As more recipients of luxury cars from arms contractors are being exposed, a corruption-busting ANC MP writes about his experience on Parliament’s public accounts committee
comment
Andrew Feinstein
In late 1998 the South African government concluded the procurement of armaments from a variety of European arms manufacturers to the value of just more than R30-billion.
Many in civil society expressed public opposition to the deal on the basis that it was an excessive use of public money in the context of South Africa’s socio-economic needs.
In addition, allegations were made that there had been serious procedural problems in negotiating the deal.
Parliament’s watchdog public accounts committee, the African National Congress component of which I chaired at the time, received a report from the auditor general late last year that also expressed concern around the procedures.
The public accounts committee does not comment on policy matters but focuses on financial management. Hence, at a public hearing late last year, we set about asking searching questions on the costing, decision-making processes and industrial benefits of the deal.
We were particularly concerned by the spiralling costs of the deal (R48,8-billion by late last year, excluding finance costs), lack of measures to deal with conflicts of interest, changes to decision-making procedures and possible irregularities with respect to the allocation of subcontractors which might have influenced decisions on the prime contracts.
To further investigate these issues the committee proposed the setting up of a multidisciplinary investigating team comprising the offices of the auditor general and the public protector, the Directorate of Public Prosecutions and the special investigative unit (SPU).
Responses to the committee report ranged from wide public support and endorsement to withering criticism from the executive. Significant pressure was exerted on the ANC component of the committee.
A decision was taken by President Thabo Mbeki not to grant the SPU under Judge Willem Heath a proclamation to participate in the investigation. The other three agencies continued their quest for more information.
I was critical of this decision and other aspects of my party’s approach to the issue. Soon thereafter the ANC leadership took the decision to replace me as chairperson of the ANC component of the public accounts committee and as the party spokesperson on public accounts.
While this was disappointing to me personally, the issues at stake were far more important than my situation. They run to the heart of our democracy, specifically issues of good governance and the accountability of the executive to the legislature.
I decided not to resign as an MP at that point, but hoped that I could still contribute to ensuring that a comprehensive and thorough investigation takes place that would determine once and for all the veracity or otherwise of the myriad allegations made. I also stressed that it is essential that the investigators and MP’s involved in the probe are free of any influence or pressure.
Certain concerns exist with respect to the investigation including:
l whether civil matters will be dealt with adequately;
l whether conducting parts of the enquiry in the public domain will be detrimental to the criminal and forensic aspects of the investigation; and
l whether the investigation will be free of inappropriate influence or pressure.
These considerations should be closely monitored as the process unfolds.
With respect to my own position I must acknowledge that it is not easy attempting to operate as an independent-minded MP within a party in the context of our restrictive constitutional environment.
However, I believe it is important that individuals in public life act according to their conscience. Considerations of a long-term political career should be subservient to matters of principle and public interest.
The space for such independence has been further restricted by changes in the modus operandi of Parliament’s public accounts committee in the wake of the arms issue. Since 1994 the committee has operated on a non-partisan basis. Even controversial matters we have dealt with, such as Sarafina II, the Independent Broadcasting Authority and Winnie Mandela, have always been resolved by consensus.
The rationale for this was that financial regulations are either adhered to or not. To determine whether contraventions of these regulations have occurred on the basis of party political positions could lead to a situation where decisions are made depending on who the person is and the nature of their political affiliation, rather than simple adherence or contravention.
In the wake of the arms deal issue both the Democratic Alliance and the ANC have deployed senior politicians to the committee, are involving their leadership in making decisions in the committee and resolve disagreements by voting in the committee.
I feel strongly that these developments are a tragedy for good governance as they could be enormously damaging to the accountable management of public finances in South Africa.
I do believe that the integrity of the arms deal investigation and the future functioning of the public accounts committee in its wake will be a touchstone of our new democracy. Our commitment to real accountability of elected representatives and public officials, of the oversight role of the legislature over the executive, and of the primary of the national interest over party interests is at stake.
We are at a crossroads: we can thread the path of a politics of principle and truth, or we can begin the slide into politics of expedience and deception.
Andrew Feinstein is an ANC MP. The article initially appeared in the June edition of the Southern African Friends of Cambridge University Newsletter. Feinstein, who completed an MPhil at King’s College, Cambridge, wrote the article prior to the debate on the role of the Speaker which took place on June 7. Feinstein abstained in the vote at the end of the debate