Statement on the Public Protector's Report By Hon. Patricia De Lille, MP
2004-06-25. I must first bring to the attention of the Chair that there is an error in the ATC of 23 June under recommendations point 6 b. The Independent Democrats did not agree with the use of the word Constitutional to describe the alleged infringement on the Deputy President's dignity.
On the report itself:
It is not possible to reject all the findings, nor is it possible to simply confirm all the findings in the report. We would need to have access to all the documents the Public Protector had in order to express and make an informed/decision or finding.
Chapter Nine Institutions are State institutions supporting our Constitutional democracy. In particular Section 181 (2) provides that:
These institutions are independent and subject only to the constitution and the law, and they must be impartial and must exercise their powers and perform their functions without fear, favour or prejudice.
The Public Protector in terms of Section 181 (5) is accountable to Parliament.
Parliament should concern itself with the protection of the integrity and independence of the institutions involved.
The institutions should work towards mutual co-operation and parliament must play its role in ensuring this.
Parliament should not allow itself to be used for internal party differences and fightings.
Parliament is itself independent and must respect and protect the separation of powers.
The Public Protector could have subpoenaed the Minister and Ngcuka in terms of section 4(b) and Section 5 of the Public Protector Act, 1994. He did not. Furthermore Section 181 (3) of the constitution places an obligation on the National Prosecuting Authority to cooperate. But non co-operation should have been dealt with in terms of the subpoena.
At this stage neither the Ad Hoc Committee nor the Public Protector is able to say that if the Minster and National Director of Public Prosecution had co-operated that the report of the Public Protector would have been any different.
Perhaps his actions and report were premature. Maybe he should first have exercised these powers before submitting his report.
It is not possible to reject all the findings, nor is it possible to simply confirm all the findings in the report. We would need to have access to all the documents the Public Protector had in order to express and make an informed/decision or finding.
Chapter Nine Institutions are State institutions supporting our Constitutional democracy. In particular Section 181 (2) provides that:
These institutions are independent and subject only to the constitution and the law, and they must be impartial and must exercise their powers and perform their functions without fear, favour or prejudice.
The Public Protector in terms of Section 181 (5) is accountable to Parliament.
Parliament should concern itself with the protection of the integrity and independence of the institutions involved.
The institutions should work towards mutual co-operation and parliament must play its role in ensuring this.
Parliament should not allow itself to be used for internal party differences and fightings.
Parliament is itself independent and must respect and protect the separation of powers.
The Public Protector could have subpoenaed the Minister and Ngcuka in terms of section 4(b) and Section 5 of the Public Protector Act, 1994. He did not. Furthermore Section 181 (3) of the constitution places an obligation on the National Prosecuting Authority to cooperate. But non co-operation should have been dealt with in terms of the subpoena.
At this stage neither the Ad Hoc Committee nor the Public Protector is able to say that if the Minster and National Director of Public Prosecution had co-operated that the report of the Public Protector would have been any different.
Perhaps his actions and report were premature. Maybe he should first have exercised these powers before submitting his report.
