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 reply to a parliamentary question received yesterday by the Democratic Alliance (DA), President Jacob Zuma refused to release the names of the 24 members of the executive who last year were found to have failed to disclose their financial interests within the stipulated sixty day period. The President’s response is indicative of the Zuma administration’s growing disrespect for accountability and transparency. It also indicates a disdain for Parliament’s constitutionally mandated responsibility to conduct oversight of the executive.

A copy of the reply follows below.

Furthermore, the President’s response highlights how his own ethically compromised position, given that he too failed to meet the requirements of the Executive Ethics Code in disclosing his financial interests, continues to undermine his ability to promote accountability and basic democratic principles.

In his reply, President Zuma stated that he “did not believe that any purpose will be served in releasing the names now as the “mistake was bona fide” and the Ministers and Deputy Ministers made disclosures of their business interests and assets to Parliament in terms of the Parliamentary Code by 28 June 2009.”

It is, however, quite clear what purpose the President seeks to serve in not releasing these names. By preventing those members of the executive who, like him, failed to properly declare their financial interests, from public scrutiny, the President is essentially seeking to protect himself politically.

In his reply, the President stressed that, while certain members of the executive may not have met the requirements of the Executive Ethics Code, they had disclosed their financial interests to Parliament.

This is, however, beside the point. Members of the executive occupy privileged positions and possess the power to influence decisions for financial gain. It is therefore imperative that they meet the full requirements of the Executive Ethics Code in making full disclosures within the allotted time.

In her investigation last year into the President’s financial non-disclosure, the Public Protector revealed that 24 out of 64 members of the executive had not complied with the Executive Ethics Code within the time period allowed, and at least one of the declaration forms was not even dated. The report described the situation as a “systematic pattern of non-compliance”, which required attention “urgently”.

Such a state of affairs points to an executive in organisational disarray with little regard for the responsibilities of holding public office. This is hardly surprising, given that the President himself not only failed to lead by example, but refused to apologise for his transgression and faced no sanction for his misconduct.

The Public Protector’s findings appear to contradict the President’s assertion that the non-compliance of these 24 members was, in each case, a “bona fide mistake”.

Accepting to serve in cabinet brings with it an ethical commitment that is the epitome of public office. The public has a right to know who the members of the executive are who breached the Executive Ethics Code last year. Consequently, the DA has submitted an application, under the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA), to solicit the names of those concerned from the Presidency. In addition, I will be submitting a follow-up question to the President to ascertain what progress has been made with Cabinet’s ethics review, which was intended to address weaknesses in the Executive Ethics Code.