Speaker, it is obvious that the constitutional requirement for the Public Protector to be accessible to all communities can be restricted through a lack of funds, especially when high profile cases are streaming in and more cases are constantly being introduced. The ID therefore calls for a complete overhaul and review of the Public Protector's budget. This is especially in the light of the recent policy change requiring the Public Protector to pay its rent or leases, which were previously paid by the Department of Public Works. Several corruption probes have been stalled, including the investigation of a company linked to Julius Malema, with a threat that some of them will suffer a delay of over a year. We must ensure that government is in no way able to destabilise the work of this vital Chapter 9 institution through limiting the level of funding that it receives.
On 11 August this year, while still waiting for government to address the issue of funding, the Public Protector's office announced that it would work jointly with state organs that had pledged to make available their resources in order to increase the visibility and accessibility of its services. It is crucial, though, that the Public Protector should be seen to be operating independently from such institutions.
Having an insufficient budget, which is currently three levels below the desired funding level, undoubtedly constrains and affects the quality and prompt execution of its investigations. The ID therefore maintains that it is essential that funding for this institution be seriously and robustly reviewed by Parliament. I thank you.