Is Frene Ginwala the appropriate person to chair the inquiry into the conduct of suspended National Director of Public Prosecutions Vusi Pikoli? Will she be impartial, or will she make findings that support President Thabo Mbeki’s controversial action regardless?
My own experience of working with her raises some real concerns.
Ginwala is charming, formidable and sometimes difficult. In the time she spent in the Atlantic suburbs constituency office we shared in Cape Town, she was caring and helpful toward constituents, authoritative and instructive with her colleagues.
In the early years she took on her impartial role as speaker of Parliament with gusto. She fought tooth and nail for the legislature to play its constitutional role of holding the executive to account. When Gavin Woods and I first discussed the investigation into the controversial arms deal with her in late 2000 in our capacity as leaders of Parliament’s standing committee on public accounts (Scopa), she encouraged us to pursue our inquiries comprehensively. And when I told her of Tony Yengeni’s efforts to dissuade us from holding a public hearing, she said that if anyone tried to subvert our investigation, she would publicly resign in protest.
Our resolution, passed unanimously by Parliament, set up a comprehensive joint investigating team (JIT). When it realised the implications of this resolution, the presidency intervened. Essop Pahad, among others, exerted extreme pressure on the ANC members of Scopa to row back the resolution, and specifically to omit the unit headed by Judge Willem Heath from the JIT, as it was perceived as the one entity over which the ANC could wield no influence.
With the presidency’s intention clear, Ginwala’s enthusiasm for the investigation rapidly morphed into vigorous support for the party line. First she informed Woods and me that it would be inappropriate for Scopa to have regular interaction with the JIT. Surprised, we approached her legal adviser, Fink Haysom, who made it clear that Scopa could be kept abreast of progress made by the JIT but could not give it instructions. The speaker was unmoved and edited Woods’s correspondence with the JIT, limiting the nature of our interaction. She then issued a statement claiming that Scopa’s report did not call for Heath’s inclusion.
With the media claiming she was trying to stymie the investigation, Ginwala summoned me to her official residence and informed me that Parliament would be passing a resolution to exclude Heath. I asked her what had happened to her initial supportive stand. She mumbled a response about Woods exceeding his powers. I disagreed with her, pointing out that he was acting according to the rules of Parliament and with my blessing as leader of the majority component of Scopa.
Ginwala issued a statement that Scopa had acted inappropriately with regard to the JIT, contradicting the view of her own legal adviser. Then she got herself invited to the study group of ANC members of Scopa, where she proposed that we issue a press statement supporting the exclusion of Heath, confirming that the JIT should not report to Scopa and apologising for the inference of any wrongdoing by the executive. This was an extraordinary intervention by a presiding officer.
When I refused to follow this line I was removed as ANC leader in Scopa by Yengeni and a group of loyalists was installed. Within minutes of this happening, the speaker addressed Scopa, ordering it to have only very limited contact with the JIT and stating that Woods had exceeded his authority as chairperson. On the same day she wrote an obsequious letter to the deputy president confirming that Scopa’s allegations were not substantiated.
The new loyal ANC members of the committee voted down any meaningful involvement in the arms inquiry and issued a report along the lines Ginwala had suggested. She then ensured that the investigators’ inadequate report could not be meaningfully interrogated by the non-ANC Scopa members, and refused to take any action when it was shown that a key witness, ”Chippy” Shaik, had misled Parliament.
Since these events, Yengeni and Schabir Shaik have been jailed in matters not unrelated to the arms deal, and Jacob Zuma’s on-off corruption charges are directly linked to it. German, British and Swedish authorities are investigating more than $200-million in bribes allegedly paid. And the suspicion that the ANC itself benefited materially from the deal has refused to go away.
The arms deal has left an indelible stain on our young democracy and set the tone for a subsidence in the morality of the ruling party. Ever since the garrotting of Scopa, Parliament has been little more than a rubber stamp, unable or unwilling to hold the executive to account.
Ginwala played a central role in this demise of a crucial democratic institution. In the final reckoning, she chose the party over the nation, the president over Parliament.
Will she make up for this dereliction of duty in the Pikoli inquiry? Will she ensure that the truth emerges, however uncomfortable it may be? Or will she again do the president’s bidding as a loyal member of the ANC?
Andrew Feinstein is a former ANC MP. His memoir, After the Party, will be published by Jonathan Ball later this month