DA: Statement by Ian Davidson, Democratic Alliance Chief Whip, on the Arms Deal (05/10/2009)

URL: http://www.engineeringnews.co.za

Policy, Law, Economics and Politics - Deepening Democracy through Access to Information

This privately-owned website is operated and maintained by Creamer Media

Polity

Published: 05 Oct 2009

DA: Statement by Ian Davidson, Democratic Alliance Chief Whip, on the Arms Deal (05/10/2009)

[Note: A copy of the letter from Max Sisulu MP, Speaker of the National Assembly, to Nyami Booi MP, Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Defence and Military Veterans, dated 24 September 2009, is available on request.]

The Democratic Alliance believes that the decision by Max Sisulu MP, Speaker of the National Assembly, to refer the case of alleged misconduct of David Maynier MP, who exposed dodgy arms deals to the National Assembly Rules Committee, could turn constitutional democracy on its head in South Africa.

In a letter addressed to Nyami Booi MP, Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Defence and Military Veterans, dated 24 September 2009, Max Sisulu finds that:
• no rules of parliament had been contravened and therefore there was no basis to take action in this matter; and
• while, according to one legal opinion some provisions of the National Conventional Arms Control Act may have been contravened, this can only be determined by a competent authority such as the prosecuting authority or the police.

Despite finding that no parliamentary rules have been contravened and that there was no basis for action against David Maynier, the Speaker:
• recommends that the matter be referred for investigation and decision to the National Conventional Arms Control Committee (NCACC); and
• wants the matter to be referred to the National Assembly Rules Committee on the basis that this case has "revealed a lack of rules governing members ethical and behavioural conduct".
This is deeply problematic.

First, the Speaker, in recommending that the matter be taken up by the NCACC, is acting to blur the separation of power that should exist between the executive and the legislature. If the NCACC wants to pursue charges, that option was open to it from day one, it does not need a recommendation from the legislature to do so.

Were it to now act on the Speaker's advice, and after having shown no such inclination up to this point, the impression would be created that the law prevented the Speaker from acting and he has simply outsourced this issue to the executive, in the form of the NCACC, which is a cabinet committee.

And second, the action taken by the Speaker could turn our constitutional democracy on its head: if parliamentarians do their job and hold the executive to account by asking hard questions, it appears they may now fall foul of the new rules of Parliament.

What behaviour does the Speaker intend to prevent by changing the rules of Parliament?

The implications of the Speaker's decision could result in the "criminalisation" of parliamentarians who ask the hard questions and hold the executive to account.

David Maynier was doing his job overseeing and scrutinising the executive by exposing dodgy arms deals with some of the most repressive regimes in the world including Iran, Libya and Zimbabwe. He will continue to do his job and ask the hard questions about dodgy arms deals at the next portfolio committee meeting on defence and military veterans with the NCACC on 11 November 2009.

I have written to the Speaker about this matter, requesting a meeting to discuss the legality of the committee obtaining a legal opinion in the first place and requesting the NIA to investigate the matter - both of which are a matter of public record and appear to be highly dubious undertakings. The Speaker seems to have ignored my request and, by responding to the Committee Chair, effectively endorsed what the DA believes to be a fundamentally compromised situation. I will once again be taking this matter up with the Speaker's Office, as a matter of urgency.