The African National Congress on Thursday stated the party’s unqualified opposition to corruption in all it forms, but refused to bow to pressure for public scrutiny of who its private funders are.
”[There are] particular features of South African society that militate powerfully against compulsory and unregulated disclosure, where that takes place other than through this country’s democratic processes,” said ANC secretary general Kgalema Motlanthe in an affidavit to the Cape High Court.
The affidavit was in response to an application by the Institute for Democracy in South Africa (Idasa) to compel the ANC, the Democratic Alliance, the Inkatha Freedom Party and the New National Party to open their books for public scrutiny in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act.
Addressing the court on behalf of the ANC, Karel Tipp, SC, said at the heart of their case is the ”fundamental question” whether this sort of review can proceed through a court of law, as opposed to Parliament’s National Assembly.
‘Crusading nature’
Tipp said the ”crusading nature” of Idasa means that it is susceptible to impatience, and submitted it is this impatience that led to the court challenge instead of allowing the legislative process to take its course.
”The court can’t create mechanisms to regulate, monitor and enforce, only Parliament can,” said Tipp.
According to Motlanthe’s affidavit, the ANC seeks the dismissal of the application or a stay of proceedings so that the political and legislative process regulating the funding of political parties can run its course.
He said policy-making decisions of the party are not influenced by donations. Neither is the implementation of policy by the executive authority of the ANC and the government influenced by donations to the party.
”I state unequivocally that under absolutely no circumstances will the ANC solicit or accept a donation in return for any trade-off or quid pro quo undertaking on its part.”
Motlanthe argued that instead of advancing democracy, the disclosure of funders’ identities could have a ”deleterious” effect on democracy and not advance the interests of the electorate.
Motlanthe said legislation dealing with funders is at present on the table and will be dealt with in accordance with the democratic process.
‘Conspiracy of silence’
However, John Butler for Idasa disputed this in his opening remarks, saying there has been no progress since 2002 in adopting a related Bill, known as the Public Funding of Represented Political Parties Amendment Bill.
The private Bill was introduced by the DA’s Douglas Gibson.
”It appears that the Gibson Bill is dead and buried,” said Butler.
Butler said there appears to be a ”conspiracy of silence” between companies, political parties and foreign governments over party funding.
Quoting an affidavit from internationally recognised corruption analyst Marianne Camerer, Butler said while progress has been made, there is a ”failure” to tackle issues relating to political parties, ”in particular the issue of the regulation of private money flowing to political parties”.
Idasa seeks to establish the principle that political parties are obliged to give details of their substantial private donations to those asking for that information.
It argued that disclosure of donations is required for the proper functioning of a multiparty democratic system of government, and to ensure accountability, responsiveness and openness.
Disclosure helps ensure parties and candidates do not stray from their task of serving the voter, while citizens need to know whom a party, its office bearers and members might be beholden.
Disclosure of the identity of major donors is necessary to ensure parties and candidates are free from inappropriate obligations.
Idasa is only seeking access to records of donations of more than R50 000, the purpose being to compel disclosure only in respect of donations that are sufficiently substantial to influence a political party, its office-bearers and its members.
The case is set down for two days, with Judge Ben Griesel presiding.
The African Christian Democratic Party decided to reveal the extent of private funding it received, and the application against it was withdrawn.
The IFP was not represented in court, filing a notice on Tuesday that it will abide by the court’s decision. — Sapa