by contributing to African National Congress election coffers and assisting party luminaries such as Thabo Mbeki and Steve Tshwete.
While lawyers acting for Mbeki and Tshwete have issued Holomisa with a warning to stop making such allegations, saying they are untrue, the fact remains that without public disclosure doubts will remain in the minds of citizens — alongside the prevailing perception that those who govern are likely to be corrupt.
The issue is likely to be hotly debated when MPs and senators consider the new code of conduct for MPs which is to be tabled in Parliament next week. The code requires individual MPs and senators to declare outside interests. But opposition politicians this week pointed out that there is little point in forcing individual disclosure when political parties — particularly the ruling party — could receive huge donations in secret, which could result in public policy being influenced.
When the code was being drawn up by parties represented on the ethics committee chaired by Water Affairs and Forestry Minister Kader Asmal, the Democratic Party pushed strongly for disclosure of party funding to form part of it. “In a highly authoritarian caucus system, it is highly relevant who is funding a party,” said DP MP James Selfe. “It boils down to trade-offs, what one does in return – — and whether it causes you, in the last resort, to do something you might not ordinarily have done.”
All the parties agreed that the ethics committee would look at the issue of making public party contributions once the code for individual members had been dealt with.
The Mail & Guardian asked the seven parties represented in Parliament whether they support public disclosure of party funding and, if so, whether they would provide us with details of contributions for the 1994 general election campaign:
African National Congress
Has not come out clearly on whether or not it supports public disclosure of party funding and will not make public details of contributions. “We draw your attention to the long-standing practice of the ANC not to make public its financial records, nor details of funders who have made contributions to the ANC.
“The financial records of the ANC are regularly audited, and subjected to the procedures and checks required by the ANC constitution. The ANC sees no reason to deviate from that practice.
“Any discussion on whether to legally compel political parties to make public their financial records and details of donors would need to take place among the country’s public representatives in Parliament — and should be premised on a desire to safeguard the integrity and transparency of public institutions,” a statement said.
National Party
Is not prepared at this stage to state whether or not it supports public disclosure — and will not divulge details of money it has received from companies, individuals and other donors.
“It is premature to debate the issue before clarity is reached with regard to state funding of political parties — as is the case in many other democracies. This debate will start soon, as already agreed between the parties.
“The National Party regards the relationship between a donor and a party as an honorary arrangement and therefore we do not comment on matters of this nature. If, however, a donor wants to publicise such donations it is the donor’s privilege,” said the NP’s managing director, Kobus de Plessis.
Inkatha Freedom Party
Totally opposed to public disclosure of party funding and not prepared to make any information available.
“When people make donations to the party it’s a private arrangement,” said IFP MP Walter Felgate. “The IFP has no such history of favours being bought and won’t be drawn into disclosure because a Holomisa hoo-hah is going on.”
Democratic Party
Is in favour of disclosure of all foreign funding and will disclose this — but will not disclose local funding until such time as legislation is in place requiring all parties to disclose. Would support such legislation.
“About 80% of our 1994 campaign funding was from the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC), which is a matter of public record. The remaining 20% was from private and corporate donors and was given on a confidential basis.
“I am not prepared to disclose who those donors were but can give an absolute undertaking that not one had strings attached. It is self-evident the DP is unable to quash prosecutions in return for donations.
“People who donate to us believe in us and think we’ve a useful role to fulfill —they don’t think we’re in a position to get them contracts.
“The DP is in favour of all foreign funding being disclosed by all parties and we’d like to see legislation in this regard. The issue of local funding is more ticklish. In South Africa one has a new government with one party with an overwhelming majority. We don’t want to be put in a situation where people are reluctant to donate to the DP for fear of disclosure and incurring the displeasure of the ANC.
“On the other hand, if there was new legislation requiring open disclosure of all future funding then the DP would support it,” said the DP’s national chairperson of finance, MP Douglas Gibson
African Christian Democratic Party
Believes it is in the public interest that all political parties make full disclosure concerning individuals, organisations, companies and other concerns that have contributed to their campaigns – — and is prepared to give details of its own funding.
“It is important to have not only a Code of Conduct for MPs, but also to have one for political parties, in order to ensure that the general principles which underpin public life are respected and maintained.
“It is very difficult to stamp out corruption, if a strict Code of Conduct is applied only to persons holding public positions, while the funding of political parties remain undeclared.”
Has had two funders since its launch: it received R3-million from the IEC to run its 1994 election campaign and many small donations from born-again Christians in particular. “We received no international funding nor any corporate funding, because the big companies were only interested in the major political players,” said deputy president Louis Green MP. After the 1994 elections, the ACDP received R365 049.39 from the Dutch government through the Nederlandse Sticktung voor Nieuwe Zuid- Afrika to assist with the local government elections campaign.
“I have sent a copy of your fax to John Schroeder, our national treasurer, in Pietermaritzburg, to fax to you a list of persons who made small contributions to the party (in most cases no more than R1 000).
Freedom Front
In favour of public disclosure and prepared to give details of its own funding, but wanted to clear this with individual donors first.
“We are a new party which only came into being in 1994 and as such has no financial history. We began with nothing,” said financial manager Dr Willie Botha
“Like all the other parties standing in the election we received money from the IEC — about R5,7- million. We got R250 000 from one company and donations from supporters, candidates and party workers. No-one from the corporate sector helped us except one company which we think gave money to all the parties.
“We also got money from the Dutch foundation, like the other parties.
Pan Africanist Congress
Strongly supports public disclosure and would give details of money it received for the 1994 election campaign if it had a financial report for that period.
“Looking at party political funding is the second part of the ethics committee’s mandate,” said PAC MP Patricia de Lille. “The PAC has always believed in openness and transparency. All funding, foreign and local, should be disclosed or else you lose the value of disclosure.
“We know the DP gets funds from big business inside the country — hence it is prepared to compromise on openness. Parties should have to declare so there’s no conflict of interest.
“We got money from the IEC which helped us. We do have problems though — there is no financial statement for the period February 1994 to February 1995. A commission established at our recent congress is still working on it. It is right that these things are debated vigorously. We must deal with the public perception that we are all on a gravy train and paid a lot to do nothing. We must show that we stand by the concepts of accountability, transparency and democracy.”
@ The scandal that follows Sol
Stefaans BrUmmer
CASINO king Sol Kerzner is no stranger to controversy — but it is no foregone conclusion he will face charges over the R2-million “lobola” he admitted to have had a hand in paying to secure exclusive gambling rights in the homeland.
While Kerzner denies he ever “expected or accepted favours” as a result of “contributions to social, charitable and political groups”, allegations that he has often done just that have followed closely in the wake of the success story that saw him build a multi-billion rand empire from scratch in two decades.
Only last month the prestigious United States Wall Street Journal suggested in a front-page article the head of the National Indian Gaming Commission had unduly approved Kerzner’s R1,2-billion Mohegan Sun casino resort venture with Mohegan tribe members in Connecticut.
Soon after, Britain’s Sunday Business published an “exclusive” which claimed Kerzner had offered about R40-million to John Major’s Tory party for their election war chest — which would have been the biggest donation ever to the party — in exchange for British citizenship. Both Kerzner and the Conservative Party hotly denied the story.
In Mauritius, where Kerzner has extensive hotel interests, bribery allegations have led to the resignation of a cabinet minister, while similar claims have been made in connection with his mega- resort development in the Bahamas, started in 1994.
But the biggest albatross around Kerzner’s neck remains the Transkei bribery scandal, now a decade old. It has been suggested as one reason Kerzner decided to make his permanent home abroad and, until it is resolved, is likely to brand him wherever he seeks new business opportunities. Recent British and South African experience has also shown that Kerzner has remained an embarrassment to real or imputed political friends.
Transkei Attorney General Christo Nel, who at times has waged a virtually single-handed campaign to have the allegations of the bribe to then Transkei prime minister George Matanzima tested in court, told the Mail & Guardian he still believed there was a prima facie case against Kerzner, but said his work-load would allow him to revisit the case probably only by the end of September.
He said South African authorities refused to extradite Kerzner before the reunification of the homeland, and that the loss of his previous investigators and the non-availability of witnesses — one important witness has since died — may complicate matters.
Nel said he approached Safety and Security Minister Sydney Mufamadi early last year for a South African detective to re-open the investigation. That April, Captain Andre Heunis of the Port Elizabeth police Commercial Crime Unit was made available to him. Heunis completed the new docket a fortnight ago.
Heunis this week said it was not a cut-and-dried case as Kerzner, who had been “co-operative”, argued the payment to Matanzima, through Cape attorney David Bloomberg, had been an extortion he had to go along with to protect his legitimate business interests, rather than a bribe to secure new rights.
He said Sun International Transkei affiliate Transun had been involved in final negotiations in 1986 to buy Transgames, represented by Bloomberg, for what it believed would give it exclusive gaming rights to the entire Transkei. “Then Matanzima came at the beginning of December and made certain demands, wanting to buy a farm and wanting R2-million. He threatened to take the gaming rights they thought they had away and give them to a family member.”
In early 1988 Kerzner told the Alexander inquiry in Transkei he was aware of rumours Matanzima had wanted R2-million for the gambling rights, but denied he had paid it “because it is not my style of negotiating”.
But a year later he admitted to the Harms Commission in South Africa the money had been paid, saying: “The circumstances under which the payment was exacted by Chief George amounted to at least commercial extortion on the part of the then corrupt regime in the Transkei.”
Meanwhile, questions remain about Kerzner’s extensive casino developments in Bophuthatswana, which include Sun City and the Lost City. Sun International Bophuthatswana also had exclusive casino rights in that former homeland. Huge tax breaks — R1,2-billion has been mentioned as the figure for the Lost City — and management contracts with one or more foreign-registered Kerzner companies appear to have paved the way for Kerzner to amass his sizeable fortune abroad.