Publications
Partners
Parliament was urged today to support a proposal to establish an independent integrity commission in a bid to weed out corruption.
Speaking before presenting his argument to members of Parliament, Accountability Now director advocate Paul Hoffman told Media 24 the commission needed to have the “status, clout and authority” of Chapter 9 institutions.
Hoffman is proposing an amendment to Chapter Nine of the Constitution to enable an integrity commission to function in a manner that complements the functions of the Auditor-General and the Public Protector.
He began arguing his case before the Constitutional Review Committee this morning, after first submitting his proposal in 2013.
Hoffman told Media 24 that a corruption-busting institution needed to be safeguarded. “The Scorpions worked well in fighting corruption, but was not a Chapter 9 institution. When it caused embarrassment to the ruling party, it was closed down by a simple majority vote in the National Assembly. This can’t happen with a Chapter 9 institution, which can only be closed down through a two thirds majority,” he said yesterday.
Chapter 9 states that such institutions are accountable to Parliament, are subject only to the Constitution and the law.
Critical of the structure and functioning of the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation, otherwise known as the Hawks, Hoffman argues that the integrity commission would be specialised.
An integrity commission would look at organised crime and corruption in general, unlike the public protector which focused on maladministration within the state.
“Because of the dysfunction of the criminal justice administration and limitations of the Hawks, the Public Protector has become the corruption-buster. People who should do that job are not doing it,” said Hoffman.
His proposal is among four constitutional amendment requests from members of the public that would be considered today, said committee chair Vincent Smith.
“Hoffman and others will come to Parliament and argue their case. We will listen, ask for issues of clarity and deliberate. If there is merit, we will then recommend that Parliament refers them to a committee,” he said.
Once a year during June, members of the public were invited to submit proposals for constitutional amendments. “Some submissions are frivolous, others are serious,” said Smith.
Smith was unable to comment on the plan for his committee to deal with the implications of the Constitutional Court ruling on the Nkandla matter after this week’s multiparty meeting convened by the speaker.
“The matter has not yet been formally brought to us,” he said.
