The content on this page is not written by Polity.org.za, but is supplied by third parties. This content does not constitute news reporting by Polity.org.za.

In a letter to the DA, the Speaker admits that written questions do not require the Executive to be held to account
Admission made in response to concerns raised by the DA about a reply from the Presidency that is now five months overdue
DA will be submitting a question to the President about the adequacy of parliamentary questions in holding the executive to account



On Monday, I received a letter from the Speaker, Hon Max Sisulu, in response to concerns I had raised about a parliamentary reply from the Presidency that is now five months overdue. Far from upholding the parliamentary rules of which he is custodian, the Speaker's response was an admission that written questions do not require the Executive to be held to account. In a profoundly concerning attack on democratic values, it seems that the Presidency and parliament are working together to pervert accountability of the Executive.

A copy of the Speaker's letter follows below.

It is difficult to conceive how the Presidency has, after a 190 day delay and with a staff complement of 589 employees, failed to respond to the DA's question. This question sought to obtain details of the administration and expenditure of the President's five official residences.

The Zuma administration has become characterised by its attempts to systematically undermine executive accountability. The disdain for parliamentary mechanisms displayed by certain rogue ministers, such as Minister of Defence Lindiwe Sisulu, has served as a direct attack on Parliament's constitutionally mandated oversight role. The scale of the problem has become such that the Deputy President, Kgalema Motlanthe, has had to step in, on more than one occasion, to implore ministers to fulfil their responsibilities in this regard.

It is unfortunate that the Presidency and, by extension, the President, now finds itself in the middle of this conflict.

Parliamentary questions are a constitutional mechanism, established in line with Chapter 4, Section 55.2 of the Constitution. As they stand, the rules of parliament do not require ministers to respond to parliamentary questions within a certain time period. This glaring oversight threatens to undermine the very purpose of these mechanisms.

In his letter, the Speaker states that "you should be aware that (National Assembly Rule 117) does not prescribe a time limit within which a reply should be provided," thereby attesting to this shortcoming. He goes on to argue that this rule places a "particular responsibility" on members to hold the executive accountable. In essence, what the Speaker is admitting is that this oversight mechanism cannot fulfil the Constitutional requirement that necessitated its creation, and he is asking MPs to play the role that the parliamentary rules cannot.

This is a profound statement. It means that our oversight mechanisms fail their primary Constitutional test. Put simply, they are unconstitutional.

And, perhaps even more disturbingly, the Speaker- the final arbiter in this regard- is not prepared to enforce them. In other words, he is not prepared to ensure they fulfil that constitutional requirement. Written questions, according to the Speaker, do not require the Executive to be held to account. Any response is not an obligation, it is merely an option.

In light of the Speaker's deeply concerning response, I have written to the Deputy President, in his capacity as Leader of Government Business. I will also be submitting a question to the President, to ask whether parliamentary questions are an adequate means of holding the executive to account and how he relates his response to the Presidency's recent conduct.

Which leaves one final question- why has the Presidency not responded to what is a simple factual request? By doing nothing, it is undermining the Constitution. What does the President have to hide?