Enquiries into Jiba and Mrwebi long overdue

The Democratic Alliance (DA) welcomes the decision by President Cyril Ramaphosa to institute enquiries into the fitness of Nomgcobo Jiba and Lawrence Mrwebi to hold office.

Although the Supreme Court of Appeal in July overturned an earlier decision by the High Court to strike the pair from the roll of advocates, the DA has always maintained that they are not fit and proper persons to occupy office. The pair were appointed and promoted to their exalted positions under the disastrous tenure of now disgraced former National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP), Shaun Abrahams.

Together, Jiba and Mrwebi played integral roles in the capture of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA). Amongst other things, this capture saw President Jacob Zuma’s prosecution on corruption charges delayed by almost a decade while he, his family, and his associates were allowed to plunder the national coffers with impunity.

If there is any hope for the revival of a near-terminally ill NPA, it is imperative that that Jiba and Mrwebi be excised, like a cancer, from the body. Whether it is too late to save the patient, only time will tell.

The DA looks forward to studying the terms of reference that will be drafted for the enquiry and trust that the process will continue apace. South Africans deserve a criminal justice system that is independent, just, and effective. Jiba and Mrwebi are relics from a dark chapter in the institution’s history and the sooner they leave the better it will be for all.

DA to probe basis and details of Abrahams retirement

The DA has taken note of media reports indicating that former National Director of Public Prosecutions (“NDPP”), Advocate Shaun Abrahams, has retired. It is manifestly clear that this is a way for Advocate Abrahams to avoid the consequences of the damage he has wrought on the institution of the National Prosecuting Authority in the past three years.

The DA will therefore probe the rationale for the decision to grant him retirement, as well as the basis on which his benefits will be determined.

While employed as NDPP, Shaun Abrahams demonstrated that he is a deeply compromised individual with an extremely poor grasp of basic legal principles and that he has no respect for the rule of law. His time at the head of the NPA was marked by political persecutions and a weakening of the institution’s independence, which opened the door for the executive branch of the ANC government to exercise undue influence over prosecutions. He also oversaw an exodus of talented and qualified prosecutors who could no longer serve under his compromised leadership.

Earlier this month, his appointment as NDPP was set aside by the Constitutional Court, which court determined that he was never lawfully appointed.

The DA therefore believe that Advocate Abrahams’ retirement benefits should not be those that would be due to a retiring NDPP, but should instead be that attached to Advocate Abrahams’ last held position, that of a senior state advocate in the Priority Crimes Litigation department.

The DA will also question the rationale for Abrahams’ exit from the NPA being processed as a retirement. Ironically, one of the biggest blunders from Abrahams’ ill-fated stint as NDPP was the persecution of Minister Pravin Gordhan and senior SARS officials, Ivan Pillay and Oupa Magashule, over the alleged unlawful approval of Gordhan’s early retirement.

South Africans deserve a criminal justice system that is independent, just, and effective. The NPA under Abrahams was the exact opposite. His exit is a welcome close to an awful chapter. He will not be missed.

Ramaphosa choice of Acting NDPP does not bode well for restoring the independence of the NPA

The DA has taken note of President Cyril Ramaphosa’s appointment of Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions, Dr. Silas Ramaite, to the position of Acting National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP).

Ramaite has in the past defended the decision of former NDPP Bulelani Ngcuka to not institute corruption charges against former President Jacob Zuma in the infamous “Spy Tapes” saga. He even went so far as to acknowledge his own co-responsibility on the issue, stating in 2004 that “We had made the decision as a collective in the NPA and we stand by it” and that “It was not as if Bulelani sat there in the office and took decisions alone.”

He has sat idly by while successive NDPP’s and Acting NDPP’s, including Mokotedi Mpshe, Menzi Simelane, Nomgcobo Jiba and Shaun Abrahams systematically destroyed the fabric of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and South Africa’s criminal justice system. His track record proves that, at best,  he is weak, vacillating and pliable.

President Ramaphosa must urgently appoint a new permanent NDPP, and it is our belief that he should involve Parliament in the selection process.

Under the ANC, the NPA and other key institutions who charged with combating priority crimes like corruption, have been reduced to mere puppets who serve at the pleasure of the ANC mafia. Over the past decade, they have often been tasked with carrying out political hits rather than being allowed to carry out investigations and prosecutions without fear or favour.

The DA has a plan to ensure that the appointment and removal of the NDPP is subject to proper oversight and accountability. Whereas section 179 of the Constitution currently provides for the NDPP to be appointed by the President, as head of the national executive, we will introduce a Private Member’s Bill that requires that the President’s decision be informed by a resolution of the National Assembly passed with a supporting vote of at least 60% of the members of the National Assembly, which resolution should be based on the recommendation of a committee of the National Assembly.

The NPA has been the plaything of the Executive for far too long. Dr Ramaite’s appointment does nothing to correct that.

Zuma must finally get his day in court

The DA welcomes President Cyril Ramaphosa’s decision to abandon the futile appeal, launched by his predecessor, Jacob Zuma, against the North Gauteng High Court decision which found that the appointment of Adv. Shaun Abrahams was invalid.
We can only hope that this will result in the immediate removal of the discredited National Director of Public Prosecution (NDPP) and Zuma’s keeper, Adv. Abrahams.
Ramaphosa must now move swiftly in appointing a credible, untainted person to head of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA).
On 18 February, the DA called on President Ramaphosa to restore public confidence in the NPA and lend integrity to the process to charge Zuma by abandoning his predecessor’s appeal against the North Gauteng High Court decision. We also called on him to involve a parliamentary committee in the appointment of a new, impartial NDPP.
The time has arrived for the NPA to reinstate the 783 counts of corruption, fraud, racketeering and money-laundering against Zuma, and the new head of the NPA must make this their first priority.

DA welcomes NPA’s action against Guptas

The DA welcomes that the Asset Forfeiture Unit (AFU) of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) has taken action against the State Capture brothers, the Guptas, by serving a summons to preserve assists worth approximately R1.6 billion.

This is not as not as a result of Shaun Abrahams, who tried to stall, but as a result of pressure and hard work of the AFU team under Adv. Knox Molelle.

The DA has doggedly pursued those suspected of being involved in the project of State Capture with a number of us laying criminal charges against key individuals, which we trust assisted the Hawks and now the NPA in their investigations and decision to pursue the Gupta’s albeit rather delayed.

These charges included:

  • In September 2017, DA Shadow Minister of Public Enterprises, Natasha Mazzone, laid criminal charges of fraud, racketeering and collusion against global consultancy firm, McKinsey, in terms of Section 21 of the Prevention and Combatting of Corrupt Activities Act after it appeared that McKinsey allegedly ignored warnings from senior South African staff members, that the deals done with Trillian, Eskom and other Gupta-linked companies were not above board;


  • In July 2017, she also laid criminal charges against Eskom’s Chief Financial Officer, Anoj Singh, for breaches of Section 50 (1) of the Public Finance Management Act (PMFA) for his alleged role in the Guptas’ capture of Eskom through the Tegeta agreement and the Trillion contracts;


  • In the same month, Natasha Mazzone laid charges of charges of money laundering and corruption against the South African component of global software giant, SAP, and Gupta-affiliated company CAD House, following allegations of R100 million in kickbacks changed hands between the two companies;


  • In July 2017, David Maynier laid charges of money laundering, fraud, corruption, racketeering against Atul Gupta, Ajay Gupta, Rajesh Gupta, Ronica Ragavan and Kamal Vasram, in terms of the Prevention of Organized Crime Act and the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, following revelations that public funds were used to pay for Vega Gupta and Aakash Jahajgarhia’s wedding at Sun City in 2013;


  • In July 2017, DA Leader, Mmusi Maimane and DA Shadow Minister of Finance, David Maynier MP, laid charges of in terms of the Prevention and Combatting of Corruption Activities Act, relating to the findings of the State Capture Report against the Gupta-family, President Jacob Zuma, Brian Molefe and Mosebenzi Zwane; and


  • In June 2017, I laid charges of money laundering, fraud, corruption, against the Gupta’s and their associates in relation to the Estina dairy farm matter.

This preservation order, to be served tomorrow, is only the first step in holding those responsible for looting the people’s money and we expect to see other such action against the President’s son, Duduzane Zuma, and the President himself so that they can be held accountable for their role in State Capture.

DA welcomes another judgement against Abrahams

The Democratic Alliance congratulates Freedom Under Law on their victory in the North Gauteng High Court today.
Once again the actions of Shaun Abrahams have been sharply called into question by our courts. Today’s judgement, effectively setting aside the clearly irrational and expedient decision by Abrahams to withdraw fraud and perjury charges against Jiba, has demonstrated again that he is unfit for high office. The sooner he vacates that position, the sooner the work to reverse the capture of the NPA can begin.
Unsurprisingly, the President has also once again been found wanting. Jiba and Mwrebi should now face the consequences of their actions and be held accountable for the damage they have wrought.
This judgement again confirms that the judiciary will enforce the Constitution and the rule of law and that those who choose to flout these principles will be held to account.

Zuma must be charged by 16h00 today

Please find the DA’s full representations attached here.
The Democratic Alliance (DA) has today filed our submissions to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) arguing as to why Jacob Zuma should immediately face the 783 charges of corruption, fraud, money-laundering and racketeering in a court of law as soon as practically possible. Our submissions are in line with the NPA’s deadline for submission which is today, 30 November 2017.
Our submissions echo that which the DA has consistently stated from the get-go. That is, the charges against Jacob Zuma were irrationally dropped by the NPA in April 2009 and as such exist and are in effect. Prosecution must therefore continue without delay. However, in the unlikely event that President Zuma does in fact have materially new and relevant submissions to make, these ought to be considered by a court of law, not the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP), Adv Shaun Abrahams.
The submissions reiterate the following pertinent facts:

  • The decision taken by then acting NDPP, Adv Mpshe, on 29 November 2007, to prosecute Jacob Zuma stands;
  • Adv Mpshe’s later decision, announced on 6 April 2009, to discontinue prosecution, has been set aside;
  • The only basis for Adv Mpshe’s 2009 decision to discontinue prosecution was that there was improper political influence in the timing of the service of indictment on Jacob Zuma. This argument has been rejected and defeated in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA);
  • The charges against Jacob Zuma stand, and he ought to face these charges in a court of law.

In terms of the President’s right to make representations, we note that Zuma has already been afforded the opportunity to make extensive representations which were fully considered and largely rejected. However, if there are any fresh representations submitted by the President today, the DA will not be in a position to deal with them until we have had sight of them.
Therefore we have requested the NPA shares these representations with all interested parties – including the DA – and that those interested parties are given an opportunity of 14 calendar days to comment on such representations.
Lastly, the independence and impartiality of National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) has been questionable on numerous occasions in this matter. These are set out fully in our submissions.
Therefore, we are of the view that if the President raises any new representations of substance, a court of law must make a determination as to whether those justify stopping the prosecution, or not. This is to guarantee a fair and open consideration of any new representations by the President. The most appropriate process to follow is either for the President to lay out his representations in a comprehensive application for a permanent stay of prosecution in court, or for the President to formally raise any objections in his actual criminal proceedings before court.
Yesterday marked exactly 10 years to the day that the NPA took a decision to prosecute Jacob Zuma for 783 counts of fraud, corruption, money laundering and racketeering. Since then, Zuma has used every trick in the book, and every delay tactic at his disposal to frustrate and delay the matter. But Jacob Zuma knows full well that despite this, he will have his day in court, he will face the charges for the crimes he is accused of, and justice will prevail.
The DA will not relent in our fight to ensure that our justice system works and that those who are criminally charged have their day in court. This is no different for the President.

High profile burglaries require action not evasion

Yet another break-in at a ‘secure’ building of a key office of the justice system has been confirmed. Given the deafening silence from Minister of Police, Fikile Mbalula, and the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP), Shaun Abrahams, the DA will request that they be summoned before a joint sitting of the Police and Justice Portfolio Committees to brief on what progress, if any, has been made in investigating these seemingly co-ordinated and extremely worrying incidents.
The National Prosecuting Authority today confirmed that there was a break in at the Magistrates’ Court in Pretoria last Thursday, and that the office of the Chief Public Prosecutor, Mr Matric Luphondo, was the office targeted.
The fact that this particular break-in and breach of security was kept quiet for nearly a week raises even more concern.
The security breach comes on the back of several such breaches, at the Helen Suzman Foundation, at the Parliamentary offices of the SABC, at the Office of the Chief Justice, the Offices of the Hawks in Silverton and the Offices of the Director of Public Prosecutions in North Gauteng.
No credible progress has been made in the investigation of any of these incidents, no credible arrests have been made.  This despite the fact that the break-ins have occurred at buildings containing very sensitive information, with very good security and guarded 24/7.
This is clearly orchestrated to gather information to intimidate the judiciary, the press and those members of civil society who are deemed to oppose the current regime.
It is now time that the public and Parliament is given a full and proper briefing as to what exactly is being done to find the culprits and to put a stop to any further burglaries.

No, We Won’t Stop Fighting for a Better Parliament

Note to editors: The following speech was delivered in Parliament today by the Chief Whip of the Democratic Alliance, John Steenhuisen MP, during the Budget Vote on Parliament.
House Chairperson,
A few weeks ago, as the Speaker was beating a hasty retreat from the newly constituted Joint Standing Committee on the Financial Management of Parliament (JSCFMP), she had an emotional outburst where she asked me a very interesting question. She said, and I quote, “don’t you ever get tired of fighting?”
Given events at the ANC National Executive Committee (NEC) over the weekend, perhaps the Speaker should rather have been directing that question to colleagues in her own party!
Nevertheless, this weekend’s meeting of the NEC and the release of emails confirm the fact that President Zuma’s cabinet is captured by an extensive network of parasitic vampires who are sucking the very lifeblood from our state and the State-Owned Entities.
They have set up a parallel government that operates through mutually nefarious means and evades all forms of accountability through its tentacles that extend all the way from the Union Buildings, right through organs of state like the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), and reach deep down into local municipalities.
Two things have emerged, as clear as daylight, from this weekend’s events:
1. South Africa doesn’t have a Jacob Zuma problem, it has an ANC problem – the rot in the ANC goes deep and wide.
2. The ANC knows what the problem is; their alliance partners know what the problem is (which is why Mr Zuma is no longer welcome at their events); South Africans know what the problem is; religious bodies know what the problem is (which is why they have taken to the streets in record numbers not seen since the advent of democracy); and those commentators and ANC members who keep holding out for the “self-correction” are going to grow old waiting for something they will never see. The ANC is incapable of self-correction and it will be up to the voters to force the spring of correction through the ballot box.
And that is why Parliament cannot continue to turn a half glance to the seriousness of the crisis our nation faces through capture of our state. This is exactly why the Leader of the Opposition has proposed that this House establishes an ad hoc committee to probe the extent of state capture.
Witnesses must be subpoenaed, documents must be demanded and those Ministers implicated must face full and proper enquiry by this House. The Constitution gave us the power to do this and we must exercise those powers on behalf of the people to get to the bottom of this scourge and expose and remove this network, root and branch, from our government, State-Owned Entities and wherever it has planted its poisonous roots.
Simply chipping away in individual committees may expose some of the branches but will not deal with the rotten root. That will require a broad and overreaching enquiry that will be able to get a full picture of the extent of the problem. Parliament must do the job that the framers of our constitution intended it to do.
What should a Parliament do?
The Constitution is explicit on what we should be doing as Parliament and section 42(3) sets out very simply the four things we must do:
1. Choose a President;
2. Providing a national forum for the public consideration of issues;
3. Pass legislation;
4. Scrutinize and oversee executive action.
Now you can have all the plans, protocols, intentions and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that you like, and we have listened to the Speaker rattling off how well she thinks Parliament is doing. But the reality is, once all the management jargon has been stripped away, if we are not meeting these four simple Constitutional expectations then we are not performing our job. They are the core functions of Parliament and we should be measured by them. So how are we doing on these?
Choosing a president:
Well, the less said about this the better. The truth is that we have a President who has been found by the Constitutional Court to have failed to uphold his oath of office, violated the very Constitution he was supposed to protect, and who continues to ride roughshod over democratic institutions and process.
We elected him in this House and we should have had the courage to remove him when he failed us and the people of South Africa. Yet we allow him to continue in office. The Ipsos poll released today showed that 62% of ANC voters disapprove of Mr Zuma and his approval rating is the lowest of any of the country’s democratically elected presidents. Clearly, South Africans, particularly the 9 million unemployed, don’t think too highly of this Parliament’s performance on this score.
Providing a national forum for the public consideration of issues:
Again, hardly a stellar performance here. The freedom of speech in this House, bequeathed to us by the Constitution no less and which should be a right protected with all the might our presiding officers can muster, is being eroded and undermined every day.
Simple terms, quite ordinarily used in Parliaments and debating forums around the world, have been banned. Members’ rights to say the things that need to be said, particularly members of the opposition, are restricted through a stranglehold of insecure presiding officers. Time and again the members of this House have had to approach the courts to get them to uphold this right, yet time and again the rights are eroded.
Just last week, opposition Members were prevented from calling a minister “an invisible minister”. A Parliament where Members, as public representatives, cannot raise matters in a forthright and robust manner is not good for democracy and not worthy of the name.
Passing legislation:
This should be one of the most important functions performed by us and, given how long we have been doing it, something which should be improving and not declining. Yet on a regular and steady basis legislation passed in this house is struck down by the courts as invalid or unconstitutional.
Shoddy, job-wrecking legislation is pushed through and, despite their obvious failings and legal problems, the ANC cannot bring themselves to correct the errors and omissions. Here in the House they stubbornly march on incorrect paths passing legislation (that’s when they are actually able to get their MPs to pitch for work on the day!) and are then repeatedly beaten in court.
The Speaker has had a lot today to say on empowering and capacitating MPs to do their job. It would be nice if we could just start by making sure that we have enough researchers, legal advisors and content advisors at a committee level so we can properly scrutinise the legislation that the Executive send to us and play the role of proper legislators.
Scrutinising and overseeing Executive action:
Anybody who thinks that this 5th Parliament has met its expectations in this regards must have been living on another planet. This is probably the requirement where we have witnessed the worst failures. At every turn the Executive has been protected from proper accountability and scrutiny.
The Nkandla Report should have been the massive wake-up call that this Parliament needed to overhaul and reconsider how we hold the executive accountable. There was a single tick-box meeting after this devastating indictment on this Parliament’s failure and zero action arising from it. The protection and shielding of the executive has simply continued.
Nowhere is this more evident than the manner in which the Executive is protected by Speaker Mbete during oral question sessions. Bearing in mind that these are the only unscripted exchanges where MPs can truly hold the Executive accountable, the Speaker always defaults to protecting the Executive from difficult and probing questions posed by MPs.
It is for this reason that the SABC was virtually brought to its knees before Minister of Communications, Faith Muthambi, who belatedly felt the firm hand of parliamentary accountability in the ad hoc committee probing the SABC. For an entire year before this, Muthambi was allowed to regularly evade parliamentary accountability with impunity by simply not answering written and oral questions by opposition MPs or by not showing up. There were never any consequences
We witnessed the same pattern with the Minister of Social Development, Bathabile Dlamini, who was also consistently aided and abetted by the Speaker to avoid answering the tough questions relating to the impending South African Social Security Agency (SASSA) grants crisis. Minister Dlamini was allowed to regularly mislead the House over her Department’s readiness to take over social grant payments on 1 April 2017.
When opposition MPs challenged these glaring factual inaccuracies in the House, the Speaker was the first to rush to Dlamini’s defense.
When the anatomy of both these crises is properly examined it is plain to see that both could have been avoided had Parliament been doing its job, without fear and favour, and had those Members who take their role seriously been protected in performing their role by a Speaker who actually placed the institution above her organisation.
South Africa requires a functioning and vibrant Parliament if our multi-party democracy is to survive. It also requires a Parliament that is unafraid of holding the Executive accountable as the Constitution prescribes.
The Speaker
Given the myriad of institutional failings, the Speaker’s dismal record of court losses, the daily own goals and organisational foul-ups, one could be forgiven for thinking there was not enough institutional support for the office. Quite the opposite actually, the Speaker has over 42 employees in her organogram costing over R37 million.
I was particularly interested to note that there is an entire office of nine full-time employees who form the so-called Office on Institutions Supporting Democracy, which includes a Director who rakes in over R1.5 million per annum, a Constitutional and legal advice specialist earning R1.4 million, two legal assistants and a manager.
All this and yet when I made a simple inquiry of the Speaker about some outstanding reports from Chapter 9 institutions I received a letter confirming there were none. Surprise, surprise, less than one week later the reports were magically ATC’d. You have an entire office of people whose full time job it is to liaise and monitor with chapter nine institutions and they couldn’t even pick this up. What a disgrace.
The rules of the National Assembly, in acknowledging the key importance of impartiality, directs the Speaker to conduct herself impartially. Rule 26(4) states that “the Speaker must act fairly and impartially and apply the rules with due regard to ensuring the participation of members of all parties in a manner consistent with democracy”. Whenever the Speaker acts in a way that is partisan, biased or conducts herself in a manner that favours a single political agenda, she breaks that covenant.
So it may be convenient to “not hear” when a member is being sworn at under your nose (despite the fact that the whole nation heard it) or refuse to take action when a female member of the opposition is called a “straatmeid” or become conveniently deaf when Mr Dicks shouts out “rented Darkie”. But every time you do this, Speaker, it undermines the very rules that you are tasked with upholding and enforcing. You do this at your own peril and by extension open yourself up to attack and also place the consistent enforceability of the rules of the National Assembly at great risk.
The Secretary to Parliament
Parliament is much more than just bricks and mortar, it is a living institution made up of people. It cannot function without them and today I want to pay special tribute to the hard-working men and women that make up our staff. I want to say to those that really care about this institution and are invested in its success that your work, under difficult circumstances, is greatly appreciated.
And that’s why I am filled with deep sadness when I see the way that many of you are disrespected, targeted and treated like criminals, sidelined and marginalised, threatened or intimidated by the Secretary to Parliament. Since Mr Mgidlana’s arrival in our Parliament there has been a rapid decline in industrial relations and for many this is not a happy place to work.
On top of this the staff have now received notice that there will be no pay increases this year because there is not enough money. Given inflation and rising cost-of-living, this essentially amounts to a decrease.
It never ceases to amaze me that when it comes to the luxuries there is never a problem finding money. Take for example the international travel of the secretary to Parliament. Given the amount of international travel he does I sometimes think he believes he is the secretary to the United Nations, not the secretary to the Parliament of South Africa. In March last year he spent seven nights in a Lusaka Hotel at R21 000 a night, and enjoyed a rented limousine that cost R800 per hour, adding up to some R37 000 for the duration of his stay. We have, through the JSCFMP, asked for a full breakdown of all international travel costs by the Secretary.
This is of course on top of the blue light brigades, and VIP European and international travel. It seems when it comes to the Secretary to Parliament there is no destination too far or conference to obscure that he isn’t ready to pack his bags for. Despite his multi-million rand salary he has added insult to injury by awarding himself a bursary. Why does somebody who earns what he does require a bursary? There must be countless of our employees who are more deserving and more appropriate recipients.
I would also be remiss if I were not to express concern at the spate of new appointments at a senior management level. It is very clear that a determined and unashamed cadre deployment strategy is at play. How else would somebody like the deeply partisan former ANC spokesperson, Moloto Mothapo, simply drift through the swing doors, suddenly be appointed as the spokesperson for a multi-party, non-partisan institution like Parliament. The employment procedures were rigged and subverted to make sure that the ANC’s dark arts practitioner could get work. He has wasted no time in proving his critics right by turning the Parliamentary media operation into an extension of the ANC attack machine.
I also suppose that we shouldn’t expect any different when the Secretary himself cannot distinguish his role between the Party and the Institution, which is why he sees no problem attending ANC speakers’ forums at Luthuli House to carry out party business. Of course, “Goebbels” Mathopo promptly tried to spin the Secretary as this non-partisan who attends to all party caucuses. I bet there is not a single other party caucus or training that has been graced by his presence. I’m going to investigate who paid for those flights and accommodation costs to attend this meeting. I have a sneaking suspicion what the answer will be.
How funny then that Mgidlana punts the recently launched “new organisational values”, values which include professionalism, integrity, accountability, openness and teamwork, when he and his closest affiliates practice none of these.
Take for example how “special bid adjudication committees” are set up where the Secretary appoints himself to serve despite the fact that the supply chain regulations do not provide for this and where the Secretary is supposed to act as the adjudicator, essentially being both player and referee. We believe that this is a serious breach of the Supply Chain Management (SCM) regulations and the Financial Management of Parliament and Legislatures Act (FMPPLA). We have further concerns about the process used by the Secretary to simply write off fruitless and wasteful expenditure.
It’s clear that the secretary wants to deal with the deficit by making the staff pay for it through denying them bonuses, which they have worked hard for, and by retrenching those staff members who do not bend to his whims. I have a message for those staff members to stand firm. The time is fast approaching when this Parliament will be under new management and we can turn it into a world-class operation by truly working together for the betterment of this special institution.
We can have a functioning and effective Parliament. It’s going to require leaders both political and administrative who put the needs of this institution first, ahead of self-interest, ahead of party interest.
We can truly be an institution that represents our people, their hopes, their concerns, their needs and aspirations, but that means we must always put the people first, ahead of selfish interests and narrow partisanship.
We believe passionately in this institution. We believe that when Parliament works, South Africa works and we must, as an institution, strive harder every single day to live up to the expectations placed upon us by the framers of the Constitution and the people of this great nation.
And so, back to the beginning if I may. Madam Speaker, the answer to your question is an emphatic no!
No, I will never get tired of fighting for a Parliament that does what it is supposed to do.
No, I will never get tired of fighting for the 9 million unemployed South Africans who have suffered through the policies of the Zuma administration.
No, I will never get tired of fighting for greater executive accountability from the President and his cabinet.
And most of all no, I will never get tired of fighting to hold you accountable, and for you to just do your job as the head of this institution.

DA requests meeting with NDPP Shaun Abrahams over indecision on Zuma Nkandla charges

Last week, I wrote to the Minister of Justice, Michael Masutha, requesting that he urgently see to it that a decision is taken on the already concluded investigation into the eight charges of corruption regarding the Nkandla scandal I laid against President Jacob Zuma in March 2014.
In a vague reply, the Minister of Justice stated that he would not intervene, but would continue to “monitor the situation”. This response is wholly inadequate and shows a Minister who is compromised and refuses to take responsibility, preferring to continue to defend and shield  Jacob Zuma.
I have therefore requested an urgent meeting with the National Director of Public Prosecutions, Adv. Shaun Abrahams, in order to press the matter with him personally. As the complainant in this case, I cannot accept that a decision still hasn’t been taken in over 3 years. If no commitment is made by Adv Abrahams in this meeting, we will be left with no choice but to approach the courts to compel the National Prosecuting Authority to take a decision to either charge or not charge President Jacob Zuma for his role in the Nkandla scandal.
The Minister of Police has stated in a reply to my Written Parliamentary Question that the investigation “has been concluded”, and that “the case docket was handed into the office of the NDPP on 21 August 2015, for a decision on prosecution”. And since August 2015, the NPA has seemingly avoided this matter in its entirety.
This matter is not a complicated one. An investigation has been concluded, and the docket has been sent to the NPA. The role of the NPA is simple – it must decide to either prosecute Jacob Zuma or not prosecute Jacob Zuma.
The NPA cannot carry out a mandate of selective prosecution. This is a direct violation of its duty to prosecute without fear, favour or prejudice. Mr Abrahams faces the simple task of doing his job by prosecuting any citizen who has a case to answer for, even if that person happens to be the Head of State.