Mr Speaker and Mr Deputy President, as the co-chair of the Joint Committee on Ethics and Members' Interests, and as chairperson of the panel appointed to consider the allegations against the hon Dina Pule, I wish to present the report of the committee. The report was adopted unanimously, both by the panel and the committee as a whole after a long and difficult process. We hope that the House will also support the findings in the same nonpartisan spirit.
I need to make some preliminary remarks with respect to the role of the Ethics Committee. This is a multiparty committee with members from both the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces. We have the difficult task of overseeing the proper compliance with regard to the annual declarations by members of their financial interests and those of their close family members. In doing this, we act as the instrument of Parliament, fulfilling its requirements as an important institution of the country and maintaining public trust in its integrity. The code of conduct requires us to place public interest above our personal financial interests and those close to us. We have to be objective in complying with the Joint Rules of Parliament. We cannot be politically partisan. We cannot allow bias or prejudice to enter into our considerations. We must base our judgements on facts and where there is a conflict in respect of the facts, we need to discover the truth. We must be fair and be seen to be fair. In all this, we are guided by the will of this House and the NCOP, the national interest and the Constitution. Parliament has a duty to reflect a common purpose and common values, and when it acts in the national interest, the whole must be greater than the sum of its parts, that is, Parliament rises above the specific concerns of parties and individuals.
Our powers of investigation as a committee are substantial, but we are not a court of law. We must respect the rights of members and follow due process. Where we investigate the ethical conduct of a member, we do so in closed session. We are sworn to observe confidentiality, and our findings are based on the balance of probabilities. While our investigations centre on the proper declaration of members' interests, these investigations often introduce evidence that goes much broader than the immediate declaration. As a committee, we have to exercise much discretion on how far we go and what evidence is relevant. We must not deal extraneously.
Finally, with regard to the general approach of the committee, we draw a distinction between a breach of ethical conduct and a breach of some rule or law. Both are undesirable and we have to act on both. Too often, a person may act within the rules or within the law, but the conduct is unacceptable on ethical grounds and is therefore liable to sanction.
In the allegations against the hon Dina Pule, we uncovered both these transgressions and our findings are according to these criteria.
The central issue in this case was the relationship of hon Pule with Mr Mngqibisa, and how her public office was used to benefit him improperly. She denied in an affidavit that the relationship went beyond longstanding friendship. Mr Mngqibisa stated under oath that "my private life is private" and refused to answer questions about the relationship.
However, evidence emerged during the hearings that hon Pule and Mr Mngqibisa had travelled together to several foreign destinations, such as Mexico, New York, Kuala Lumpur, Paris and Prague, and shared road transport and hotel accommodation. The panel obtained proof that at least one of these trips was paid for by the Department of Communications and Mr Mngqibisa was listed, for purposes of that trip, as hon Pule's spouse.
The panel had great difficulty in obtaining other travel papers and the file for the Mexico trip was lost. Officials were unco-operative and gave contradictory evidence on how travel companions were recorded. What is remarkable about these trips is that Mr Mngqibisa had no formal status at these meetings, and when asked what his role had been, he was unable to answer. It is clear, therefore, that he benefited from several privileges through his association with hon Pule, none of which were declared.
More seriously, hon Pule seems to have been instrumental in enabling Mr Mngqibisa to advance from being a minor player to a dominant position in the information and communications technology indaba. He did not only gain R6 million for his company Khemano, but he steadily positioned himself to being the main player with prospects of further substantial gains. None of this was declared.
The hon Pule allowed herself to be in a position where her private interests were in direct conflict with the public interest. She did not act to prevent this and indeed promoted this undesirable situation.
I need to refer to some serious attempts to interfere with the work of the Ethics Committee and therefore of Parliament.
Firstly, as witness Mr Mngqibisa came to give evidence accompanied by a bodyguard. This bodyguard stood outside the doors of our committee room and interfered with the registrar during a coffee break. There is no place for private bodyguards in Parliament and he should have been removed.
Secondly, throughout the hearings, it was clear that there was collusion between hon Pule and some senior officials in presenting a false version of their activities.
Thirdly, the head of Parliament's protection services and the registrar met with a certain Mr X who alleged that he had been approached to forge certain documents which would be served on the panel to reverse its decisions, and to arrange a "hit" on the registrar and myself. Fortunately, he said he was afraid to do that. The consequence of this threat was that both the registrar and I have been provided with security by Parliament. We call for a thorough investigation on this matter.
Fourthly, in recent weeks, three persons, including an official of the department who had given evidence during our hearings, were subjected to bullying to try to get them to reverse their testimonies.
Parliament needs to take note of these attempts to intimidate the Ethics Committee and interfere with the proceedings of Parliament.
In the light of all these findings, the Ethics Committee recommends the maximum penalty allowed in the Joint Rules of Parliament, namely a reprimand in the House; a fine of 30 days salary; suspension of privileges and hon Pule's right to a seat in parliamentary debates or committees for a period of 15 days; and that she must submit full details in respect of nondisclosure and correct the incomplete declarations for the respective years.
We further recommend that the Presidency considers measures to address the relationship between the Department of Communications and other state and private entities; that the Public Service Commission investigate the possible misconduct of certain officials in the Department of Communications; that the report should be referred to the South African Police Service and the National Prosecuting Authority for possible breaches of the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act, Act 4 of 2004; that the House supports the speedy revision of the code of conduct - we have asked for this on several occasions and we are asking for it again; and that the penalties for transgressions be increased.
This has been a long drawn-out affair, requiring a great deal of research and scrutiny of the Rules of the House and legislation. We must record the tenacious work of the registrar of the committee, Ms Fazela Mahomed, and her support team, the excellent legal advice of Parliament's legal advisers, Adv Zuraya Adhikarie and Ms Fatima Ebrahim, and finally, and perhaps most importantly, the extraordinary commitment to finding the truth by the members of the Ethics Committee. I thank you. [Applause.]
There was no debate.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY moved: Hon Speaker, I move:
That the report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report accordingly adopted.