This is a kiss of death. [Laughter.] Mr Chairperson and hon members, the report before the House, today, brings to a conclusion a rather unique exercise in which the National Assembly and this committee have been engaged over the past 12 months, investigating operational problems being experienced in the office of the Public Protector and recommending appropriate solutions.
This office plays a vital role in strengthening our constitutional democracy in that it provides an accessible mechanism for citizens to obtain redress in the event of improprieties in the public administration that affect the constitutionally entrenched rights. For that reason, this office is identified in the Constitution as one of the state institutions that is independent of other arms of government. Furthermore, other organs of state are enjoined to assist and protect the office to ensure its independence; its impartiality; its dignity and effectiveness and they may not interfere with its functioning.
The office is, however, accountable directly to the National Assembly, and this House, in addition, recommends people for appointment as Public Protector and Deputy Public Protector and it may effect their removal from office on the specific grounds of misconduct, incapacity, or incompetence. Against this background, hon members will be aware that what gave rise to this special intervention by the National Assembly was a rather unseemly, unhappy and undignified public spat that developed between the Public Protector and his deputy involving allegations and counter-allegations, which led to the Public Protector to turn to this National Assembly for assistance.
The ad hoc committee, which was then set up by the House, was tasked to enquire into operational problems, which were experienced in the office of the Public Protector as reported to the Speaker, by the Public Protector.
In the first report by this committee of 5 September 2006, the committee identified a range of operational problems in the office that negatively impacted on its ability to function optimally. The committee reported that some of the identified problems existed prior to the appointment of the Deputy Public Protector and contributed to the tensions resulting in the breakdown of relations between them.
The committee, accordingly, made a number of recommendations in a rather lengthy report and submitted it to the National Assembly. These were aimed at strengthening the office and resolving the specific problems. These recommendations were adopted by the House on 7 September 2006.
The committee was subsequently reconvened by the House on 27 March 2007, in accordance with the earlier decision of this House in September 2006 and its purpose was to assess progress made with the implementation of the recommendations and to determine any further action that may be required. The committee saw it as its main task to establish whether it was satisfied with what had been done to implement the recommendations and whether good relations had been restored between the Public Protector and his deputy.
We then looked at the implementation of the recommendations. In response to an invitation by the committee, the Public Protector and his deputy submitted a report co-signed by them, detailing the measures that had been taken, or were in the process of being taken, to give effect to the recommendations adopted by the Assembly in order to resolve the identified problems.
These steps included; the formal observance of the lines of authority within the office and between the office and other organs of state as identified by the committee and a document setting out the delegated powers of the Deputy Public Protector was also submitted, on which the committee, at the invitation of the Public Protector, gave further guidance, because the powers delegated were, in fact, too extensive and the committee stressed the need to ensure that the delegated parts related specifically to the core functions of the office.
It was also reported that key senior posts in the office, including the chief executive and the chief finance officers had been filled, and this came about because of the intervention of the National Assembly. The committee is satisfied that these developments establish an adequate foundation for the effective functioning of this office.
The Public Protector did report a concern relating to the practical interaction between his office, the National Treasury and the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development on financial and administrative matters and the committee recommends that the House refer these inputs to the ad hoc committee specifically appointed to review these issues.
Well, the ad hoc committee on the Chapter 9 Institutions reported to the House, yesterday, therefore, completing its business. This report was written before the legal report was submitted to the House.
Now we conclude by looking at the status of the working relations between the Public Protector and his deputy. As I've said on behalf of the committee, the committee indicated in its first report that the operational problems in the office arose, partly from the breakdown in relations between the Public Protector and his deputy.
It was also reported that as at 5 September 2006, a legal action between the Public Protector and his deputy was still pending and in the committee's view, it was undesirable that such action should remain in the public domain and unresolved, as it would unavoidably impede the best functioning of the office.
Both the Public Protector and his deputy in their engagement with the committee on 6 May 2007, assured the committee that with the implementation of the recommendations and the confidence building measures, amicable working relations between them had been restored, and they met regularly on operational issues.
In the light of these assurances, the committee notes with concern that the Public Protector and his deputy had not specifically met to discuss the committee's report, after its adoption by this House in September 2006. Moreover, the committee must report, more in sorrow than in anger, that despite the clear concerns expressed in the first report, no attempt has been made by either party to settle the differences and the legal action by the Public Protector and a counter claim by his deputy are still being proceeded with.
At the suggestion of the committee, I as the Chairperson, made a further attempt to encourage a settlement, but was unsuccessful. They view the court action as being of a personal nature and each intends clearing his or her name, but the committee remains of the view that responsibility for the optimal functioning of the office in our democratic dispensation must rank as of paramount importance. In the circumstances the continuing legal action between these two appointed senior office bearers, is inconceivable as it will unavoidably impact on the dignity, authority and the effective functioning of the office.
When the committee says these things with regret, as we respect the independence of these bodies; we respect the need to ensure its dignity; and it is with this in mind that the committee make these recommendations ...
It is hoped that the Public Protector and his deputy will reassess the options in the interest of the vital institution they serve and its critical role in our democracy. A clear message from the National Assembly is necessary, in order to protect the dignity of this institution.
Mr Chairperson, the report is commended for your attention. Siyabonga. [Thank you.] [Applause.]
Agreed to.