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.

On 31 October 2012, The Federation of Unions of South Africa (FEDUSA) was one of many public organisations that attended the launch of the Parliamentary Public Participation Framework process, in an attempt to learn more about the avenues through which the public can participate in the governance of our country. However, while the intentions for the development of such a framework must be commended, FEDUSA must question the degree to which public comment and concern is given weight in the legislative process.
 
Only last week, FEDUSA General Secretary Dennis George addressed a letter to Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe requesting him to investigate the conduct of the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) Select Committee on Security and Constitutional Development, and its Chairperson, Mr Tjetha Mofokeng, with regards to their treatment of the public hearings and submissions on the controversial Traditional Courts Bill.
 
Regardless of overwhelming opposition to the Bill documented in a number of public submissions, the Chairperson of the committee directed the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development to deliver a report on the September 2012 public hearings that only took into consideration 2 of the 22 oral submissions that were made in Parliament. When questioned about the remaining 20 submissions, Mr Mofokeng referred to them as “irrelevant”. FEDUSA is deeply concerned about this blatant disregard for public input and participation.
 
Mr George says: “It is all very well for Parliament to launch a grand campaign to engage the public in the development of a more effective and more inclusive public participation framework, but what guarantee is there that public concern and opinion will actually be considered or acted upon. As it appears in the Traditional Courts Bill public hearings, the voices of the public who do not agree with the Bill are being disregarded and silenced by those leading the legislative process.”
 
FEDUSA was one of a number of organisations and community groups that submitted written opposition to the controversial Bill. Due to an overwhelming response from the public, only 22 groups were giving the opportunity to present their oral submissions in the public hearings held by the National Council of Provinces Select Committee chaired by Mofokeng. During the hearings, public representatives which expressed their opposition to the Bill and called for the Bill to be scrapped were told in the hearings that this was not a valid request, due to the Bill already being within the Parliamentary process.
Martle Keyter, FEDUSA Vice-President for Gender states: “This is a gross manipulation of the Parliamentary legislative process. Not only has the Chairperson’s actions shown a great disregard and disrespect for the concerns and voice of the public, but he has also skewed the process in asking the Department for Justice and Constitutional Development to present a report, on behalf of the Committee, on the very Bill that they have proposed”. “What purpose does a public consultation process serve, if views that present opposition are considered to be irrelevant?” Keyter said.
 
FEDUSA hopes that the Deputy President can use his authority to intervene, and investigate why the public participation process, which is a Constitutional right, is being thwarted in order to push the Bill through the legislative process. “FEDUSA has urged the Deputy President to investigate the conduct of the committee and the committee chairperson with regards to this process”, stated Mr George.
 
FEDUSA is of the opinion that in light of this occurrence, Mr Mofokeng’s status should be reviewed and a revised accurate account of the public consultation process should be delivered to Parliament. Not only should such a report include the concerns of the 22 submissions made in Parliament, but should also report on the greater number of written submissions that the Committee received that vehemently opposed the adoption of the Bill.