ADDRESS TO NATIONAL ANTI-CORRUPTION SUMMIT BY PROF KADER ASMAL, MP, MINISTER OF WATER AFFAIRS & FORESTRY, CHAIR OF THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SUB-COMMITTEE ON ETHICS AND MEMBERS' INTERESTS, AND CHAIR OF THE NATIONAL CONVENTIONAL ARMS CONTROL COMMITTEE
Cape Town, 14 April 1999
Thank you, Chairperson, for inviting me to make these remarks. This conference is of immense importance to the domestic and international standing of our new democracy. But, overall, we must act in ways that meet our own vital interests and norms. For we combat corruption not for the world but for ourselves and our own sense of national self-respect, our sense of what we believe is right and wrong.
There is a tendency in some quarters to devalue the debate over corruption. One organisation has produced an index on corruption, and in the process has strung together all sorts of allegations, confusing corruption with other vaguely-defined activities such as maladministration, abuse of power and nepotism, so as to give the maximum impression of generalised wrong-doing - and, of course, placing a huge, notional price tag on it all. This is, in reality, partisan and silly. Such generalisations indicate nothing more than the lengths suspicious people will go to jump to conclusions.
To the extent that wild rumour and untested allegation divert attention from the real issues, they can be positively dangerous in a healthy society - particularly since public discussion is conducted over an electronic network with worldwide tentacles and impact. Corruption is too serious a subject to be trivialised. It must be treated for what it is: a matter of grave concern.
To be corrupt is commonly described as "rotten, depraved, wicked, influenced by bribery". The defining characteristics are the misuse of public or private office, roles or resources, for private benefits (material or otherwise). The defining characteristics are the misuse of public or private office, roles or resources, for private benefits (material or otherwise). This description provides a useful benchmark in assessing levels of corruption.
We should appreciate that what we inherited from the previous order, not to mention from colonialism in Africa, was awesome. There was a total lack of disclosure, and indeed no machinery to deal with corruption. It is widely known that, in the arms industry, there was a carry-over of bad habits from previous days, and this made it necessary for the Government to set up a totally new Cabinet sub-committee, the National Conventional Arms Control Committee, to oversee all arms transfers. The success of that committee can be judged by the fact that there have been no proven allegations of official South African involvement in illegal arms dealings internationally. That is something of a record for a country once noted for official pariah status.
It is widely accepted that the payment of commissions to individuals on arms transfers is a controversial subject. In fact, I wish to announce today that the NCACC will take steps to ensure that all commissions paid on arms transfers will be disclosed to the committee as a routine part of considering such transfers. In the complex world of arms supply, this will hardly be easy. But, despite scepticism in certain quarters, we went ahead with steps to prohibit mercenary activity and to regularise the providing of legitimate military assistance, and in similar spirit we are determined to reveal, and thereby exercise some control over, the commissions paid on arms transfers - commissions sometimes paid, I understand, even if the deal does not go through.
At the very base of a sound system of government lies disclosure and the public's access to information. Our Constitution boldly guarantees the right of access to "any information held by the state, and any information that is held by another person and that is required for the excise or protection of any rights". There will always be rumours and allegations about public officers and in fact all those who wield social power, for they often possess the capacity to decide people's futures and fortunes. And it is sometimes regrettably true that rules which are put in place - and we in government have sought to apply the best practice internationally in devising ours - can be subverted, given the will and the persistence. The obligations to disclose information militates against this. Indeed, the process of disclosure empowers the public to play an essential role as watchdog over those who wield power. It helps to make the public a partner in the cause of dealing with corruption. As disclosure grows, the pressure increases on institutions such as universities to subject their senior staff to similar rules. The public good is served.
With a view to deterring corruption and disclosing unexplained increases in wealth, the financial interests of Members of Parliament are now reported in a public register, with only very limited and specific scope for confidentiality. In three years, there have been no cases of MPs refusing or neglecting to fill in the required forms. MPs are required to disclose gifts valued at over R350 - which has given the newspapers the unique chance to write about such matters. In addition, the Executive Members Ethics Act has been passed, which will subject the national and provincial executives to strict rules and will monitor the effects. The Act enables a statutory code to be promulgated which is binding on the President, Deputy President, Ministers, Premiers, Deputy Ministers and MECs. It ensures that all such figures are covered by the Parliamentary code of conduct on financial interests. The code will contain provisions relating to executive behaviour as laid down in the Constitution, for instance a prohibition on undertaking paid work, prejudicing the credibility or integrity of their office or the Government, or indulging in behaviour that constitutes a conflict of interests. The code will also include provisions prohibiting the executive members from enriching themselves or improperly benefiting any person by means of their position or information entrusted to them. Significantly, complaints against members of the executive will be investigated by the Public Protector, and the Act is firmly rooted in all-party agreement in Parliament.
The Cabinet, too, has its own rules on ethical behaviour, as laid down in the Constitution. Under "Clean Government" the Cabinet code of conduct states that "all Ministers shall, at all times, observe practices that are free from all forms of corruption. Government office, position or privileged information, shall not be used to distribute favours or patronage nor to seek or obtain any personal fortune or favour." Ministers are moreover required, in addition to disclosing financial interests to Parliament under its code, to remit duplicate copies of their returns to the Secretary of the Cabinet "together with a declaration confirming compliance with all the relevant sections of the Code of Conduct". Ministers may receive only "small gifts and gifts offered on official occasions" and they are subject to the same limit as laid down for MPs. The Code makes it expressly clear that the President may dismiss any Cabinet member or Deputy Minister who fails to comply with the Code.
In assessing the armoury of the cause against corruption, it goes without saying that the Public Protector's Office is critical in the fight against wrongdoing, possessing as it does the right to investigate "any conduct in state affairs, or in the public administration in any sphere of government, that is alleged or suspected to be improper or to result in any impropriety or prejudice". Moreover, the common law of corruption and various other statutes that have been enacted are formidable deterrents.
Yet there are still gaps in the disclosure net. There are strong grounds for bringing all provincial legislature members under the same code of conduct as Parliamentarians. And it is arguable that senior civil servants, says from the level of chief director up, as well as their counterparts in parastatals, should be obliged to disclose financial interests, as with MPs. Setting up adequate structures to contain corruption takes time, but it can be argued that a great deal of substance has been achieved. Getting structures right is the lion's share of the battle against corruption, and that is what we have been doing.
Incidentally, patronising remarks about South Africa's not meeting standards of particular and favoured countries can be rejected as self-indulgent and hyper-critical views which ignore the considerable efforts we have made in this area. In many ways, we lead the world, for instance in establishing investigating units and commissions.
In all our efforts, for success we must seek coalitions for resolute action. It is not government alone that must grasp the corruption nettle. It is also the private sector. For corruption involves the misuse of any office, not only public office. It involves the illicit misuse of power and influence for financial benefit, and that is by no means confined to government. It is you and me who must grasp the corruption nettle. Corruption, by definition, must involve two or more parties. And if either the private or public sector is soft on corruption, the wickedness can run out of control.