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 DA is in possession of a series of exchanges between the Parliamentary Questions Unit and the Department of Defence (see below), which serve to formally reveal the Minister of Defence's arrogant and dismissive attitude to parliamentary questions and, in turn, to the Constitutional requirement that she be accountable to the legislature. The exchanges are the following:
• An e-mail from the Parliamentary Questions Unit to the DoD, in which the unit states that a series of the Minister's responses "were not replies to the questions, but were information" and therefore that the unit "returned all such questions to the question paper until the replies are provided".
• A number of e-mails from the DoD to the Parliamentary Questions Unit, contesting that decision, and arguing that whatever the Minister tables as a reply is legitimate and there is nothing the Parliamentary Questions Unit can do about it.
It has been a longstanding tendency of Minister Sisulu, even during her tenure as Minister of Housing, to ‘reply' to parliamentary questions by simply stating "We have requested the necessary information as soon as that has been received a substantive follow up response will be forwarded"; yet the follow-up responses are never forthcoming. By doing this the Minister ensures that the question gets taken off the question paper and that she cannot be held to account for her actions. In other words, the Minister of Defence, by tabling a meaningless disclaimer, refuses to answer questions. It has been the practice of the Parliamentary Questions Unit to accept such responses as valid replies; but, in a welcome move, the Unit recently put its foot down and refused to accept that answer as a reply (see first letter below). The response of the DoD to that suggestion (see second letter below) is best described as undemocratic and reveals the Minister's true intent: to avoid answering parliamentary questions and by-pass the Constitution. It is an indictment of the Minister and her officials and constitutes further evidence of the complete disdain Minister Sisulu continues to show toward Parliament and best democratic practice. The Department's response is worth quoting in full: "We'll raise this matter with the Minister and get back to you. Minister has informed members of the Portfolio Committee on Defence that they have no authority to challenge her replies to parliamentary questions. Should they not be in agreement with the responses, they could submit another question on the same topic, but they can not challenge whatever she deems to be her reply. We were unable to find any parliamentary ruling on what would constitute a reply. We therefore deem any response given as a reply, even if the member asking the question is not satisfied with the answer." No right-minded democrat can claim any of the Minister's responses constitute a Parliamentary reply. To imply as much suggests that the Minister has no real commitment to transparency, something confirmed by an overview of her record in office. In one of the e-mails, the DoD says that the Minister has referred this matter to the Deputy President, as the Head of Government Business. Recently the Deputy President, in response to an oral question, gave Parliament the assurance that he was personally committed to ensuring that the executive answered Parliamentary questions. This then constitutes the first real test of that commitment. Will the Deputy President force the Minister to answer questions, or allow her to get away with by-passing the Constitution? The DA will be submitting a written question to the Deputy President to ask whether he has been approached by the Minister of Defence in this regard and, if so, what his decision on the matter was. Copies of the correspondence between the Parliamentary Questions Unit and the DoD Letter 1: E-mail from the Parliamentary Questions Unit From: questions Sent: 23 November 2009 11:56 AM To: Manthiba M. Phalane Cc: Kamal Mansura; Michael Plaatjies; Masibulele Xaso; Sehlabela Chuene; Sune Pauw; Speaker; Tshiliso Molukanele; Zolani Mgoduka Subject: Re: REPLIES TO QUESTIONS 1860, 1861 AND 1969 Dear Colleague After careful consideration we have determined that the responses provided were not replies to the questions, but were information. We have therefore returned all such questions to the question paper until the replies are provided. Our practice recognises that the Speaker is unable to lay down the form in which a Minister should reply to a question. A reply can also not be insisted on if a Minister refuses a reply to a question. But our practice also determines that a Minister in replying to a question is expected to confine him- or herself to the points contained in the question (Ralph Kilpin; Parliamentary Procedure in SA p81). In the United Kingdom the Arms to Iraq affair resulted in the Scott Report in which an in-depth analysis of ministerial responsibility was made by Sir Richard Scott the Inquiry chairman. This doctrine of ministerial responsibility forms the basis of our doctrine on questions to the executive or members of Cabinet. In this regard the Scott report founded that: "A failure by Ministers to meet the obligations of ministerial accountability by providing information about the activities of their department engenders cynicism about government and undermines, in my opinion, the democratic process." (Hilaire Barnett, Constitutional and Administrative Law 5th Edition p303). For the representatives to express their views and for those views to be legitimate in a strong democracy, it should be based on adequate knowledge of government activities. We have therefore returned the questions of your Minister to the paper and those questions will remain there to offer your Minister an opportunity to respond to them fully. I trust it clarifies. Regards Michael [Plaatjies] Letter from the DoD to the Parliamentary Questions Unit From: Francois Hugo Sent: 24 November 2009 Colleagues, We'll raise this matter with the Minister and get back to you. Minister has informed members of the Portfolio Committee on Defence that they have no authority to challenge her replies to parliamentary questions. Should they not be in agreement with the responses, they could submit another question on the same topic, but they can not challenge whatever she deems to be her reply. We were unable to find any parliamentary ruling on what would constitute a reply. We therefore deem any response given as a reply, even if the member asking the question is not satisfied with the answer.