We can all prepare for the death of Scopa
comment
Andrew Feinstein
The resignation of Gavin Woods as chairperson of Parliament’s Standing Committee on Public Accounts (Scopa) is a massive blow to the credibility of the committee and to the cause of vigorous parliamentary oversight and accountability.
Woods is a man of great substance, with a string of higher degrees and qualifications to his name. He is passionate about improving public-sector financial management, as was evinced in the exhaustive manner in which he contributed to the drafting of the Public Finance Management Act of 2000. So intense was his involvement in that process (often engaging with the Treasury’s Ismail Momoniat in a manner that produced an excellent piece of legislation) that the Act was informally dubbed the Woods/Momoniat Memorial Act.
He is above all a man of integrity and courage. He was central to Scopa’s investigation that led to the firing of the former commissioner for correctional services, closely linked to Woods’s own Inkatha Freedom Party. When confronted with the choice (that members of Scopa constantly face) between the interests of his party and the national interest, he would always choose the latter. For more than 18 months Woods has fought the whitewashing of the arms deal at great cost to his health, and his parliamentary career. He is a true patriot.
His motives have been constantly questioned by my own party, the African National Congress. His motivation has always been clear to me: the unearthing of the truth so that the public can judge for themselves the advisability and veracity of the biggest single expenditure in our short democratic history.
However, regardless of the quality of the person, one or two individuals will never determine the success or otherwise of an oversight body. What is key to the success of Scopa is the attitude of the majority party.
Prior to 1994 Scopa was constrained by the general obsequiousness of Parliament to its National Party masters. Democracy brought a courageous and non-partisan Scopa to light. With leading lights over the first five-year Parliament, such as Gill Marcus, Serake Leeuw, Barbara Hogan, Ken Andrew, Laloo Chiba and Woods himself, the committee soon became the embodiment of meaningful oversight of the executive. The theory was simple: Scopa should operate in a consensual, non-partisan manner because unlike other parliamentary committees it does not discuss matters of policy, but only of financial management. The political affiliation of ministers or senior civil servants is of no consequence in determining whether financial regulations have been transgressed or not.
Operating under this informal coda and backed by the commitment to this approach of the first two ANC chief whips, the committee played a critical role in identifying (and refusing to authorise) inappropriate expenditure and ensuring efforts were made to recover as much of such expenditure as possible. Sarafina II, the Independent Broad- casting Authority credit card debacle, the Winnie Madikizela Mandela travel saga and the underspending of the Department of Welfare are all examples of constructive interventions by Parliament that differentiated the democratic Scopa from its pathetic predecessor.
The manner in which the ANC has handled the arms deal imbroglio has brought this to a juddering halt.
The investigation into the arms deal was the most searching test of the ANC’s commitment to a non-partisan, vigorous oversight function. The expenditure involved and the questions it raised about not only the procedural aspects of the deal but also the advisability of certain of the decisions taken by senior members of the executive, proved too sensitive for the ANC leadership. It was decided that Scopa’s role in the investigation had to be neutralised. This tragic decision was, in a strange way, testament to the power and integrity of Woods’s leadership of the committee.
So, in a series of interventions to which I was witness by the chief whip (whose commitment to the neutrality of Scopa might just have been tinged by his now well-known conflict of interest), a senior minister in the presidency, a few other Cabinet ministers (with varying degrees of enthusiasm) and, most sadly, the leadership of Parliament, the committee was neutered. First to go was non-partisanship, soon followed by the abandonment of consensus seeking and the adoption of voting. As if this wasn’t sufficient, constant filibustering and an alarming neglect of basic preparatory work were thrown in for good measure.
These tactics achieved their objective: Scopa was neutralised. A deeply unsatisfactory, incomplete report by the investigators was warmly embraced by a myriad parliamentary committees that knew little or nothing of the deal itself. A few middle-ranking individuals had to endure a mild slap on the wrist before being restored to their former glory and the arms deal could continue with the South African taxpayer none the wiser. I was disgusted by these machinations, and the complicity of a number of comrades who I had held in high esteem, and departed from Parliament. I still nursed a quiet hope that once the arms deal trauma was behind us the committee might return to its former modus operandi.
The ANC has, however, reiterated that it will continue to place party politics at the centre of the functioning of Scopa, thus making its existence redundant. How can members of a committee determine conformity with financial management regulations and practices if their first reference point is the interest of their parties? The logical outcome of such a process is that anyone with connections to the majority party will be above reproach and those without such connections will face the wrath of the committee.
It was as a consequence of the obvious redundancy of such a committee that Gavin Woods took the honourable decision to stand down as chairperson (thus forfeiting his higher salary and exalted status as a chairperson). He should be commended for his brave, selfless and honest action. To brand it a publicity stunt (as the ANC leader on the committee did) shows a level of disingenuity that is frankly mind-boggling. We can, therefore, all prepare for the interment of Scopa.
The last rites have been read. Unless the ANC can pull itself back from the brink and revert to the position it introduced with the advent of democracy by insulating Scopa from party politics and allowing the members of the committee to determine by consensus whether financial regulations have been transgressed, reports of Scopa’s death will not have been premature.
The first indication of this will be the appointment next Tuesday of a chairperson as well qualified, as courageous and as honest as Woods. Sadly, I feel there will be no reason to pack away my funeral attire. I hope I am wrong.
Andrew Feinstein resigned late last year as an ANC MP over political interference in his own and Scopa’s work