The Joint Committee on Ethics and Members' Interests, co-chaired by Mr L T Landers and Mr B L Mashile, met on 19 August 2010 to consider the report of the Auditor-General on the alleged non-disclosure of interests by members of Parliament.
The Auditor-General's annual audit of Parliament for 2009-10 included a full audit of the 2009 Register of Members' Interests, focusing on the accuracy of disclosures by members of Parliament in respect of their interests in companies or close corporations. Members' disclosure of interests in 2009 was tested against the Company and Intellectual Property Rights Organisation (Cipro) database.
Upon examining the Auditor-General's findings, the Registrar determined that 31 members had not complied with the requirements of the Code of Conduct. After consultation with the co-chairpersons, the procedure used for the investigation of complaints in respect of non-disclosures was followed. This approach is consistent with previous practice when the Auditor-General found that members had not fully disclosed their interests.
On 20 July 2010, correspondence was sent to each member who had been identified with a request that they respond to the allegation that their disclosures for 2009 were not complete. Each member responded to the allegation, the details of which are set out below.
After consideration of the explanations received, the Committee agreed that in most cases the companies in question are dormant or never operated. Some members indicated that their omission had been an oversight. They had previously disclosed the interests and therefore there was no intent wilfully to mislead the Committee.
In its consideration of the matter, the Committee also noted that the disclosures that had been audited were the first of the 4th Parliament and the majority of members were newly elected.
The Committee further noted that in most instances the companies are dormant and members had not received any benefit from the company or companies concerned. The Committee acknowledged that it has the mandate to assist members with compliance with the requirements of the Code of Conduct and that there should be ongoing briefings to ensure that members are properly informed.
The Committee reiterated, however, that the onus for full disclosure rests upon members. It agreed that members of Parliament are expected to comply fully with the requirements of the Code.
All members, with the exception of Mr Van der Merwe, agreed that the non- disclosure of interests is a breach of the Code of Conduct, even if the companies are dormant or if the non-disclosure had been an omission.
(a) attend a compulsory briefing on the requirements of the Code of Conduct; (b) be informed in writing that the non-disclosure of interests is considered seriously; (c) correct their existing records in their 2010 disclosure; and (d) issued a warning that any future non-disclosure could result in the maximum penalty.
The Committee is aware that in some cases members did not disclose more than one company and though it may appear that the Committee has been lenient in the penalty imposed, it wanted to be consistent in its approach to all members and issue a uniform penalty to all who have not disclosed.
Member's response The member tried to contact the other directors, but they too indicated that they have no knowledge of this company. The company has had no business dealings. The member indicated that she is in the process of checking with Cipro whether the registration was wrongful. To date the member has not been able to provide further information. She is in the process of resigning from the company.
Finding Breach - cited as a member by Cipro. The member could not provide additional information to show that the company had been registered without her authorisation.