Chairperson, the Defence Amendment Bill triggered an unprecedented political battle between the executive and the legislature, the outcome of which reflects poorly on the state of our constitutional democracy. The debate today should, therefore, focus not just on the merits of the Defence Amendment Bill, but also on the political battle that the Defence Amendment Bill triggered.
The Defence Amendment Bill's primary objective is to establish a permanent Defence Force Service Commission. The Defence Force Service Commission's purpose is to advise the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans on the improvement of service conditions in the Defence Force. We support the establishment of the permanent Defence Force Service Commission, because it will go some way towards improving the service conditions of our soldiers in the Defence Force. However, that should not be taken to mean that we support all the provisions in the Defence Amendment Bill which, in the end, was rammed, legislative warts and all, through the Portfolio Committee on Defence and Military Veterans.
On 26 August 2009 more than a thousand soldiers participated in a protest march which turned violent when soldiers went on the rampage in front of the Union Buildings. These soldiers did irreparable harm to the reputation of the Defence Force. But, at the same time, they focused political minds on the deplorable service conditions in the Defence Force. To her credit, the Minister moved swiftly to put a battle plan in place to deal with service conditions which included, despite what the Minister may say, establishing an interim National Defence Force Service Commission.
The commission was established, inter alia, to investigate and provide advice to the Minister on remuneration and service conditions in the Defence Force. By visiting several military formations, the commission aimed, in their own words, "To gain a deeper understanding of the nature and depth of the issues facing the SA National Defence Force". The commission was evidently so shocked by what they found, that they described service conditions in the Defence Force as a ticking time bomb.
Because of this, the commission produced two interim reports which were submitted to the Minister before the end of 2009. The interim reports were reportedly explosive and concluded that troop morale was so bad that it could threaten state security. This, of course, is a devastating indictment, not only of the civilian leadership of the Defence Force, but also of the military leadership of our Defence Force.
The Portfolio Committee on Defence and Military Veterans requested copies of the interim reports, because the interim reports were, after all, the only official findings and recommendations on service conditions in the Defence Force. But the Minister dug in her heels and refused to make the interim reports available. This triggered, firstly, a sort of Mexican political standoff, and then a full-scale political battle between the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and the Portfolio Committee on Defence and Military veterans. What follows is a very short summary of these events.
The portfolio committee "loaded" with a legal opinion advising that the Minister could be compelled to produce the interim reports; then the portfolio committee "fired" - with a letter urging the Minister to produce the interim reports; the portfolio committee then "took cover", because it was not long before the Minister "fired back" with a legal opinion advising that the interim reports could not be produced because of executive privilege.
But the Minister made a fundamental error, because she did not score a "political head-shot" and so it was not long before the portfolio committee fired back: requesting that the reports be produced within a reasonable period of 30 days; stating that until the interim reports were received deliberations on the Defence Amendment Bill would be suspended, and suggesting that if the interim reports were not produced the portfolio committee reserved the right, as a last resort, to compel the Minister to produce the interim reports.
The fact that the portfolio committee had effectively given the Minister a deadline to produce the interim reports and had threatened what amounted to a "legislative go-slow" was a major escalation in the political battle. One could almost hear the political alarm bells ringing, not only in the Presidency, but also in Luthuli House.
At this point the Minister fired back, but this time with some very heavy- calibre political weapons which included the Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe, the Leader of Government Business and Tony Yengeni, chairperson of the ANC NEC's subcommittee on peace and stability.
In the end, the ANC NEC's subcommittee pronounced ominously that: "We take a dim view of ANC deployees who make premature public announcements on the Defence Force Commission's interim report before all due processes are concluded."