Admin
18 Aug, 2015
“Does South Africa Need Electoral Reform?” – Daily Dispatch Dialogue
Daily Dispatch Dialogue on – 18 August 2015, Guild Theater, East London at 18h40. TOPIC: “Does South Africa Need Electoral Reform.” By Mr Bantu Holomisa, President of the United Democratic Movement and Member of Parliament. Programme Director, Fellow Panellists and Participants, good evening. Let me from the onset, acknowledge and welcome the great and timely contribution by Mama Bam on one of the most important matter of national interest. Indeed Electoral Systems do play a significant role in the creation of a truly democratic society. Her book, “Democracy, More than Just Elections” not only provides an insight into various dimensions of her wealth of knowledge and wisdom on the workings of democracy – it also re-affirms and reinforce a clarion call that has reverberated our national discourse as far back as 2000. In this regard, we support her well-considered view that, South Africa does need an electoral regime that will encourage greater responsibility and accountability from citizens and political leaders. We hope that her voice, as it adds to others will mobilise citizens and political leader into action. In your book you said, “We all know that cynicism about politicians and their parties exists everywhere in the world, but it is more pronounced where there is no structural connection between politicians and voters. We are now a maturing democracy and should consider changing our electoral system which ushered in our heart-earned democracy. We are more self – confident, self – assured and more responsible for our own lives than to relegate our right to choose the leader of our country to card carrying members of the parties. It is time to review our electoral reform system”. Sisi Hlophe, I could not agree more with your well thought observation. Indeed Section 43 (3) of the South African Constitution states that, “the National Assembly is elected to represent the people to ensure government by the people through the Constitution”. I strongly believe that, 21 years into democracy, the participatory deliberative model of democracy should be central in the enrichment and strengthening of democratic citizenship. Political accountability is at the heart of fully-functioning democracy. The current proportional representation (PR) system means that elected leaders are accountable solely to their party bosses and not to the people who voted them into office. In addition the current practice where political parties impose their choice of president on the nation is profoundly undemocratic. Through the current system, electorate mandates a political party to govern based on its policies and manifesto. However, we have noticed that the ruling party is held at ransom from implementing its mandate because some of their allies who have not been mandated by the electorate seem to have veto powers in particular with regard to Economic Policies. This dilemma makes governance ineffective, compromise confidence of investors, jobs shading, increasing levels of poverty and result to instability. Once such situation exists, opportunistic leaders take advantage and do things that have nothing to do with the electorate’s mandate but their own interests, like the current disputed procurement of nuclear energy and many other questionable transactions such as Arm’s Deal. To make things worse these leaders become intransigent and use these MP’s who have no constituencies as voting cattle to rubber stamp their nefarious objectives. The UDM notes that a great deal of inputs from diverse and often conflicting social, economic, political, linguist and cultural communities as well as interests groups informed the decisions which were made and ultimately culminated in the Constitution we have today that has become an international benchmark. Any discussion on a new electoral system must always remind us where we come from. We should move towards a mixed electoral system that draws from the strengths of both the proportional and constituency based electoral systems. The first major step we need to take is the introduction of constituencies into the PR system to ensure that politicians have a specific geographically-defined community they represent. We also need to change the electoral laws to allow for a separately elected President, as is the case in many democracies across the globe in that way we will put the power back in the hands of the voters. However, it is important that any electoral reform process culminates in as widely inclusive manner as possible. We would do well to follow the example of many countries such as New Zealand, Ireland etc, who confirmed electoral reforms by holding referendums. In this way, every voter is consulted directly. The current electoral system risks the checks and balances that are a necessity in ensuring that the Constitutional dictates are adhered to at all material times. The research conducted by Community Agency for Social Enquiry (CASE) and release in April 2014, has made serious findings that may question the legitimacy of the election processes. Amongst others, it has found that the electorate is a subject of political intimidation through, amongst others: · Manipulation of people using misinformation and threats regarding pensions and grants; · Interfering with access to meeting facilities; · The disruption of meetings; · Assaults and threats of physical harm; and · Punishing people who associate with rival political parties through the denial of jobs, contracts, services and development opportunities. In addition, the research report concludes that, voters and electoral processes are manipulated and opposition parties are undermined through: · Fraudulent voter registration; and · The targeted use of government resources to promote parties immediately prior to elections. When last for instance did you see trucks distributing food parcels to the needy, but come elections next year you will see them often, to hood-wink the voters. The other body that causes a lot of confusion is the Demarcation Board whose mandate to draw boundaries is always done to favour the ruling party. Citizens in the meantime are also demobilised into non active and disorganised individuals, whose collective voices are only heard when they take to the streets to demand service. There is no deliberate direct involvement of the people in running their own affairs, taking charge of their own lives and freedom, with government and other development agencies as facilitators. To make things worse, some civil society organs like, unions who were supposed to be at the centre of mobilising communities into activism, are core governing with the ruling elite. During elections, some of their members become part of the IEC machinery. If you take a case of a POPCRU member who is supposed to intervene in the disruption of a political party’s elections meeting; where the ruling party is involved, such a member would certainly be compromised from discharging his or her Constitutional obligation without fair or favour. His or her ascendance to the next higher position at work, is intrinsically depended on the deployment committee of the ruling party. No member of a Cosatu affiliated union will be able to carry-out his or her work fairly and without bias and yet some of the SADTU members are presiding over voting stations and take serious decisions that influences the outcome of any election. Ballot boxes are transported from one point to the other; either by the members of POPCRU and or the Intelligence officers whose loyalty is not in doubt. The South African Electoral Commission is chosen by the ruling party using its majority in Parliament, the recent appointment is a case in point, where all other parties objected but the ruling party forced it through our throats at the expense of reasoning. These appointments cascade down to Municipal Electoral Officers (MEO) who in many if not all instances are; a municipal senior officials whose appointments to those municipalities are determined by party bosses through deployment policy. As if these and other are not enough, the companies contracted to capture IEC data are secrete, not only to the electorate but also to the political parties who participate in the elections. Whilst electoral systems in themselves do not secure deliberative participation and direct accountability to citizens, putting a face to a representation, and placing political accountability to communities through the election of identifiable individuals who are accessible between elections, would benefit South African democracy. Finally, these reforms should go beyond the system itself, but such other matters as the party-political funding and the rules and regulations needed to ensure sound, ethical party fund-raising. I thank you.
Admin
12 Aug, 2015
UDM condolences to the Orange Farm fire victims
Statement issued by Bongani Msomi: UDM Secretary General The United Democratic Movement (UDM) would like to convey a message of condolence to the family of 5 children who lost their lives during a shack fire in Orange Farm, Johannesburg. This is such a tragic and it could have been avoided if the ANC led government had fulfilled its promise of eradicating shack building throughout the country by the year 2014 which has come and passed. 8 years ago, ANC made a promise to the nation that by the year 2014 shacks all over the country will be history. As UDM we feel that the ANC must be held accountable for all the lives that are lost in shack fires. ANC must answer to the nation as to what happened to the promise of getting rid of shacks in the country. The ruling party must begin to take seriousness in the plight of citizens of this country and stop making promises they cannot fulfil because this has led to the influx of people moving in to shacks with the hope that they will secure RDP houses as promise and it turned out to be all false hence the congestion we are experiencing. End
Admin
07 Aug, 2015
Submission of the Opposition Parties to the Ad Hoc Committee on Nkandla: ANC rejected it
THE AD-HOC COMMITTEE ON THE REPORT OF THE MINISTER OF POLICE TO PARLIAMENT ON THE SECURITY UPGRADES AT THE NKANDLA PRIVATE RESIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT A. STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT 1. This report is in two parts. The first part addresses itself to the legality and constitutionality of the process that has culminated in the appointment of the Ad Hoc Committee. The second part, to the extent that it is relevant, addresses the content of the Report that is ostensibly the subject matter of the Ad Hoc Committee’s enquiry, with added observations and a recommendation. B. PART I 2. In the course of March 2014, the Public Protector delivered a report entitled Secure in Comfort: Report on an investigation into allegations of impropriety and unethical conduct relating to the installation and implementation of security measures by the Department of Public Works at and in respect of the private residence of President Jacob Zuma at Nkandla in the KwaZulu-Natal province (Report No 25 of 2013/14). This report made certain observations, findings and recommendations. It also ordered certain remedial action to occur. The most significant remedial action for current purposes are contained in section 11.1 of the Report, as follows: 11. REMEDIAL ACTION Remedial action to be taken in terms of section 182(1)(c) of the constitution is the following: 11.1 The President is to: 11.1.1 Take steps, with the assistance of the National Treasury and the SAPS, to determine the reasonable cost of the measures implemented by the DPW at his private residence that do not relate to security, and which include Visitors’ Centre, the amphitheatre, the cattle kraal and chicken run, the swimming pool. 11.1.2 Pay a reasonable percentage of the costs as determined with the assistance of National Treasury, also considering the DPW apportionment document. 11.1.3 Reprimand the Ministers involved for the appalling manner in which the Nkandla Project was handled and state funds were abused. 11.1.4 Report to the National Assembly on his comments and actions on this report within 14 days. (our emphasis) 3. In her findings, the Public Protector established that there were many features of the upgrades that did not constitute legitimate security upgrades and/or that the extent of the security upgrades were far more elaborate (and expensive) than those recommended by the Security Evaluation Report of the South African Police Service (SAPS). These variations formed part of a document prepared by the Department of Public Works (DPW) that indicated the apportionment of the estimated costs between the DPW and the President (see sections 6.72 and 7.27 of the Report). The words “which include”, in section 11.1.1 of the Report, clearly indicates that there were other features of the upgrades, apart from the Visitors’ Centre, the amphitheatre, the cattle kraal, chicken run and the swimming pool, for which the President was responsible. Also, according to the Public Protector, even the President himself indicated that he knew that he was responsible for some of the costs of relocating the cattle kraal (see section 6.63.2). The Public Protector, in section 9.2.18 of her Report, states – The excessive nature in which the Nkandla Project was implemented went a long way to beautify the President’s private residence and to add comfort to its infrastructure, which was not the objective of security measures that had to be implemented for his protection. 4. In any event, the following steps were taken by the President in reaction to the remedial action ordered by the Public Protector. He addressed a letter to the Speaker of the National Assembly on 2 April 2014 (which was within the 14 days specified by the Public Protector). In this letter, the President referred to the investigations that had been undertaken by the “multi-disciplinary Task Team” and the Public Protector. He observed that, despite the fact that both investigations had “enquired into substantively the same subject matter”, “there are stark differences both in respect of the findings as well as the remedial action proposed (sic) in the two reports.” He then stated that during December 2013 he had issued a proclamation in “the course of December 2013” instructing the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) “to enquire into and investigate the security upgrades at Nkandla.” He concluded by stating that he was “intent on giving full and proper consideration to all these matters and upon receipt of the SIU report will provide Parliament with a further final report on the decisive executive interventions which I consider would be appropriate.” 5. The Final Report of the SIU is dated 20 August 2014. Even before this, the President submitted a Report to the Speaker of the National Assembly regarding the security upgrades at the Nkandla Private Residence of His Excellency President Jacob G Zuma, dated 14 August 2014. This is a 20 page report, much of which is irrelevant for current purposes. However, at page 14 and following, the President deals with the remedial action “Proposed” (sic) by the Public Protector (para 51). He then seeks to evaluate the report of the SIU, and to compare and contrast the two reports. The President’s analysis concludes – 61. A proper appraisal of the commissioning of the security upgrades and expenditure at Nkandla must of necessity include an examination of the conduct of the Executive as measured against the Constitution and the prescripts set out in paragraph 6 above. 62. This examination and intervention has not awaited the compilation of this report and, as government, measures have already been adopted to ensure compliance with the legislative framework and the review and determination of best practices. 63. What appears apparent (sic) is that whilst a legislative framework exists, it was either deficient in certain respects, or wholly ignored or miss-applied (sic). The President then states – 64. I deem the following to be appropriate: 63.1(sic) the Minister of Police as the implementing Minister under the National Key Points Act, to expedite the review of this legislation which is currently under way and to report to Cabinet periodically of the progress in this regard; 63.2(sic) the Minister of Police as the designated Minister under the National Key Points Act, to report to Cabinet on a determination to whether the President is liable for any contribution in respect of the security upgrades having regard to the legislation, past practices, culture and findings contained in the respective reports; 63.3(sic)….63.5 (sic)………… 65. I am satisfied with the progress reported by the SIU and that the interventions both proposed and actualized in terms of our civil and criminal law, as well as departmental procedures, speak to the seriousness of their findings and in accordance with the terms of reference set out in the proclamation. 66. I am equally satisfied that adequate steps have been taken by parliament and the executive in reviewing the ethical codes applicable to members of cabinet and of parliament. 6.1 In our view, the President’s report, and particularly what appears in it as paragraph 63.2 was irrational, unconstitutional and unlawful. The Public Protector is a Chapter Nine institution, and the Constitution, in section 181(3), requires that – Other organs of state, through legislative and other measures, must assist and protect these institutions to ensure the independence, impartiality, dignity and effectiveness of these institutions. 6.2 The President is an organ of state and is bound by the Constitution (and indeed, his oath of office) to at very least assist the Public Protector. As is evident from Part G of the Public Protector’s report (pp 269 to 283), the President’s assistance to the Public Protector was grudging and incomplete. 6.3 More problematically, section 182(1) of the Constitution reads – The Public Protector has the power, as regulated by national legislation – (a)…. (b)…. (c) to take appropriate remedial action. 6.4 The force and effect of remedial action ordered by the Public Protector has been the subject of litigation in the case of Democratic Alliance v the SABC and others (case number 12497/2014) before the Western Cape High Court. Although leave has been granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal, the current law exists as stated by Schippers J: “a finding of the Public Protector is not binding on persons and organs of state”. This was, for example, the convenient conclusion to which the Ad Hoc Committee’s Report dated 11 November 2014 came, at paragraph 3.3. 6.5 However that was not all the judgment stated. In paragraph 59 and following, the Judge states – [59] However, the fact that the findings of and remedial action taken by the Public Protector are not binding decisions does not mean that these findings and remedial actions are mere recommendations, which an organ of state may accept or reject. [60] The respondents accept – as they must – that an organ of state cannot ignore the findings and remedial action of the Public Protector. That much is clear from s 181(3) of the Constitution which provides that other organs of state, through legislative and other measures, must assist and protect the Chapter 9 institutions, to ensure their independence, impartiality, dignity and effectiveness. 6.6 Schippers J goes on in paragraph 63 as follows: [63] The respondents, in effect, have rejected the Public Protector’s findings and remedial action, by not convening a disciplinary enquiry and appointing Motsoeneng permanently as COO. Disregarding findings and remedial action subverts the Public Protector’s powers under s 182 of the Constitution. The powers of the Public Protector to investigate any conduct in the public administration and to take appropriate remedial action, strengthens democracy by providing both the individual and the wider society with the assurance that the various institutions of state can be called to account, should they fail to maintain expected standards in carrying out their functions or in their dealings with the public. In turn, the bond of trust between the citizen and the state is strengthened by promoting transparency in government and other state institutions. [64] The critical role which the Public Protector fulfils cannot be over-emphasised. As was said in Mail & Guardian: “The office of the Public Protector is an important institution. It provides what will often be a last defence against bureaucratic oppression, and against corruption and malfeasance in public office that are capable of insidiously destroying the nation. If that institution falters, or finds itself undermined, the nation loses an indispensable constitutional guarantee.” 6.7 Schippers J then deals with the powers of the Public Protector – 66] It seems to me that before rejecting the findings or remedial action of the Public Protector, the relevant organ of state must have cogent reasons for doing so, that is for reasons other than merely a preference for its own view…. 6.8 Justice Schippers then concludes as follows – [72] thus in a case where the Public Protector makes findings and takes remedial action, the consequential steps to be taken by the relevant organ of state, in my view, are these: (a) The organ of state must properly consider the findings and remedial action. As the findings are not binding and enforceable, the organ of state must decide whether or not the findings should be accepted and the remedial action implemented. That is the purpose of the power. (b) The process by which that decision is made and the decision itself, must be rational, having regard to the underlying purpose of the Public Protector – to ensure that government officials carry out their tasks effectively, fairly and without corruption or prejudice. (c) In a case where a dispute arises because the organ of state decides not to accept the findings or implement the remedial action, it obviously has to engage the Public Protector. Contrary to the contention by counsel for the first to third respondents, such engagement, in my view, does not take place pursuant to the provisions of s 41 of the Constitution – the Public Protector is not an organ of state within a sphere of government as contemplated in s 41(1). (It is thus hardly surprising that the Intergovernmental Framework Act 13 of 2005 does not apply to the Public Protector.) (d) Ultimately the relevant organ of state may apply for judicial review of the Public Protector’s investigation and report. [73] It goes without saying that a decision by an organ of state rejecting the findings and remedial action of the Public Protector is itself, capable of judicial review on conventional public law grounds. [74] For these reasons, I have come to the conclusion that the findings of the Public Protector are not binding and enforceable. However, when an organ of state rejects those findings or the remedial action, that decision itself must not be irrational. 6.9 The question that needs to be answered is whether the President, in dealing with the findings and remedial action ordered by the Public Protector, conformed with the exposition of the law in the SABC case. Our contention is that he did not, for the following reasons: 6.9.1 He did not conform with the remedial action of the Public Protector. He did not, and has not taken steps to determine the reasonable costs of those measures that do not relate to security, with the assistance of the SAPS and the National Treasury; 6.9.2 He has not expressly stated that he does not accept the Public Protector’s findings. Instead he has substituted a different remedy – that of requiring the Minister of Police to determine not only his portion of the costs, but whether he is liable at all. In other words, the President has substituted another remedial action for that ordered by the Public Protector; 6.9.3 In neither his report to Parliament nor his response to the Public Protector, has the President advanced rational reasons why he does not agree with the findings made up, and remedial action ordered, by the Public Protector; and 6.9.4 He has not engaged meaningfully with the Public Protector. His interaction with her, after she sent him her preliminary report, appears to be confined to a single exchange of letters on 21 August 2014, from the Public Protector, and 11 September 2014, by the President. In the latter, the President “respectfully” disagreed with the Public Protector’s contention that remedial action could only be set aside by a review application and reiterated that “I consider the Minister of Police to be the appropriate functionary for the purpose (of determining liability for payments) and reasons tendered in my report to the National Assembly.”; and 6.9.5 The President has not taken the findings and remedial action on review. 6.10 On 19 August 2014, the National Assembly resolved to establish an Ad Hoc Committee to consider the report of the President and to make recommendations where necessary. After some discussion, the mandate of the Committee was expressly extended to the Reports of the Public Protector, the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence, the Inter-Ministerial Task Team, and the Special Investigating Unit. 6.11 The Opposition Parties participated in this Ad Hoc Committee with the purpose of trying to ensure that effect was given to the remedial action ordered by the Public Protector, and if not, that the President be required to give evidence as to why he had chosen to substitute the remedial action with another course of action. When it became clear that the majority party was not amenable to such a course of action, the opposition parties discontinued their participation in the Committee. 7.1 There is a further fatal flaw in this process. In his Report to Parliament dated 14 August 2014, at paragraph 63.2 (sic), the President deemed it “appropriate” to direct – The Minister of Police as the designated Minister under the National Key Points Act, to report to Cabinet on a determination to whether the President is liable for any contribution in respect of the security upgrades having regard to the legislation, past practices, culture and findings contained in the respective reports. 7.2 The Minister of Police is appointed to the Cabinet by the President, and serves on the Cabinet at the President’s pleasure. This inevitably caused a conflict of interest, and made it impossible for the Minister of Police to give an honest and dispassionate assessment. In fact, by assuming this responsibility, the Minister of Police potentially violated section 96(2)(b) of the Constitution, which reads as follows – Members of the Cabinet and Deputy Ministers may not – (a)……. (b) act in a way that is inconsistent with their office, or expose themselves to any situation involving the risk of a conflict between their official responsibilities and their private interests; or (c)……. 7.3 It is contended that, as a result of his conflicted position, the Minister inevitably produced a report that failed to rigorously address itself to his mandate. The Report unsurprisingly and inevitably exonerated the President from any liability to repay any money. Indeed, the Report suggests that still further money needs to be expended to secure the President’s private residence. 8. The current Ad Hoc Committee has been appointed to consider this Report. C. PART II 9. The current Ad Hoc Committee has been established to consider the Report by the Minister of Police to Parliament on Security Upgrades at the Nkandla Private Residence of the President. This report is dated 25 March 2015, but was only released on 28 May 2015. We contend that the Ad Hoc Committee should reject this Report in its entirety, for the following reasons: 9.1 First, because it is unconstitutional and irrational, for the reasons articulated above. It assumes a status equivalent to that of the Public Protector, which is a Chapter 9 institution. 9.2 Secondly, because the Report is amateurish, facile and superficial. It is poorly drafted, riddled with grammatical, spelling and typographical errors and is, in places, factually inaccurate. Embarrassingly, it relies on “desktop research” that would not pass muster for an average high school assignment, far less a report to Parliament. Even the quote from Wikipedia (in the first instance hardly the most authoritative source), in paragraph 6.5.1 on page 33, is not even transcribed correctly. (…to sit comfortable…) For other substantiation, the report relies on “experts” and “consultancies” not all of whom are named, and whose submissions were not immediately available to the committee. It is accordingly difficult not simply to reject the report out of hand. 9.3 Thirdly, because in terms of its methodology, the Report cherry-picks “evidence” from “experts” and from reports that substantiate what was clearly an already determined conclusion. Much of the “expert evidence” relies on vague generalisations. We do not know the qualifications and expertise of these “experts”, what advice they gave, whether that advice was correctly recorded, or whether that advice was quoted in context. 9.3.1 The Report disregards inconvenient evidence, adduced by other experts and other reports, to the contrary. Thus, for example, the Public Protector’s Report contained 13 findings and ordered 30 remedial action steps. Yet the Public Protector’s Report is quoted only twice in the Police Minister’s Report. In addition, the Police Minister’s Report directly contradicts the findings and remedial action of the Public Protector, without in any way advancing rational reasons for doing so. Likewise, the Report approvingly quotes some of the SIU findings, but disregards others that do not suit the narrative. It is worth noting that, unlike the Public Protector, the SIU did rely on the advice of “experts” in arriving at its conclusions (see para 4 p 129 of the SIU report). 9.3.2 The most egregious of the inconvenient evidence ignored by the Police Minister’s report is that the President benefitted personally, through improvements to his private residence, from the security upgrades. The Public Protector found this to be the case as a matter of fact, and by way of remedial action, ordered him to determine the reasonable cost of these improvements, with the assistance of the SAPS and the National Treasury, and to repay that amount. 9.3.3 The SIU is more circumspect but no less definite. Adv Soni makes the following observations: · “Certain items identifies by Makhanya for the private upgrades were also reflected in the SAPS May (2009) assessment reports.” (para 22, p 71);“The ‘Preliminary Cost Estimate No 2’ (of 24 August 2009), which was attached to the progress report, noted that the estimated cost of the project had increased to R109 208 760 for the public process. It reflected an amount of R22 836 026 for private works.” (para 43, p 79; see also para 153, p 122);“He (Khanyile) told them that the President had requested that the same private professional team whom he had appointed to effect the private improvements at Nkandla be used to effect the security upgrades at Nkandla.” (para 50, p 81);“The minutes of the meeting held on 30 November 2010 reflect that Deputy Minister Bogopane-Zulu requested Khanyile to confirm the order for the supply of the air conditioners by 30 December 2010 and further requested that a follow-up be made on the order for the air conditioners as she required the air conditioning units to be on site by 1 December 2010.” (para 94, p 99: the SIU found that the air conditioners were not part of the security upgrades ordered by the SAPS – see Table 2 on p 133);“Second, increases in the cost of among other things the following: shaded parking for VIPs and the swimming pool; and landscaping and storm water control.” (para 154, p 122: the SIU found that shaded parking for VIPs, the swimming pool and landscaping were not part of the security upgrades ordered by the SAPS – see Table 2 on p 133);“First, this estimate (of 16 August 2010) was the first in which there was no breakdown between the public works and the private works. This new format, in which there was no breakdown between public and private, persisted until January 2011.” (para 159, p 123-4);“It was noted above that the estimates from 28 August 2009 to 8 December 2010 did not include the costs of the private works…At a meeting held during December 2010 between Paisley and Rindel, Paisley insisted that Rindel and his team show what the private costs were…From this point on, the private costs were again included in the cost estimates prepared by R&G. Paisley told the SIU that after she had queried the exorbitant cost and had insisted on a separate allocation of costs between private and public, she was removed from the project and had no further role to play.” (para 163, p 125);In paragraphs 166, 167 and 168, on page 126, the estimates of the private costs range between R2 965 838.55 and R10 752 770.66.;“However, by June 2010, when the SAPS finalised its report after its final assessment, the security requirements had been fully and finally determined.” And “Upgrading beyond what had been determined as a requirement would constitute a violation of section 33(1) of the Constitution, which requires organs of State to act lawfully and reasonably.” (paras 1 and 2, p 127);Table 2 on page 133 specifies upgrades that were supplied that were beyond what had been determined as a security requirement by the SAPS. In relation to the President’s homestead alone, these included “tunnels linking the houses to the bunker which includes three lifts and an exit tunnel”; “visitors’ lounge: a 116 square metre building Control room: a 114 square metre building”; “VIP Parking: 171.52 square metres structure with motorised garage doors and parking for 9 vehicles”; “Fire pool: a 175kl pool, with an area of 97 square metres and a depth of 1.8 metres”; “Four households relocated and partial restructure of a house outside the residential complex”; “Six roads constructed”; “Air conditioning in each of the houses”; “Landscaping to enhance beauty of inner high security area” and “Sewer pump house, sewer plant and water reservoir constructed.” ;“She (Bogopane-Zulu) had been involved in the provisioning of the fire pool. She said the possibility of building a fire pool and the possible building of a swimming pool for use by surrounding communities had been discussed and cost estimates were to be prepared. She had however that the cost estimates include an apportionment of costs between the State and the President. She did not discuss the fire pool with the President as no options or cost apportionments were presented to her.” (para 98, p 177);Table 3 on page 215 repeats the SIU’s finding of those upgrades that were not specified as security requirements in the SAPS security assessment. 9.3.4 In a nutshell, the SIU finds the following: first, that there were upgrades undertaken that were over and above those required by the SAPS to guarantee the President’s security; secondly, that there was a clear acknowledgment at various stages of the project implementation that the President was responsible for some of the costs of the upgrades (although the estimates of such costs varied); thirdly, that even where upgrades were necessary, the scale of construction far exceeded what had been stated as security requirements; and fourthly, as the SIU report states it: “[i]n yet other instances, having regard to the purpose to be served by the upgrades, reasonable modesty gave way to indefensible extravagance.” (para 4 p 129). 9.3.5 We find the failure of the Police Minister’s Report to deal with these matters to be a fatal shortcoming and a further reason to reject the Report. 9.4 Fourthly, because the Police Minister’s Report selectively and conveniently confines itself (inadequately and imperfectly) entirely to the matters identified specifically in the Public Protector’s as needing to be paid in full or in part by the President. But the Public Protector did not say that these were the only aspects of the upgrades for which the President was wholly or partly responsible. In paragraph 11.1.1 of her Report, the Public Protector states that he President is to: “Take steps, with the assistance of the National Treasury and the SAPS, to determine the reasonable cost of the measures implemented by the DPW at his private residence that do not relate to security, and which include Visitors’ Centre, the amphitheatre, the cattle kraal and chicken run, the swimming pool.” As was argued above, the SIU identified other aspects of the upgrades that were not identified by the SAPS security assessments. 10. What the Police Minister’s Report does is to seek to rationalise the excessive and non-security upgrades by inventing ex post facto justifications for them. In his attempt to circumvent the inconvenient fact that many of these upgrades were not called for by the SAPS security evaluation, and were accordingly, not justified, the Minister vaguely states in paragraph 7.4 that – “The SAPS Security Evaluation Report in which some of these features are requested or implied is proper, well done and relevant; however, the security advisors could have been explicit and more detail would have assisted non-security persons.” What this extraordinary statement suggests is that the SAPS Evaluation Report was vague, and that it was up to others to interpret what it was that the SAPS meant. It further tellingly says that there were, in the Police Minister’s mind other features that were justified that were implied rather than explicitly stated in the Evaluation Report. By a logic that belongs in a Kafka novel, the Police Minister’s report is able to justify all the features as security upgrades and therefore to absolve the “State President” (sic) from any liability to pay for them. OBSERVATIONS 1. It should be stated at the outset that all the opposition parties that participated in this process did so in good faith. This was motivated largely by the undertaking given by the Chief Whip of the ANC in the National Assembly that “all and any” witnesses could be called before the Committee, and that the Committee would operate in terms of Rule 138. It became apparent only last week that the ANC members of the Committee would frustrate any attempt to call any witnesses other than those under the control of their caucus. 2. It should be further noted that the observations set out hereunder are precisely that – observations following an in loco visit. They are not intended to in any way replace the findings of the reports of the Public Protector or the Special Investigating Unit. This Committee is legally not empowered to do that. It is noted that: 3. The President and his family have benefitted unduly from the upgrades to his private family residence; 4. There were improvements that were obviously not security related, including but not limited to the swimming pool, the amphitheatre, the larger cattle kraal, the visitors centre, extensive paving and the relocation of neighbours; 5. It is entirely possible that when the Public Protector visited Nkandla 18 months ago prior to compiling her report the whole place was in a better condition and that is has been allowed to deteriorate since her visit; 6. The above also applies to the visit of the Special Investigating Unit in July 2014; 7. The Minister of Police misinterpreted his mandate and only concentrated on 4 issues. He failed to consider the other issues raised in the reports of the Public Protector and the Special Investigating Unit; 8. The Minister of Police, by his own admission, never engaged with the Public Protector, contrary to the judgement delivered by Schippers J; 9. The swimming pool is a recreational facility that could also be used for firefighting and was not primarily a security feature; 10. The visitors’ centre is clearly not a security feature and it was not requested by any of the security experts; 11. The amphitheatre has at best a dual purpose as an observation / sitting space for public gatherings and soil retention; 12. The larger cattle kraal / animal enclosure is far larger than the original one and the President has unduly benefitted from the construction thereof, as it is clearly not a security feature; 13. Prices were inflated, and there were instances of poor workmanship; 14. Some of the work appeared to be incomplete; 15. All those responsible for deviations from the PFMA should be held accountable; 16. None of the amounts spent at Nkandla appeared in the MTEF or departmental budgets, thus they were deliberately hidden from Parliament; 17. All of the buildings and upgrades constructed at Nkandla are directly linked to the fact that the President resides there; 18. After the retirement from office of the President, an obligation to maintain them will remain the responsibility of the State at State expense; 19. The clinic will be for the use of the President and his family and perhaps staff. This is confirmed in the report, and it is clearly not a security feature; 20. It is a great pity that the committee did not get all the relevant facts. By avoiding the Public Protector, the SIU and others the committee is forced to rely solely on the “experts” of the Minister of Police. We do, however, take note of the response of the Public Protector on Monday, 3 August 2015 in which she clarifies a number of salient issues; 21. The reaction of Mr Magubane is at odds with what we saw at Nkandla, in that he is adamant that the electronic security system was both installed and fully functional, while it was dismantled at the time of our visit; 22. Senior Superintendent Linde was also the Chairman of the SAPS Builiding Planning Committee and that he signed correspondence on behalf of the Divisional Commissioner : Supply Chain Management; 23. Neither the Minister of Police nor the Miniser of Public Works referred in their respective reports to any document relating to the apportionment of costs between the President and the State. RECOMMENDATIONS For all the reasons stated above, it is suggested that the Police Minister’s Report be rejected in its entirety. The following political parties are party to this report submitted on 6 August 2015: DEMOCRATIC ALLIANCE INKATHA FREEDOM PARTY AFRICAN CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC PARTY FREEDOM FRONT PLUS NATIONAL FREEDOM PARTY AFRICAN INDEPENDENT CONGRESS UNITED DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENT AGANG PAN AFRICAN CONGRESS
Admin
06 Aug, 2015
Advancing the developmental agenda of municipalities for a better life for our people
Address by Mr LB Gaehler in the NCOP Hon Chairperson and Honourable Members The ruling party is failing the development agenda of municipalities at the expense of the poor rural masses of our people. The visit to the OR Tambo District has exposed this as a fact. People of Port St Johns and Nyandeni had to take to the streets, in demand for the upgrading and maintenance of the roads which are in a devastating state. External and Internal connecting roads are in a state of constant decay with no sense of an urgent action from the ruling elite. Some roads in the Ingquza Local Municipality remain unsurfaced, yet they were gazetted long time ago. There is absolutely no justification for the neglect of such an important infrastructure. Water and sanitation infrastructure is under budgeted, with only R10 million for the management, painfully with no clarity on whether there is a plan and budget for the replacement and maintenance of the daily decaying infrastructure. In some areas within the KSD and Nyandeni municipalities, poor rural people do not have access to basic human necessity, water. Greenville in Mthatha is a case in point, where water has been a scarce human necessity for more than four weeks. Whilst the District Municipality lists as a success, the development of new towns and malls, town planning fails to address the historic spatial development challenges. Much of the reported and planned development does not confirm existence of a spatial development plan seeking to redress the imbalances of the past. Honourable Chairperson, the socio economic infrastructure of the majority of the rural municipalities, demands a special and dedicated attention. In this regard, the United Democratic Movement proposes that a Special Rural Infrastructure backlog fund be created. The current Municipal Infrastructure Grant is either under budgeted and is not bias towards rural areas. Without this crucial intervention, developmental agenda in rural municipalities cannot be advanced. Finally, the advancement of the municipal development agenda will not be realised as long as we have many of the Senior Municipal Managers like the Municipal Managers of the OR Tambo District, the Port St Johns and KSD local municipalities are in acting positions. Worse, in KSD local municipality this unbearable situation doubles up with an Acting Chief Financial Officer. The Ruling party need to take the people of rural areas serious and treat them with respect, if the developmental agenda is to be advanced. Thank you.
Admin
06 Aug, 2015
UDM Parliamentary Caucus denounces the Ad-hoc Committee on Nkandla as flawed and against the law
Statement by UDM President Bantu Holomisa After deliberations this morning the Caucus resolved as follows regarding the Nkandla Ad Hoc committee: 1. The new Ad-hoc committee process has not changed the original position of the UDM that the President must not use the Executive and Parliament to undermine the report of the Public Protector, but should in line with legal prescripts; approach the appropriate court for a judicial review. 2. Irrespective of the findings and recommendations of the Ad-hoc committee given the fact that the ANC bulldozed parliament on this matter, the fact does not change that, this matter is not for parliament but between the President and the Public Protector. Anything to the contrary borders on the conflation of the doctrine of the separation of powers, between the legislature, the judiciary and the executive. UDM will always and in the interest of Constitutional Democracy, refuse to break this fundamental principle. 3. We reaffirm our unwavering commitment to the independence of Chapter 9 Institutions as they strengthen our democracy. To this end, we support the report of the Public Protector on Nkandla and firmly believe that, only the court of law can review its findings and remedial actions. 4. Consistent with the Executive Members Ethics Act and the Constitution of the Republic, it is the President who can make a legally valid decision not to comply with the remedial actions made by the Public Protector, only if such is based on rationality and cogent reasoning, as the Cape Town High Court determined. 5. This matter must not only be a private property of political parties as it affects all citizens. As a result, we call on all organs of civil society to join the campaign to save this country and its resources for the benefit of the poor. 6. We call on organs of civil society to approach the courts of law to challenge this abuse of power in Parliament by using the institution to protect the President. Thank you
Admin
05 Aug, 2015
Former President Nelson Mandela’s legacy
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION:ENTRENCHING FORMER PRESIDENT NELSON MANDELA’S LEGACY OF DEDICATED AND SELFLESS SERVICE TO BUILDING A SOCIALLY INCLUSIVE SOCIETY ADDRESS BY Mr BH Holomisa MP in the National Assembly Hon Speaker and members This debate reminds me of a haunting question that Tata Mandela asked me in the early nineties and the question was … “Bantu what happened to all the birds that used to inhabit this place?”. This question would have been occasioned by an acknowledgement that even in the most remote rural areas, the morning enjoyment of the tranquillity of nature, the harmonious sounds of the birds, their beautiful singing has long gone. Poverty, against which Mandela dedicated the entirety of his life fighting to defeat, has forced people to continue resorting to trees, as wood to make fire to cook and keep warm, resulting to the destruction of the natural forests. Today we are confronted by a life threatening global warming, the lack of production of food through home based gardening, which cause hunger, unhealthy environment and unsustainable livelihood. Indeed with Nelson Mandela having fought and served to build a socially inclusive and sustainable global society, the 67 minutes we contribute to this good cause would seem appropriate way to honour the legacy of this icon of our time, but more can still be done for 365 days. In this regard, I propose that we consider an International Project to restore the tranquillity of the nature. This means launching global re-afforestation programmes together with food production gardens in every household in the world. To be conclusive on this proposal, it may be termed a Nelson Mandela Forests and Gardens in which case, the nation that gave birth to this great patriot, South Africa, may lead the international community by starting with its own chapter. In our country, this initiative will go a long way to address historical consequences of an environment that was deliberately designed along the racial lines whilst creating more opportunities for jobs. Equally important, is that such an approach will also instil a culture of participation and ownership which our Constitutional Democracy requires. I thank you.
Admin
17 Jul, 2015
President Zuma to look into issues raised by Bantu Holomisa: Moretele Local Municipality
Issued by the Office of the Presidency President Jacob Zuma has assigned the Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME) to look into the issues raised by United Democratic Movement leader and Member of Parliament, Gen. Bantu Holomisa on the challenges facing Moretele Local Municipality, in the North West Province. General Holomisa has written to the President raising concerns about service delivery matters such as water and sanitation, roads infrastructure, public works programmes and general management of the municipality. The DPME will liaise with the province and other affected Departments. Enquiries: Harold Maloka – Maloka.harold@gmail.com or Harold@presidency.gov.za
Admin
16 Jul, 2015
UDEMWO is devastated by the recent horrific attack against a 14 year old girl in Grabouw
Statement issued by Thandi Nontenja: UDEMWO Secretary General As the United Democratic Movement Women’s Organisation (UDEMWO) we are devastated by the recent attack on the 14 year old girl in Grabouw, Western Cape. We would like to convey our message of support and wish her a speedy recovery from this horrific attack. This young girl has shown bravery after her brutal attack and was able to name the culprit. This incident is taking us back and reminding us of what happened to Anene Boysen who was also brave enough to name her attackers and the justice system failed her and many women of this country by letting one of the attackers walk free because of lack of evidence. We hope this time the hand of justice will do the right thing and be for the victim other than the perpetrator. Such individuals who abuse women and children in any how do not deserve to be part of our communities and that is why we want him to rot in jail for the horrendous act he has committed. We hope that the sentencing will be a lesson to other perpetrators out there. The abuse of women and children is growing everyday in this country and we cannot fold arms and watch, something needs to be done to curb this problem in this country. As UDEMWO, we are calling upon the Department of Social Development to make sure that women and children are protected. End
Admin
15 Jul, 2015
Bantu Holomisa writes to President Zuma re sorry state of Moretele Local Municipality in urgent need of Government’s attention
Dear Honourable President, RE: SORRY STATE OF MORETELE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY IN URGENT NEED OF GOVERNMENT’S ATTENTION The above mentioned matter has reference. A few weeks ago, I was invited to a community meeting by the Concerned Residents of Moretele Local Municipality in North West Province. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss and find solutions to the challenges facing their Municipality. In addition to the meeting, the Community had also planned a march on 26 June 2015 to the Municipal Offices to deliver a Memorandum of Complaints to the Mayor. Both events took place, and were a huge success. However, due to circumstances beyond my control, I could not attend these events. Mrs Thandi Nontenja, our National Treasurer, represented the UDM at these events. After receiving a Report from Mrs Nontenja about her visit to Moretele Local Municipality, I felt obligated to write you this letter in order to bring to your attention the challenges besetting Moretele Local Municipality. Below is a summary of the residents’ complaints. For more details, please consult the attached Memorandum. 1. Poor Leadership and Corruption The residents complained about poor leadership and bad management at the Municipality. They accused the leadership of failing to attend meetings and of failing to fulfil their service delivery promises and mandates. They also alleged that some of the senior leaders of the Municipality are involved in corrupt activities. For details, please see attached Memorandum. 2. Water and Sanitation It was with a great deal of shock to hear that about 56 Moretele villages have no access to clean running water and sanitation. These villagers still use pit toilets and have to walk long distances to fetch water from nearby rivers. It beggars belief that more than 20 years into our democracy there are still people, who live in such conditions. This is a serious violation of our people’s basic human rights, as access to clean water and sanitation are fundamental human rights that are essential for life and human dignity. We call on your Government to urgently look into this matter. In so doing, kindly also look into the millions of Rands that the residents claim were spent on the water reservoirs that were either never used or have never worked. 3. Public Works Programmes and Road Infrastructure The residents complained bitterly about the poor management of the Public Works Programmes in North West. They have apparently made numerous requests to the Provincial PWP leadership to discuss the poor state of their road infrastructure, but all their efforts have come to naught. Their roads infrastructure is so poor to the point where most of their roads are impassable. This, needless to say, disconnects these communities from important economic hubs in the Province. As already indicated above, this is a summary of some of the key issues that were raised by the residents of Moretele during their engagements with Mrs Nontenja. For more details, please see attached Memorandum of Complaints. Feel to contact person Thubakgalo at 072 832 0233 should you require more information. We call on your Office to urgently look into the sorry state of this Municipality. I look forward to hearing from you. Kind regards, Bantu Holomisa, MP UDM President
Admin
10 Jul, 2015
UDM President Bantu Holomisa requests an investigation by Public Protector into the Department of Transport – Eastern Cape Province
Dear Advocate Madonsela REQUEST FOR AN INVESTIGATION: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT – EASTERN CAPE PROVINCE – SCHOLAR TRANSPORT. I take this opportunity to table the following matter with you, so that you may please investigate it appropriately for the benefit of the South African public. I have anonymously received the attached information alleging maladministration within the Eastern Cape Department of Transport with regard to the scholar transport. Most importantly is not how it landed on my desk but its contents which we kindly request your office to investigate. The amounts involved here exceeds R15m of public money as well as a list of people whose employment is allegedly not transparent and not according to procedure. I look forward to your excellent investigative work on this matter, and these are the only things I could identify, however, the attached documents will help you to identify relevant offices to be approached for further information which may possibly bring up many more discrepancies that would need to be exposed. Kind regards Mr Bantu Holomisa, MP President of the United Democratic Movement
Admin
07 Jul, 2015
Letter by Bantu Holomisa, MP to President Jacob Zuma: Marikana, UDM proposes a way forward for Marikana Massacre
Dear Honourable President, RE: UDM PROPOSE A WAY FORWARD FOR MARIKANA MASSACRE August 16, 2015 marks the third anniversary of the Marikana massacre. The Marikana massacre stands out as the worst case of police brutality in the post-Apartheid South Africa, where more than 30 miners were massacred by the South African Police for demanding a living wage and an improvement in their working conditions. The Nation and the families of the victims of the massacre eagerly awaited the release of the report of the Marikana Commission Inquiry, hoping against hope that it would once and for all provide answers to lingering questions about what really happened during that fateful day and who was responsible for it. Upon its release, the report fell hopelessly short of expectations. It provides no clear answers and holds no political leader accountable for the tragic incident, which leaves South Africans and the families of the victims none the wiser. In the midst of all this doom and gloom, and notwithstanding the processes that are currently underway to deal with the after effects of the Marikana massacre, there are a few additional options your Office could explore to turn the situation around, and they are: Establishment of a Committee It is our considered view that Government should initiate the establishment of a Committee compromised of all the relevant stakeholders in Marikana to discuss a possible way forward, which should include, but not limited to, compensation to the families of victims. Such a step would go a long way towards addressing the families’ bread and butter issues, as many of them struggle to make ends meet because their bread winners perished in that tragic incident. Annual Marikana Day In order to prevent such barbaric acts from happening again in future, the United Democratic Movement (UDM) proposes that August 16 be commemorated annually as the National Marikana Day. This will also serve as a reminder to both current and future generations that the price of democracy is eternal vigilance against any abuses of power whether by the state or its organs. We will also table this proposal at the first sitting of Parliament in July as a Motion Without Notice in an attempt to get the National Assembly to officially adopt it as its resolution. I Iook forward to hearing from you. Kind regards, Bantu Holomisa, MP UDM President
Admin
22 Jun, 2015
UDEMWO calls for thorough investigation on Saint Barnabas Hospital, Eastern Cape
As the United Democratic Movement Women’s Organisation (UDEMWO), we are angered by the ignorance and inhumane treatment by the health workers at Saint Barnabas Hospital in Libode, Eastern Cape. Refusing to pay attention to a sickly person is something else but refusing to render the necessary help for a rape victim is grossly inhumane. Rape issue is a very sensitive matter and the more you do not follow all the necessary precautions is the more the crucial evidence can be missed and for a doctor to refuse to treat a victim is not acceptable at all. It takes a lot of courage for a victim to take the step of seeking assistance and to shun the victim kills the victim and this exacerbates the stigma of the gruesome act. UDEMWO is calling upon the Health MEC in the Eastern Cape to get thorough investigation into the matter and punitive measures should be put in place for those involved. Doctors or any other health workers should remember, they are at hospitals to deal and help patients and if they are unable to help community members in time of need, this means they are in a wrong field and must go elsewhere and do as they please. Statement issued by Thandi Nontenja – UDEMWO Secretary General
Admin
12 Jun, 2015
UDEMWO is pleased by the court’s decision to deny bail against Christopher Panayiotou
The United Democratic Movement Women’s Organisation (UDEMWO) is pleased with the way National Prosecuting Authority has so far handled the Christopher Panayiotou and his co-accused case of murdering the innocent Jayde Panayiotou. Panayiotou and the men accused of killing this young woman do not deserve to be back in our communities as they pose a danger not only to the community but to those close to them. They have displayed clearly that they are not human beings with their behaviour. NPA denying bail for these cruel culprits brings hope to women and children in this country. It also sends a strong message to criminals as we are not safe in our own communities because of such inhumane individuals who abuse and murder us. We are living a life of fear in the hands of those we call loved ones. As much as we appreciate this denial of bail against the men but we would like to see the hand of justice being served. As UDEMWO, we would like to see synergy amongst the government departments i.e. South African Police Service, Department of Justice and Correctional Service as these departments play an vital role and they should complement one another in making sure that the rights of women and children are protected. UDEMWO is once again calling upon the Department of Correctional Service to review the parole system as we feel that it is not applied appropriately. It favours the culprits more the victims of crime. Remember, when you violate someone’s rights you should forfeit yours. Statement issued by Thandi Nontenja: UDEMWO Secretary General
Admin
08 May, 2015
Subject for dicussion: The relevance of symbols in building a new democratic heritage – addresss by Mr ML Filtane, MP in the National Assembly
Hon Speaker and members Steve Biko once said, “As long as blacks are suffering from inferiority complex as a result of 300 years of deliberate oppression, denigration and division, they will be useless as co-architects of a normal society where man has nothing else but man for his own sake”. In this regard, he called for a liberation from mental enslavement. The historical and heritage symbols play an important part in defining our present, the past, and are a reality, upon which a discourse on defining the future or explaining the past can be located. However, the debate about symbols and building a democratic heritage cannot be an isolated one but an integral part of the broad socio economic transformation of our society. The building of a democratic heritage requires a substantial focus on a thorough understanding of how the social, political and economic structure, and relations, both theoretical and programmatic, are shaped. The narrow focus on symbolic representation of the legacy of colonialism, apartheid and separate development will result in mere ceremonial and symbolic engagement with the continuity of the same but under a post-colonial and apartheid era. The product will be artificial interventions devoid of substance, beyond the symbolic and a feel good vibes. The radical engagement with the more complicated challenges of how to bring about total de-colonialisation aimed at genuine physical and psychological liberation of the people must not be limited to politically correct rhetoric that cushions the interest and agenda of the ruling elite. However, and in the same vein, the importance of symbols as a means to restore dignity and pride of a people cannot be relegated to the periphery. We emphasise that it must not be divorced from the overall programme of building a new united South Africa that take cognisance of the histories, heritage and collective memories of all its people. The dictate of the Constitution, that South African belong to all who live in it, demands that we collectively, as a people, define our legacy, history and heritage and dictate how we want to celebrate these. The real debate should indeed be about what place do the colonial symbols occupy and how they can be used to educate future generations about the atrocities of colonialism and apartheid. Simply destroying parts of this reality of history will distort our collective history and deny future generations the chance of knowing our past. National unity and eradication of all socio economic ills of the past will be achieved through tangible institutional, systematic and structural pattern of development. Borrowing from Frantz Fanon, the struggle of the people of South Africa is concern as much with freedom from colonialism as with liberation from the suffocating embrace of the past and the pretention of its civilisation should be a universal destiny of all its citizens. I thank you
Admin
12 May, 2015
Dr Ruth Mompati Was A True Example Of Imbokodo
Statement issued by Thandi Nontenja: UDEMWO Secretary General The United Democratic Movement Women’s Organisation (UDEMWO) is shocked and saddened by the death of the struggle veteran Dr Ruth Mompati. We would like to convey our heartfelt condolences to the family and friends of Mam’ Ruth. She was a true representation of Imbokodo and as women in South Africa, we are forever grateful. She gave and served the country tirelessly when South Africa was experiencing hardships. Mam Ruth was one of the brave women who took to the streets heading to the Union Building in 1956 marching against the carrying of passes and permits by women. She paved a way for the significant change of women in leadership we see today in the country. She was one of the inspirational women leaders who we all looked up to irrespective of political affiliation one belonged to. May her soul rest in peace. End
Admin
05 Jun, 2015
2015 Budget Vote 33: Tourism – address by Mr LB Gaehler, MP
Honourable Chairperson, Ministers and Members The United Democratic Movement supports budget vote number 33 on tourism. In this regard, we welcome the efforts and work done by the department and many other role players in ensuring that this country remains a destination of choice for many citizens of world. This is notwithstanding socio economic challenges that the country continue to be confronted which in many instances results to inhuman and barbaric acts by criminal elements within our communities. We also note with regret that more than 90 percent of tourism activities in the country are limited to the three economic centers of the country (Cape Town, Johannesburg and Durban). This means beneficiation from this industry is limited to the urban part of the country thus excluding the majority of the unemployed and poor, who are found in the extreme rural areas of our land. The further UDM notes and welcome the commitment by the department to its focus shift towards expanding the tourism scope. However, this shift must not reduce the beneficiation currently enjoyed by urban areas, instead, more investment must be towards rural areas whilst strategically empowering the urban tourism to sustain itself through proper management and diversification. The niche for rural tourism is its heritage. The department has already made a clear case for this as paradigm shift and we support that. There are many iconic attractions in our rural areas and we must take advantage of this and maximise its strategic role on tourism. Our wildlife, fascinating history, natural beauty and culture are major and primary tourist attractions and we need to grow them into global iconic places and experiences. Heritage must be at centre of rural economic development and for the realisation of this programmes, a collaborative effort between all key stakeholders like, the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, the Economic Cluster and well as the Local Sphere of governance is the pre-requirement. Accordingly, the department must invest on heritage knowledge working together with other relevant stakeholders. Total implementation of the National Rural Tourism Strategy, the National Heritage and Cultural Tourism Strategy and the National Tourism Sector Strategy as policy tools that the department has in its position can no longer be postponed. Through consistent and aggressive implementation of these tools and working together with the rural citizens, will ensure that the department plays its critical role in the fight against poverty, unemployment and inequality. The department must not fail in this historic task. Thank you
Admin
04 Jun, 2015
2015 Budget Vote 23: Police address by Mr LB Gaehler, MP
Honourable Chairperson, Ministers and Members The United Democratic Movement supports budget vote number 23 on POLICE. The incident at the Alexandra police station yesterday is a cause for great concern. Not less than four lives have been lost in a short space of time. More disturbing is that the shooting of a wife, two relatives and a police officer took place at a police station where it is expected that citizen’s safety is guaranteed. Many police offers are working under stressful conditions with no support mechanisms. Some are reported to be resisting attending counselling fearing that if they are diagnosed with certain conditions, such may make it difficult to get upward mobility at work. One of the things that the department needs to priorities is the implementation of a doctrine that ensures that our police service functions according to a set of rules that are in line with the values enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic. The department must also run a consistent programme intended to condition the police for the demanding service they have to deliver to the communities. Related to this, is a concerted mobilisation of communities so that the relationship between the police and communities is the one that enhances the service and ensure maximum security of the citizens. The instability with the Independent Police Investigating Directorate (IPID), undermines the strategic objectives for which that directorate was established. The ministry must ensure that the IPID stability is high in its agenda. The allegations about police officer’s involvement in serious crimes are on the increase with little consequences if any. The low conviction rates of implicated officers suggest that the police do not take the problem seriously and that the policies in place to deal with this matter are ineffective. The department must pay attention to this crisis. The morale and discipline of some of the police officers in some of the police stations lives much to be desired. This is coupled with the conditions under which these officers are expected to deliver services as well as their attitude towards the service and citizens. On the 7th of October 2014, I penned a letter to the Minister of Police bring to his attention the poor service I was personally exposed to at the Ngangelizwe Police Station in Mthatha, Eastern Cape. A combination of two fundamental factors referred to above, in that police station they find expression. The station had no tools for operation, such as a mere photocopy equipment, inks and others, let alone long queues that not attended to. The service in this station is a direct opposite of what is presented by the Minister and the department on the kind of service they commit to deliver to citizen. Madam Chair, as I speak now, detective sections of many police stations across the country are unable to get photos from their colleagues in the photo section, because it is claimed that funds are not sufficient to make them available. This is rendering the detective sections incapable to discharge its responsibility and deliver services to the poor citizens. We call on the Ministry to attend to this as an urgent matter. The Ministry and the department must pay very close attention to the daily work and service given in these police stations across the country. Madam Chair, the turnaround time of the Legal Aid Board, is rather disturbing. There are cases that are not concluded due to their lack of timely response to service request by the public. We to repeat the call we made with regard to the creation of special courts to respond to spontaneous illegal activities by communities. We must also consider the transformation of the judicial system as a priority that must not be stretched too long. Security of prison and court officials as well as facilities thereof, constitute an area for consideration by the department as in some instances, there have been reports of a lack of safety in the correctional services centres. An integrated programme and implementation by all the justice cluster will help us resolve many of the challenges confronting this area of strategic importance in the broader transformation agenda. Thank you
Admin
04 Jun, 2015
Request for intervention: renewable energy sector challenges in the Eastern Cape
Dear Minister Patel, Minister of Economic Development RE: REQUEST FOR INTERVENTION: RENEWABLE ENERGY SECTOR CHALLENGES IN THE EASTERN CAPE The abovementioned matter has reference. Thank you for the interest you have shown on this matter. This letter highlights some of the challenges faced by renewable energy investors, whose projects are situated in former Homeland areas of the Eastern Cape. I had intended to bring some of these issues to your attention during the Economic Development Budget Vote Debate, but due to time constraints (3 minutes speaking time) I could not do so. While some of the issues here fall under the mandate of the Department of Energy and, to a less extent, the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, I have decided to include them in an attempt to give you a comprehensive picture – and primarily because they all have a negative impact on the economic development of the aforementioned areas. Please find hereunder the details of the issues I would like to bring to your attention. 1. REIPP Procurement Programme In 2011, the Department of Energy launched the Renewable Energy Independent Power Producer Procurement Programme (REIPPPP) consisting of 5 bidding rounds taking place over a five year period. The first 4 rounds saw 79 renewable energy projects being selected amounting to R170 billions of investment by the private sector nation-wide. The Eastern Cape Province was only awarded 1 solar project and 15 wind energy projects by the Department of Energy (DOE). The total Rand value amount of this investment is approximately R26 billion. However, regrettably none of these projects is located in former Homelands, despite these areas representing 40 per cent of the Province’s land mass and 60 per cent of its population. I therefore appeal to you Mr Minister to influence the DOE to spread the benefit of these projects as wide as possible. 2. Socio-Economic Impact of the REIPP Procurement Programme Apart from its primary objective of procuring energy, the DOE has commendably designed the REIPP Procurement Programme as a tool to foster long term rural development within a 50km radius of each project location. The social benefits of this are massive. Each successful renewable energy project is compelled and has to commit to spend between 1 to 2.1 per cent of its turnover on Socio-Economic Development (SED) contributions and Enterprise Development (ED) contributions over the 20 year life cycle of its project. In addition to the job opportunities created during the construction and operation phase, each renewable energy project has to set up a community trust that owns between 5 and 40 per cent of the project’s equity shares and the dividends should be spent on community upliftment projects. The long term benefits are substantial, and will definitely change the face of rural South Africa in the medium to long term. 2.1 Over-concentration of Projects While these policies have massive socio-economic benefits, several challenges about the overconcentration of projects in certain areas of the Province remain. For instance, the majority of Wind Farms in the Eastern Cape are situated in two areas, Jeffrey’s Bay and Cookhouse, and together they have a combined investment value of R26 billion. In other words, the entire R26 billion that has been invested on renewable energy in the Eastern Cape thus far has gone to the two “previously advantaged” areas. Needless to say, this creates a long term imbalance with regard to development in the Province. It is often argued that the Northern Cape also suffers from the same over-concentration of projects in some areas. This over-concentration results in a situation, where a few communities that happen to fall the same within the 50km radius experience massive development, while leaving those who fall outside largely depending on the limited resources of the municipality for development. If left unchanged, this will become a major source of future intra-community inequality, which would lead to major community tensions and instability in future. To balance development in the Eastern Cape and other Provinces, I would like to propose that 30 per cent of the 1 and 2.1 per cent of the turnover companies have to spend on socio-economic development and enterprise development over the 20 year life cycle of the project be channelled to municipal coffers for service delivery across the municipality. Government should also take active steps to address the over-concentration of projects in a few areas. In particular, there should be deliberate focus on projects that are situated in previously disadvantaged communities. 3. Complex Land Tenure Systems: Former Homelands at a Competitive Disadvantage A private investor has to secure land rights before participating in the REIPP Procurement Programme. To acquire such rights on communal land, an investor must follow a lengthy and complicated administrative procedure with the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, which takes anything between 3 to 4 years to complete. In contrast it takes a couple of months to achieve the same result when land is acquired from a private landowner. Government has to streamline this process if it has to level the playing field. 4. High Community Ownership and the Role of Development Finance Institutions (IDC) In former Homelands, communities are the landowners, meaning that in rural areas instead of dealing with a few farmers as landlords; a developer has to negotiate with several communities and therefore has to ensure that the project will meaningfully benefit tens of thousands of people, who live on the land earmarked for development. However, when the community is the landlord, most developers will back-end the payment of dividends from the community trust as a way to increase the competitiveness of the project. In other words, developers delay the payment of dividends to the surrounding communities by 10 years. This enables a developer to secure much more favourable financing terms for the community trust, which has a direct impact on the improvement of the project’s finances. But the downside of it is that communities have to wait for ten years to get dividends. Again the playing field is not level, as high community ownership stakes and favourable financing terms are required for projects that have thousands of community members as landlords, but there are currently no incentive schemes or reward mechanisms built into the DOE’s selection criteria to reflect the positive long term socio-economic impacts of rural projects. Moreover, development finance institutions do not provide projects located on communal land in Former Homelands any preferential financing terms for community stakes. For instance, the Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) has been very active in financing community stakes for projects located on privately owned land in the renewable energy hotspots with 50km radius overlap between projects. The terms offered by the IDC to project’s located in former Homelands are less competitive than commercial banks. For instance, one of the Wind Farms in Motherwell had to acquire finance from commercial banks in order to finance the community stake due to the IDC’s unfavourable loan conditions. Clearly, IDC failed to play its developmental role of bridging the inequality gap in our economy in this example. It is estimated that in order to finance a 30 per cent community ownership stake for the 400MW of renewable energy projects that are currently being developed in Former Homelands, about R600 million would be required at competitive rates. The amount of R600 million might seem like a lot of money. But it is not out of reach when one considers that the Department of Economic Development has set aside R23 billion to assist black industrialists out a R100 billion rand package earmarked for industrial development. Currently, lack of funding and other challenges force developers, who are located in former Homelands, to reduce community stakes, back-end the distribution of dividends and reduce the percentage of ED and SED contributions in order to stand a slim chance of winning in the REIPP Procurement Programme. In summary, to level the playing field, I propose that two actions be taken by Government: • The DOE gives more credit in its score card to projects located on communal land in the former Homelands. • Development Finance Institutions provide very competitive financial terms for community stakes in order to beat commercial banks and allow projects to be more competitive. 5. Underutilisation of Electricity Infrastructure. Since 1994, the ANC government has successfully built brand new electricity substations in former Homelands in order to give access to electricity rural communities. This new infrastructure represents cheap and rapid means of connecting renewable energy projects to the grid, while placing no additional financial burden on Eskom. However, the large majority of projects selected to date by the DOE require substantial network investment with the associated timing implications, while the country is in the middle of an energy crisis. The DOE has not taken into account the advantages former Homelands offer in terms of rapid, cheap and decentralized energy generation capacity they bring to the Eskom grid. In other words, it is easier to connect the small wind farm projects to the substations that are in rural areas than it is to connect big renewable farms to the same substations for reasons mentioned above. Again, the playing field is not level, as these advantages which have a financial implication for the country are not taken into account. I look forward to hearing from you. Mr Nqabayomzi Kwankwa, MP Copied to: Honourable Elsie Mmathulare Coleman, Chair PC on Economic Development
Admin
02 Jun, 2015
2015 Budget Vote 2: Parliament -address by Mr Nqabayomzi Kwankwa, MP in the NA
Madam Speaker and Honourable Members, A race to the bottom is currently underway in our Parliament. Today in this House, we engage and deal with our Nation’s challenges, less according to national interests and the need to create a better life for all, but more according to cheap political point scoring and vote maximisation at all costs, and mostly according to the primitive doctrine that might is right. This approach causes us to miss countless opportunities to use our People’s Boardroom as an important space in the public sphere for debates and contestation of ideas. As a consequence, we allow debates to degenerate into an orgy of insults and counter-insults; put bluntly, into an orgy of nonsense our nation can ill afford. We have to arrest this problem, if we are to bequeath to our progeny a vibrant Parliament that is a voice of the people, and not one that is thick with the wreckage of failure. Madame Speaker, Recently, I attended a Conference on Illicit Flows, Transfer Pricing and Tax Evasion in Malawi. While at the conference, we got an opportunity to attend the sitting of the Malawian Parliament and discovered the following. Parliaments of Malawi and Kenya always endeavour to give as much speaking time as they can – sometimes even more time – to the opposition than they do to ruling parties. The rationale behind this is that they believe in the principle that: “The opposition must have its say, while the ruling party will (ultimately) have its way”, (through obviously the use of its majority during voting time in times of disagreements). This does not by any means imply that the ruling parties are not given enough time to articulate their policies and programmes, but that opposition parties are also given ample time to articulate their alternative policy proposals and to scrutinize as well as constructively criticise the work of Government. When speakers run out of time, their presiding officers politely request them to wrap up and they give them a minute or two to do so. This greatly enhanced the dignity and decorum of their House. As a result, our counterparts were shocked to hear that Africa’s model democracy (South Africa) gives opposition parties 3 minutes speaking time during Parliamentary debates. They call it a joke! We have to increase the minimum speaking to 5 minutes in debates in order to give us an opportunity to contribute meaningfully to debates, which would enhance the decorum of the House. Madam Speaker, In conclusion, I believe there is scope for our Parliament to partner with Sister Parliaments on the Continent in the campaign against illicit financial flows, transfer pricing and tax evasion, as well as on other African programmes. The UDM supports Budget Vote 2. Thank you.
Admin
01 Jun, 2015
Message from the UDM President at the 41st Anniversary of the Inkatha Freedom Party
Address by UDM President, Mr BH Holomisa- MP Master of ceremonies, President of the IFP, Mr Mangosuthu Buthelezi, the leadership of the party, members and supporters Indeed, none amongst South Africans, people of the continent and the world over, can deny the immerse contribution that this wonderful party has made in the fight for freedom in our life time. You have made a great contribution to bring the kind of South Africa we all celebrate today, notwithstanding the fact that we still have a long way to go, collectively. Off cause the freedom you fought for is not yet felt and enjoyed by all citizens of the country including the members and supporters of IFP. The period between 1990 and 1994 was not well managed. Many role players in the fight against apartheid were not given the full role to play. The relationship between the current ruling party and the IFP was not good and this has robbed South Africans of a contribution that would have been made in crafting the developmental programme for the country. We went into 1994 as divided political parties in our isolated corners and could not learn from those with experience. However, we are happy that your contribution cannot be forgotten. President Mangosuthu, your decision to form and continue to guide the development and growth of this party was and remains one of the most important ones in the political history of this country. For that, we salute you. IFP, under your stewardship, has grown significantly and made numerous important contributions in shaping the political direction of our country. Your policy proposals cannot go unnoticed and in many circumstances has helped the country to sustain its democracy over the last 21 years. Your fatherly and high moral guidance in Parliament is a source of inspiration, continue to do it. The United Democratic Movement wishes you, your party, members and supporters a great evening and many more years to come. Thank you very much for allowing us to be part of history making. Thanks End
Admin
26 May, 2015
2015 Debate on Budget Vote 1: Presidency address by Bantu Holomisa, MP
Hon Speaker and Members The United Democratic Movement supports this budget vote. Mr President, during the State of the Nation Address you declared the year 2015 as the “… year of unity in Action to Advance Economic Freedom”. However, what is not clear, is a common and simple programme that binds the entire society behind this vision. For instance, the Presidential Infrastructure Coordinating Committee’s work is not known by all citizens. We need a clearer road map of infrastructure development with more achievable targets, timelines and clear monitoring tools. To make matters worse, even the most celebrated National Development Plan does not enjoy the support of the ruling party’s main ally Cosatu. This sometimes causes unnecessary tensions between Labour and Business. Mr President, there is a growing culture of lawlessness that is increasingly characterising us as an unruly Nation that lacks discipline. Every day we witness citizens building homes in places not designed for human settlement, thus leading to multiple social and economic crises. Spatial development for both urban and rural areas requires proper coordination with the involvement of citizens to avoid cost of correcting uncoordinated development post effect. The UDM suggest that a Presidential Council on Sustainable Development with direct participation of the broader civil society be created. This approach will place citizens of the country at the centre of their own development as they seek to realise the vision of the country and promote a culture of ownership of its development direction. Central to the task of the council would be to consolidate and deploy the resources of the country towards an agreed to, development path. Many countries that have practiced this model have benefited significantly. It may be helpful to look again at the experiences of those countries like Canada. The current IDP system lacks aggressive people’s participation. Mr President, we have noted your response in this House about the release of the Marikana report. However, the UDM notes the pressure you find yourself in, given that your highest officials, right from the Deputy President and some Ministers were subject of the work of the commission. It is in the interest of all citizens of this country that you release the report without further delay. Its publication will not deter you from considering its findings. I thank you
