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.

This morning, during a Private Member’s Bill Committee meeting in Parliament, the ANC flatly rejected – on no substantive grounds – my private member’s bill which would have given the President an opportunity to take the public into his confidence. The bill proposed amendments to the Executive Members’ Ethics Act, which currently contains loopholes amenable to executive abuse.

Patricia Kopane MP, the Democratic Alliance (DA) representative on the committee, will be writing to the Speaker of the House, Max Sisulu, to express our concerns about the future of the Private Member’s Bill Committee.

In addition, I will at the earliest opportunity put questions to the President in the National Assembly to ascertain his own view on this matter. Perhaps he will prove to be more committed to clean government than members of his parliamentary caucus.

There is a growing body of media evidence that President Jacob Zuma’s family members have benefited from business deals with the state since the President assumed office. For instance, Mr Zuma’s nephew, Khulubuse Zuma, is the chairman of Aurora Empowerment Systems. The company won a controversial bid worth approximately R600m to buy the assets of liquidated empowerment company Pamodzi Gold.

In 2010, a Mail & Guardian report indicated that the combined business interests of President Zuma and 15 adult members of his family accounted for 134 company directorships or memberships of close corporations. Of these, at least 83 were registered in the post-Polokwane period and are linked to industries in which the state plays a key role, such as mining and telecommunications.

In light of this dubious state of affairs, I submitted a private members bill last year that proposed amendments to the Executive Members’ Ethics Act. My intention behind the proposal was to provide the President with an opportunity to publically declare himself beyond reproach and to lead the ‘war against corruption’, as he stated in the State of the Nation Address.

First, I proposed that decisions regarding the adjudication of conflicts of interest involving the President, his children and spouses should be made by the Public Protector. Currently, the President is supposed to adjudicate his own conflicts of interest. This in itself is a conflict of interest.

Second, state deals involving the President’s family members should come under specific scrutiny by the Auditor-General to ensure that all tender processes are followed to the letter and that no special favours are granted simply on the grounds of family connection.

Third, the Public Protector should adjudicate whether the President has complied with the Executive Ethics Code. The general standards to which the President should adhere are outlined in Section 2, but the oversight is again afforded by the President himself.

Finally, I proposed that the President’s register of interests be made more easily accessible to the public. For instance, disclosure of financial interest should be posted within 30 days on the website of the Presidency.

This morning, a defensive attitude of protectionism prevailed amongst ANC members of the Private Members Bill Committee. They argued that the bill plays the man and not the ball. Quite to the contrary, the bill is directed at the office of the president, as the wording makes clear. The bill’s proposals are in the best interests of our democracy.

Most alarming is the sentiment expressed by the Honourable Ms Mdaka of the ANC, that anything deemed to be oppositional ‘for opposition’s sake’ will not be considered, ‘case closed’. This attitude will lead to a spiral of silence and, far from defending the office of the Presidency, creates a context of intrigue in which rumours and speculation will continue to abound. Closing the discussion will produce the very opposite of what the executive purportedly wants.

The fact of the matter is that President Zuma’s position affords him significant power, which makes his family and friends influential by proxy. The potential for individuals closest to the President to be favoured in state deals is considerable.