/ 15 November 2002

New eyes on spy spending

Parliament’s watchdog on government spending, the public accounts committee (Scopa), has effectively passed on financial oversight of the intelligence sector to the joint standing committee on intelligence, which as a rule sits behind closed doors.

The Intelligence Services Control Amendment Bill, passed by Parliament last Friday, gives the intelligence committee full oversight of the ”administration, financial management and expenditure” of the National Intelligence Agency, South African Secret Service and the military and police intelligence divisions. The committee must report to Parliament.

The aim was to pass the law, then approach Parliament’s joint rules committee to amend Rule 206 — which gives effect to the Speaker’s constitutionally entrenched power to refer all financial statements of the executive to Scopa. That amendment process was controversially enshrined in the Bill.

Ructions have now erupted over the Bill, described as ”a hot potato”, although some have defended the move on the basis that both Scopa and the intelligence committee are committees of Parliament.

While the provision giving the intelligence committee financial oversight was unusual, it was not unconstitutional as Scopa retained a role. But amending parliamentary Rule 206 would be unconstitutional, as it takes away the National Assembly’s constitutional oversight role.

Significantly, the amendment Bill comes in the wake of an agreement by Scopa and the intelligence committee to refer all auditor general’s reports on intelligence matters to the latter.

This resolution was adopted on recommendation of a joint task team established in May to tackle the lack of information from the intelligence services. Even the auditor general’s reports are scant, given confidential matters like payment of informants.

The task team eventually settled for transferring oversight to the intelligence committee rather than creating a ”super-Scopa”, whose members had the required security clearance. MPs this week defended the decision as being in line with international practice.