IEC chair Pansy Tlakula’s case highlights the clash of public versus private interests.
‘Is there no institution in this country that is free from corruption?” That was the plaintive question SMSed to a radio station on Tuesday. “Surely not the Independent Electoral Commission as well?” was the reaction of many others. And, from those who know her: “Surely not Pansy Tlakula?”
The public protector made decisive findings in relation to Tlakula’s “improper conduct”. Tlakula had failed to disclose or manage a conflict of interest when, as then chief executive of the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC), she signed off on a lease for rental property for the IEC in 2009. Despite the chronic state of scandal fatigue we suffer from, this matter presents an awkward dilemma.
First, Tlakula is respected by a large number of people who work in the field of human rights, not least for her sterling work as a special rapporteur on access to information for the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
But the task in this respect is simply more painful, but not substantively different: namely, to apply the same high standard of ethics to the holder of such an important public office as the chairperson of the IEC as we would to any other person in Tlakula’s predicament.
Grave concern
Second, because of the importance of her position and the work of the IEC in the run-up to an election, there is grave concern that it could undermine the work of the commission and the public confidence in it.
Tlakula contests the findings; apparently, she has no intention of falling on her sword. As I understand it, her core argument is that she did not know – and could not have known – that she had a private financial interest in the lease agreement when she was involved in its procurement, and so did nothing wrong. Whether she has an opportunity to contest the findings of the public protector will depend on whether or not it is decided to seek to remove her from office.
The public protector’s report recommends that “the speaker of Parliament, in consultation with the electoral commission to the exclusion of the chairperson, consider whether or not action should be taken against [Tlakula]”.
Section 7 of the Electoral Commission Act 1996 says that an IEC commissioner may be removed only by the president on the grounds of misconduct, incapacity or incompetence after a finding to that effect by a committee of the National Assembly upon the recommendation of the Electoral Court and a resolution from the National Assembly recommending removal.
So, presumably, the Electoral Court would have to conduct its own inquiry on the facts, during which Tlakula would be given a second bite of the cherry, having failed to persuade the protector of her position.
Desist
The case once again brings into the spotlight the issue of conflict of interest that so bedevils South African public life. Far too many public office holders have business interests that interfere with their public duties.
Once again, one is compelled to pose the question: Is it too much to ask people simply to desist from private business when accepting appointment to high public office?
Is this not the core professional choice that one makes when entering public service – to serve the public and only the public?
In response, some would say that this represents too pious a position; that it is unrealistic to expect people to give up what would otherwise constitute perfectly legitimate private business activities.
At the very least then, take sufficient care to manage your business affairs with absolute fastidiousness.
Hence, I am far from convinced that to say: “Well, I did not know I had an interest here”, or “It was hidden beneath layers of corporate relationships”, or that “I was a sleeping partner”, is good enough.
Risk
It may be that a closer examination of the matter will serve to vindicate Tlakula and that it will be possible for her to retain her position with her reputation sufficiently untainted, even if there is a risk that a question mark will hang over her probity.
But a further question then arises: Can a commission as important as the IEC afford to take such a risk, especially at a time when electoral competition is increasing? At a time when, therefore, the process of running a free and fair election is more intense, and when it is crucial to ensure that political freedom is fully protected in communities where violence may be the inevitable consequence of the ANC’s hitherto dominant position being challenged for the first time since 1994?
This is the daunting challenge for the country on the horizon: to handle the moment at which the ANC’s grip on power begins to loosen. Of course, the primary factor will be how the ANC and its leadership responds.
But, alongside this, the role that public institutions such as the IEC play will be pivotal. They will need to be unimpeachably nonpartisan. So, aside from the conflict of interest in the IEC procurement process, it may be that Tlakula’s greater error of judgment was to be in business with a leading member of the ANC in the first place.
Richard Calland’s new book, The Zuma Years: The Changing Face of Power, was published this month by Zebra.