There appeared to be a ”conspiracy of silence” between companies, political parties and foreign governments over party funding, the Cape High Court heard on Thursday.
”The most glaring omission in South Africa in relation to electoral processes … is the fact that there are no specific rules around the disclosure of private funding which political parties received,” said advocate John Butler, quoting from an affidavit.
Butler was appearing for the Institute for Democracy in South Africa (Idasa), which is trying to force the African National Congress, the Democratic Alliance, the Inkatha Freedom Party and the New National Party to open their books for public scrutiny.
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Democratic Party decided to reveal the extent of private funding it received, and the application against it was withdrawn.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 they would abide by the court’s decision.
According to the affidavit from Marianne Camerer, an internationally recognised crime and corruption analyst, South Africa’s transition to democratic rule had been characterised by high levels of crime, including widespread corruption.
She said steps taken by the government in recent years to address corruption were ”real and impressive”.
”Whilst much progress has been made, what is most remarkable when contrasting the South African government’s anti-corruption reforms with [action taken by other countries is] the failure of reformers to tackle issues of corruption relating to political parties, in particular the issue of the regulation of private money flowing to political parties,” read her affidavit.
She said there seemed to be an unspoken understanding that providing funding to a political party, particularly one in power, could positively influence the chances of securing contracts.
Camerer said there appeared to be no will to disclose to the public who funded whom, and in this way open up scrutiny for potential conflicts of interest.
In its heads of argument, Idasa sought to establish the principle that political parties were obliged to give details of their substantial private donations to those asking for that information.
This should be subject only to chapter four of the Promotion of Access to Information Act.
Disclosure of donations is required for the proper functioning of a multi-party democratic system of government, and to ensure accountability, responsiveness and openness, Idasa said.
Disclosure helped to ensure parties and candidates do not stray from their task of serving the voter.
Citizens need to know to whom a party, its office bearers and members might be beholden.
Disclosure of the identity of major donors was necessary to ensure parties and candidates are free from inappropriate obligations.
Idasa is only seeking access to records of donations over 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. – Sapa