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.

The rejection of an oral question submitted by the DA to President Zuma, which regards the President's failure to publically account for his breaching of the Executive Ethics Code, is an example of "technicalities" being used to undermine principle. The DA's question was an attempt to elicit information about the Presidency's policy on personal responsibility, accountability and integrity. The Parliamentary Questions Office refused this submission on the grounds that it "reflects on the character of the President". Even if one agrees in principle that the DA's question constituted a threat to the President's character, a precedent exists to challenge the basis on which this question has been dismissed.

Between 2003-2005, President Mbeki and President Zuma, in his capacity as Deputy President, were both called to answer numerous parliamentary questions related to their involvement in the controversial arms deal. In March 2003 and November 2004, former DA MP Raenette Taljaard asked then Deputy President Zuma to respond to questions about meetings he had attended with Thompson CSF/Thales, the French electronics company implicated in the scandal. In September 2005, President Mbeki was asked by former DA member Eddie Trent about whether he attended a meeting with the same company in Paris.

In these instances, Parliament's role of legislative oversight was defended, and both President Zuma and his predecessor were compelled to provide answers.

If the President respected his responsibilities as head of the Executive, he would be prepared to put aside his party's political agenda in order to publically explain his behaviour. However, the Zuma administration is driven not to serve the needs of the people who elected it, but by a desire to secure the power of the ANC at all costs.

A perceived attack on the party's leader, for example in the form of the DA's question, is seen by the ANC as undermining the supremacy of the ruling party- against which it has adopted a zero tolerance stance. Consider the February 2010 arrest of jogger Chumani Maxwele by President Zuma's security detail, and the ANC disciplinary committee's decision to drop all charges against ANC Youth League President, Julius Malema, except the charge related to his declaration that President Zuma was "worse than Mbeki."

It is deeply ironic that Parliamentary mechanisms are now being used to shield the President from being publically held to account, which may well be the only way an iota of public faith in the country's leader- and his administration- can be restored.