Following an investigation by the Public Protector’s Office into complaints of maladministration, corruption, irregularities in the procurement of the Riverside Office Park to accommodate the head office of the Independent Electoral Commission, in August 2013, the Public Protector issued her report on this matter, entitled “Inappropriate Moves”: report 13 of 2013/14.
At the same time, the Speaker of the National Assembly received a letter from the Public Protector to which Report 13 of 2013/14 was attached for the Speaker’s information.
The Public Protector stated among other things:
“the widely spread submissions made by Advocate Tlakula, Chairperson of the Electoral Commission, in the media in which she challenges my investigation’s procedural and substantive fairness has raised serious concerns.”
“...in view of the above and in order to ensure that fairness prevails, I would humbly request you, the Honourable Speaker, to intervene in terms of section 2(b)(iii) of the Public Protector Act, act 23 of 1994, and consider referring the matter to the Chairperson of the Electoral Court to allow him an opportunity to consider investigating the matter in terms of section 20(7) of the Electoral Commission Act, 51 of 1996”.
On Wednesday, 11 September 2013 the National Assembly approved a resolution establishing an ad-hoc committee “to consider and report on the recommendations contained in the Public Protector Report 13 of 2013/14 and also to consider the request of the Public Protector that the report be referred to the Electoral Court”.
At its first meeting, your Ad-Hoc Committee agreed to request formal, written responses to Public Protector Report no. 13 of 2013/14 from the Independent Electoral Commission; the Chairperson of the I.E.C Adv Tlakula; the former commissioners of the IEC and the Auditor-General’s office.
In addition, as chair of the Ad-Hoc Committee, I wrote to the Public Protector seeking clarity on her reference to section 2(b)(iii) of the Public Protector Act, because there is no (iii) in section 2(b) of that act.
In her written reply the Public Protector corrects the incorrect reference and then goes on to state in paragraph 3:
“…my intention for referring the matter to the Speaker was for him to consider the report as both institutions of the Public Protector and the Electoral Commission report to the Speaker administratively. With respect, it was never my intention to have the report tabled in Parliament.”
Equally significantly the Independent Electoral Commission states in their written response in paragraph 3:
“…our understanding is that the Electoral Commission is not empowered to deal with this matter insofar as it relates to one of the commissioners. Accordingly, we will wait for the Honourable Speaker to advise us of the advice given to the President on the appropriate action considered to be taken.”
Moreover, in order to assist the Ad-Hoc Committee in its consideration of this matter, the Committee requested a legal opinion from Parliament’s legal advisors. This legal opinion went a long way in assisting the Ad-Hoc Committee to reach the conclusions contained in the report serving before the House.
It must be noted that the intention of the Public Protector was for the Speaker to meet with the Independent Electoral Commission, to the exclusion of the Chairperson of the IEC, and consider whether action should be taken against Adv. Tlakula for her role in the procurement of the Riverside Office Park.
The Ad-Hoc Committee rejects this recommendation for the reasons provided in our report and we ask the National Assembly to endorse the Ad-Hoc Committee’s findings by adopting this report.
