Mr Speaker, I rise to present the revised report of the Joint Committee on Ethics and Members' Interests relating to the complaint against the hon Yolanda R Botha, an MP, which was tabled on 16 November 2011. This is a painful moment for our committee and the House, but it must be done.
The complaint arises out of an article in the Mail & Guardian of 11 February 2011 which led to an investigation by the Registrar in terms of the Code of Conduct of the Joint Rules of Parliament. The investigation was conducted in accordance with clause 17(1) of the Code of Conduct for members.
The committee is guided by requirements in the Code of Conduct which specify that the ethical conduct required ... There is something wrong with the clock, Mr Speaker, it says four minutes. Oh, I beg your pardon.
Hon member, continue. I'm the one to tell you to stop.
... which specify the ethical conduct expected of members which is to inspire trust and confidence in our Parliament in accordance with the values of our Constitution.
I want to emphasise that the imperative of ensuring compliance with ethical standards arises from the nature of Parliament itself. It is the pinnacle of democratic representation. An act of ethical misconduct by a member constitutes an infringement on the right of the other members - of all of us - to be seen as part of an institution with the highest integrity.
The committee resolved to hold hearings to enable the hon Botha to respond to the allegations and appointed a panel of six members, consisting of members of the ANC, the DA, and the IFP. These included me, as chairperson, the hon Lemias Mashile, the hon Anchen Dreyer, the hon Gerhard Koornhof, the hon Jacobus van der Merwe, and the hon Winifred Magadla. The committee was assisted by the Registrar, Ms Fazela Mahomed, and the hon Botham, MP was assisted at the hearings by the hon J B Sibanyoni, MP.
In this specific case the charges brought by the Registrar were, firstly, nondisclosure of benefits received from Trifecta Investment Holdings as required by item 7(g) of the Code of Conduct. Secondly, regarding the allegations of nondisclosure of the benefits, Ms Botha wilfully misled the committee on the value of the benefits received by submitting a sworn statement which was false and misleading.
The panel appointed by the committee decided to hold the hearings in closed sessions in accordance with Rule 125 of the Code of Conduct and section 59(2) of the Constitution of South Africa. We received advice from senior counsel that this was necessary and possible.
The findings of the committee are as follows. Firstly, the renovations done on her house constitute a benefit in accordance with clause 7(g) of the Code of Conduct. Secondly, the 10% shares from Trifecta was also a benefit in terms of clause 7(a). Lastly, the affidavit submitted under oath on the loan agreement cited R500 000, while the costs were more than R1,2 million. This was wilful misleading of Parliament.
The committee is unanimous - and I want to emphasise unanimous - in its agreement on these findings and resolves that Ms Botha is guilty of the breaches for, firstly, nondisclosure of the registrable interests and, secondly, wilfully misleading Parliament.
We therefore agreed on the following penalty which is the maximum we can impose under the Rules. The penalty imposed, as stipulated in the Joint Rules of Parliament: Rule 19 in the Code of Conduct, is (a) a reprimand, and (b) a fine of 30 days' salary.
We ask the House to approve this report as published in the ATCs. I thank you. [Applause.]
There was no debate.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY Chairperson I move:
That the report be adopted.
Declarations of vote:
Mnr die Speaker, die DA sal hierdie verslag steun en ten gunste daarvan stem, maar ons voel sterk dat die aanbevelings baie verder moes gaan, soos wat dit aanvanklik in die oorspronklike verslag was, voordat die ANC-hoofsweep ingemeng het en sy lede beveel het om die verslag af te water.
Dit is belangrik dat, wanneer LP's oortree, die Parlement sterk sal optree ... ja, ook teen sy eie lede. Slegs dan sal ons dit aan die kiesers duidelik maak dat ons ernstig is om korrupsie ook elders uit te roei. Lede van die Parlement is, soos alle ander landsburgers, ook onderhewig aan die landswette, maar ons het 'n bykomende morele verantwoordelikheid om 'n voorbeeld te stel. Hoe kan ons die uitvoerende gesag tot verantwoording roep as ons nie self bo verdenking staan nie? Hoe anders kan ons ooit hoop om die beeld van die Parlement te herstel? Hoe anders kan ons die kiesers se vertroue in die Parlement herwin? Daarom, wanneer een van ons eie lede oortree, moet ons ons eie etiese kode handhaaf.
Die heel belangrikste is egter dat die Wet op die Voorkoming en Bestryding van Korrupte Bedrywighede van 2004 ons as LP's verplig om enige vermeende korrupsie by die polisie aan te meld. Met die afwatering van sy verslag het die komitee dus sy wetlike plig versaak. Nadat die ANC-hoofsweep die rug van die etiekkomitee gebreek het, het ek egter namens die DA persoonlik 'n omvattende klag ... [Tussenwerpsels.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Ms A M DREYER: Mr Speaker, the DA will support this report and vote in favour of it, but we feel strongly that the recommendations should go much further, as been the case in the original report, before the ANC's Chief Whip intervened and instructed his members to water down the report.
It is important that, when MPs transgress, Parliament should take decisive action against ... yes, its own members as well. Only then will we make it clear to the voters that we are serious in rooting out corruption elsewhere as well. Members of Parliament, like all other citizens, are also subject to the laws of the country, but we have an additional moral responsibility to set an example. How can we call the executive authority to account if we ourselves are not beyond reproof? In which other way are we ever hoping to restore the image of Parliament? In which other way can we regain the trust that voters should have in Parliament? That is why, when one of our own members transgresses, we should uphold our own code of ethics.
However, the most important thing for us as MPs is that we have an obligation to report any suspected corruption to the police in terms of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, Act No.12 of 2004. By watering down its report, therefore, the committee has failed to meet its legal obligation. After the ANC's Chief Whip broke the back of the ethics committee, I personally laid a comprehensive charge on behalf of the DA ...]
Order! There is a point of order.
Speaker, before the member makes an accusation against me there must be evidence that I personally did what she alleges, because I am not aware of what she is talking about and she is addressing the public about something I don't know about. [Interjections.]
Order! Hon member, I will again study the Hansard very carefully and come back with a ruling. I would like to allow the member to continue.
Nadat die rug van die etiekkomitee gebreek is, het ek egter namens die DA persoonlik 'n omvattende klag teen die betrokke ANC-LP by die Kaapstad-Sentraal-polisiekantoor ingedien. [Applous.] Ons sal ons plig nakom en ons sal aanhou om korrupsie oop te vlek en te beveg. Wat die DA telkens verstom ... [Tussenwerpsels.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[Ms A M DREYER: After the back of the ethics committee had been broken, however, I personally laid a comprehensive charge against the ANC MP concerned at Cape Town Central Police Station. [Applause.] We will fulfil our obligation and continue to expose and fight corruption. What constantly astounds the DA ... [Interjections.]]
Hon Speaker, is it correct when a process in Parliament is ongoing and it has not been completed and reported to the House, that members use that information to lay charges? Is that correct? [Interjections.]
You used it for Winnie Mandela! She did the same thing. You set the precedent! [Interjections.]
Order! Order, hon members! Order! I've noted that, hon Chief Whip. I will come back on that point as well.
Wat die DA telkens verstom, is dat die ANC altyd sy rug draai op die korrupsie van sy eie lede. Daarom is dit nie verbasend dat die kiesers wat korrupsie wil uitroei hulle al hoe meer tot die DA wend nie. [What constantly astounds the DA is that the ANC always turns its back on the corruption of its own members. That is why it is not surprising that voters who are wanting to root out corruption are increasingly turning towards the DA. [Applause.]
Speaker, the agencies or bodies that the hon member Dreyer refers to, including the SAPS and the Hawks, are fully aware of this case. Therefore, these agencies or bodies already have knowledge of the Registrar's complaint and the findings of this committee. There is thus no need for recommendations for such agencies or bodies to be part of their report. [Interjections.]
Order, hon members!
Therefore, we as the ANC have decided to remove such recommendations from the original report ... [Interjections.] ... if you had listened, for the reasons that I've just spelt out to you.
Order, hon members!
There is nothing sinister about this. But what the DA now comes and talks about ... [Interjections.] ... and now I'm going to use my mother tongue because I want to answer them.
Dit is nie 'n afgewaterde verslag nie. Dit is di verslag wat oorspronklik en eenparig goedgekeur is. Die ANC draai nie sy rug op korrupsie nie. Dit is 'n ANC-lid wat aangekla word. Die verslag is eenparig deur alle partye aanvaar en die ANC steun dt wat daarin staan. Ek dank u. [Applous.] [Tussenwerpsels.] (Translation of Afrikaans paragraph follows.)
[It is not a watered-down report. It is this report that was originally and unanimously approved. The ANC does not turn its back on corruption. It is a member of the ANC who is being charged. The report was approved by all parties unanimously and the ANC supports what is contained in this report. I thank you. [Applause.] [Interjections.]]
Motion agreed to.
Report accordingly adopted.
Order! Hon members, in pursuance of claims in an article published in February this year, the Joint Committee on Ethics and Members' Interests proceeded to investigate a complaint against Mrs Yolanda Rachel Botha, MP.
Upon completing its investigation, the committee charged Ms Botha and found her guilty, in the first instance, of not disclosing benefits of a material nature, as required by item 7(g) of the Code of Conduct for Assembly and Permanent Council members.
Mrs Botha was also found guilty on a second charge, namely that she had, in the course of the committee's deliberation, wilfully misled the committee about the value of the benefits she received. The Joint Committee on Ethics and Members' Interests recommended two penalties in its report, and those penalties have now been agreed to by the House.
The first penalty constitutes a reprimand in terms of item 19(a) of the Code of Conduct, which I will now proceed to deliver. Will the member please rise?
The member standing, the Speaker administered a reprimand to her, in the following terms: