Echoes of the controversial arms deal continue in the corridors of Parliament, with the standing committee on public accounts (Scopa) having handed the decision to the Speaker on possible further action against two opposition MPs.
One of the MPs involved — the Inkatha Freedom Party’s finance spokesperson and former chairperson of Scopa, Dr Gavin Woods — has given notice that he would refuse to apologise for his comments if he were called on to do so.
Both he and Democratic Alliance MP Raenette Taljaard suggested the joint investigation report into the arms deal — involving the auditor general, Shauket Fakie, the public protector and the national director of public prosecutions — had been altered after interventions by the executive (the South African Cabinet).
According to the latest announcements, tablings and committee report tabled in Parliament, the key fiscal watchdog, Scopa, noted the auditor general’s assertion that comments made by Woods and Taljaard could have transgressed rule 66 of the rules of the National Assembly.
This boils down to the assertion by Fakie that the two MPs impugned his dignity.
The committee noted that it did not consider “this aspect of the special report [by Fakie pertaining to allegations in a joint investigation report into the arms deal] in any detail since it does not have the authority to investigate whether or not a Member [of Parliament] has transgressed Rule 66”.
It noted, however, that there was a constitutional duty on Parliament to assist and protect the auditor general and the other Chapter 9 institutions “through legislative and other measures to ensure their independence, impartiality, dignity and effectiveness”.
It referred the matter to National Assembly Speaker Dr Frene Ginwala.
On Wednesday Ginwala was not available for comment but her office said she could respond to enquiries in a day or two.
Taljaard, who is on a study sabbatical in the United States, said she would only comment on her return later in December, but Woods said he would welcome any ensuing investigation.
“It would allow me to put on record my concerns,” she said.
DA chief whip Douglas Gibson, speaking on behalf of Taljaard, said: “If there is any suggestion that either Taljaard or Dr Woods acted improperly I reject it. They have a duty as MPs to raise matters in the public interest. This they did.”
“The rules provide for Parliament to debate a substantive notice of motion dealing with someone like the auditor general. Despite Taljaard’s proposing such a debate, Parliament never found the time to debate the issue. Endless debates on more politically correct matters took up parliamentary time to the exclusion of this one.”
Gibson suggested that the speaker “would be most unwise to take the advice of Scopa”.
Ginwala has noted previously that Rule 66 made it “very clear” that no MP shall reflect upon the competence or honour of a judge or a superior court or the holder of an office whose removal from such office — such as the auditor general — “is dependent upon a decision of this House, expect upon a substantive motion in this House alleging facts”. — I-Net Bridge