Media briefing by the Joint Committee on Ethics and Members Interests on Former Communications Minister

Journalist: What is going to be done about the finding that other officials of the Department of Communications (DoC) committed perjury?

Prof Turok: The panel, which conducted the hearings, was a joint multi-party panel consisting of representatives from the ANC, DA, IFP and COPE. It worked together with the Registrar and the Parliamentary Legal Advisers and it was a difficult case that took five days of hearings, eight witnesses altogether and remarkably, the panel was unanimous all through. The Joint Committee had the intention to uphold the proper conduct of Members of Parliament and the integrity of the institution. The decision arrived at was a unanimous one, both by the panel and by the ethics Committee which adopted the report by the panel.

The officials from the Department of Communication were identified in the report and the report is going to be sent to the President, and the Public Service Commission. The Committee has no doubt that the senior members of the executive to whom the officials’ account, are going to look at the report and see what has to be done within the Department. It had to be emphasised that the Committee is a Committee of Parliament primarily concerned with the conduct of Members of Parliament, including Ministers. Whether the officials committed certain acts, which the Committee believed they did, was not within the scope of the Committee and was referred to the people to whom the officials report.   

Journalist: Were officials from the Communications Department going to be pursued? What should happen to the public funds involved since there was looting of public funds with Mr Mngqibisa benefiting from the Department even though he was not in the employ of the state? Who was the witness called by Former Minister Dina Pule?

Prof Turok: On the question of public funds, this issue fell into two categories. The first was money, which was spent on the travel of Mr Mngqibisa and hotel accommodation. This was relatively small though there were a number of trips and it was up to the Department to decide what to do about that money. There was a bigger amount which was the money paid to Khemano as a result of Khemano being a company led by Mr Mngqibisa which became a partner in the ICT Indaba. The evidence was that Khemano was paid R6 million by the ICT Indaba and Mr Mngqibisa himself gave evidence to the fact that he had received R600 000 as a kind of salary. The matter went further than that because the kind of influence that Mr Mngqibisa was able to exercise as a result of his relation with Hon. Pule went beyond the ICT Indaba itself and perhaps into other terrain, which still had to be explored.

Journalist: What was the period that was under investigation? What is the Rand figure of the money that flowed to Former Minister Dina Pule’s spouse? In terms of procedure, what was going to happen after the publishing of the report? Could it form the basis of a criminal investigation? Were any of the findings of the Committee presented to the President of the Republic and did that form part of the rationale for her dismissal?

Prof Turok: The period involved were about four years and the association and travels went back along that period. So the Committee and the panel had to investigate the activities over that period. It was extremely difficult because a file dealing with one of these trips was lost in the Department of Communication. Officials said this in evidence. More seriously, the officials were very reticent in indicating just how the matters were handled. In the Department of Communication, there did not seem to be total clarity on how the companions of Ministers record their trips and how this was managed. The evidence before the Committee was a little bit conflicting.

I agree that the actions were criminal in nature and the perjury of some officials is of course criminal. It is up to the authorities in various areas to investigate. The Committee also recommended that the South African Police Services and the National Prosecuting Authority should investigate the breach of the Powers and Privileges Act of Parliament which laid down very severe penalties for lying. Although the investigation of the Committee was primarily focused on the declarations in terms of the code of conduct, but as the panel was proceeding, it became clear that it had to take account of other legislation, particularly the Ministerial Ethics Act, and the Powers and Privileges Act as well as the Constitution.

Mr Mashile: On the questions of informing the President of details which led to her sacking, the Committee had finalised its job today (07 August 2013) and that was the only time that it was releasing facts related to the investigation. Nothing was released before this day. The investigations covered the period from 2009.

Journalist: Why did it take so long for the Ethics Committee to start its investigation when these allegations were about a year ago? Is Ms Dina Pule still an active Member of Parliament for the ANC and is she going to be seen in the National Assembly once her privileges have been reinstated?

Prof Turok: As to why it took so long before investigations were started, the media made allegations of various people on a daily basis and Parliament did not necessarily follow up every report in the press. It did not automatically take up every case exposed in the media. So although there were stories in the Sunday Times and the press about misconduct, it had to take a little bit of convincing for the Committee to decide which case had to be investigated. In this particular matter and in addition to what the media was saying, two Members of Parliament formally wrote to the Committee asking it to investigate. On the basis of all this, the Committee decided to ask the Registrar to begin an investigation. So there was a preliminary investigation by the Registrar who reported that there was a dispute of the facts and based on that the Committee appointed a panel to do the proper hearings. Parliament could not respond immediately to every media report. Often media reports were not substantial and referred to previous periods so much care had to be taken.

Hon. Pule is still a Member of Parliament and the Committee could not state how active she was at the moment because Parliament was now in a period of constituency work and was in recess recently so it was not every Member who was very active in that sense as they had to be in their constituencies doing work, so he could not answer how active she was. The plenary was going to resume shortly and only then could it be seen exactly what role she wished to play.

Journalist: When was the actual report of the Committee going to be made public? What was the significance of the shoes and the insistence that the shoes had to be declared?

Prof Turok: The purpose of the media briefing was to publish the report. The report was going to be distributed immediately.

On the shoes issue, the Sunday Times ran a series of reports about the shoes and it was alleged that the shoes were very expensive and there was some kind of drama about the shoes. I do not where those shoes so I am not an expert, and I do not know how people wear those shoes or even walk in them. The Committee was however interested in the question of declaration because a Member of Parliament had to declare gifts above a certain value and the shoes apparently fall in to that category. There was some evidence about the shoes but the Committee could not get the corroborative evidence about the shoes so no findings were made on the question of the shoes and as it happened, there was plenty of other evidence about other issues.

Journalist: Who were the witnesses called during the hearings?

Prof Turok: The names of the witnesses were in the report and the report was being referred to the proper authorities. 

Journalist: How many charges did the former Minister face? Was she found guilty on all the charges? Did she admit to any wrongdoing and what was her response to the charges put before her?

Prof Turok: The charges related to disclosure and there was one charge where she failed to prove. This was regarding the shoes. On the rest of the charges, the Committee found her guilty. She did not admit to anything. She submitted two affidavits in which she denied the allegations. 

Journalist: Within the Ethics Committee, was there a feeling that the Committee was hamstrung by the current Code as far as imposing harsher and tougher sentences? Was Hon. Pule still honourable after all this?

Prof Turok: The Code was under revision and the Committee had adopted a revised version of the Code and the revised version had been sent to all the parties for examination and approval. The experience of the Pule investigations indicated that there had to be some adjustments but that was still to be looked into. During the course of the proceedings, numerous points of law arose and the Committee received an excellent legal opinion from the Parliamentary Legal Advisers that was attached to the report. In my own view, the opinion helps to clarify a great deal about how Parliament looked at ethical conduct and what the rules said about that. There were many nuances in this regard. 

Ms Pule was still a Member of Parliament and in Parliament everybody was honourable regardless of personal judgements about them. Using the term Honourable was a formal type of address like Mr or Ms, and was not an honorific title. 

Journalist: With the plenary only set to sit down for the last week of August, when is the Committee expecting this to come before the House for consideration? Would the Committee like to have it wrapped up urgently? If the Committee was given a carte blanche what sort of things would it want in its Code of Conduct arsenal?

Prof Turok: In terms of timeframe, the Committee was negotiating with the Table in the House and a date was proposed. The Committee was very keen to ensure that the statement was made in the House this term and he was sure it would happen.

Journalist: Were the rules which were being used new rules after 1994 or they were old rules from the previous regime?

Prof Turok: The Code of Conduct came with democracy so it was a new document, adopted by the Joint Rules of Parliament and the new government tried to look at conduct in this type of systematic way. The Code was carefully drafted but in laws and in rules, there was never perfection.

Journalist: In terms of harsh penalties, was it the place of the ANC to decide whether to fire Hon Pule?

Prof Turok: The Committee was not in the position to say what the ANC leadership would do on the matter. She was still a Member of Parliament. He could not say what the decision of the ANC authorities would be in respect to Hon Pule and time was going to tell regarding what Luthuli House was going to decide.

The briefing was closed.