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.

Cabinet's announcement that "interim sanctions" have been finalised for ministers who contravene the Executive Ethics Code is a step in the right direction
Cabinet must combine this with sincere commitment to ensuring ethical conduct by members of Executive and to swiftly penalising non-compliance
DA continues to monitor progress of Executive Ethics Review and Cabinet's compliance with Public Protector's recommendations





Yesterday's announcement that "interim sanctions" for ministers who contravene the Executive Ethics Code have been finalised is an important step in the right direction by Cabinet. As the apex of government, it is essential that Cabinet displays a commitment to, firstly, ensuring accountability amongst members of the Executive and, secondly, to acting on the recommendations made by the Public Protector in this regard - an issue which has recently caused conflict between the ANC government and the Public Protector's Office.

Cabinet's announcement came after the Public Protector, Adv Thuli Madonsela, highlighted in her report into President Zuma's financial non-disclosure that currently no sanctions exist for members of the Executive who breach the Executive Ethics Code. Adv Madonsela's report followed a complaint I laid with the Public Protector on March 8 this year, following President Zuma's failure to disclose his financial interests, assets and liabilities within 60 days of taking office.

It was initially reported that Cabinet would not take a decision on sanctions until the Executive Ethics Review, currently being conducted by Minister of Justice Jeff Radebe, was completed. However, it now seems that political pressure from both the Office of the Public Protector and the DA has compelled Cabinet to introduce temporary measures to cover the period before Minister Radebe's review is completed.

The President's contravention of the Ethics Code in disclosing his financial interests 245 days late, and subsequent finding by the Public Protector that 24 other members of Cabinet were also in breach of the Code, raised serious questions about the value placed on accountability and transparency by members of the Executive. The fact that the President failed to adhere to such a basic administrative requirement also heightened concerns that the Presidency is in a state of organizational disarray.

The positive step taken by Cabinet in announcing interim sanctions - albeit three weeks after the 1 July deadline set by the Public Protector - must be met by a genuine commitment to compliance with the Ethics Code by members of the Executive. Should ministers fail to comply with the Code, it is imperative that decisive action is taken against them. However, Cabinet's decision in May this year not to impose sanctions against the President for his non-compliance has set a dangerous precedent. Its handling of future breaches will be an important test of its commitment to ethical conduct.

The DA will continue to monitor the progress of the Executive Ethics Review and the compliance of Cabinet and Parliament with the Public Protector's recommendations regarding the Executive Ethics Code.