Chairperson, a tribute to the outgoing human rights commissioners is in order before our new commissioners are voted into office.
Seven years ago Parliament voted 11 new commissioners into office. The President, who must sign their appointment and who has no discretion in the matter, however, appointed only five.
Despite their diminished number, Chairperson Jody Kollapen and Commissioners Zonke Majodina, Leon Wessels, Karthy Govender and Tom Manthatha have carved out the kind of place for the Human Rights Commission that we envisaged, first in 1994, and then in the final Constitution. They did so well that the Chapter 9 Review recommended changing the law to prolong their terms of office, pending the possible proposed creation of an umbrella rights commission.
Now, that amendment has not occurred, but, more seriously, nothing else has been done to bring their law, passed in 1994 - the very first statute passed here - in line with the final Constitution. This neglect, in fact, played a role in the appointment of only five commissioners seven years ago.
The newly constituted Justice committee intends to correct all of this, and makes an early start today by recommending six persons to hon members, which brings their number then to seven. Budgets permitting, we want to appoint more.
This is a good beginning. Moreover, the new commissioners bring some of the expertise we need. Dr Danny Titus, who holds an LLM and an LLD from Leiden University, all but wrote the book on policing and human rights, while Adv Malatji, as Head of Legal Services of the SAPS in Limpopo, taught policemen not to shoot first and settle damages claims later.
He is South Africa's very first black blind advocate and he will drive the rights of the disabled at the SAHRC, and government can moreover learn a thing or two from him about job creation.
The DA acknowledges that it has been accommodated in the list serving before hon members today. We have been accommodated. We will, nevertheless, abstain in order to indicate our discomfort at the inclusion of one candidate, in particular.
I do feel that I must place on record the fact that Adv Lawrence Mushwana, the outgoing Public Protector, repeated the very sentiments which gave rise to a dispute between the ad hoc Chapter 9 committee and himself a year or so ago. We advised him in the course of that review that a Chapter 9 body, albeit an organ of state, is not subject to the dictates of co-operative government. It stands to reason. We cited the Constitutional Court's judgment - that is, IEC v Langeberg Municipality - that these institutions must "manifestly be seen to be outside government".
Imagine my disbelief, then, when Adv Mushwana said in his interview that he continued to hold the view that the Chapter 9 institutions could co-operate with government because they were institutions "within government". When I challenged him to get this on record, he said that they were not part of government, but that we had to "look at reality, the President appoints them".
The reality is that it is this body, the National Assembly, which chooses them, that votes them into office, which holds them to account, while simultaneously assisting and respecting them.
I will assist and I will respect from the moment the President signs on the dotted line. That is why I put this on the record now - I have now done it - why we will abstain from this vote. But we will hold it to account in future. [Applause.]