M Mushwana: investigation of allegations of unethical and improper
conduct by P Mlambo­Ngcuka

25 August 2006

Good morning ladies and gentlemen

Once again it is my singular honour and privilege to welcome you to our
third media briefing this year and first such briefing at Parliament and in
Cape Town. I particularly welcome members of both print and electronic media
and thank you for your continued support by honouring our invitations. While we
continue to maintain our respective independencies, it is during these
briefings that we share our respective views that enable us to report to the
greater masses of our people in a more meaningful and informative way.

Before I continue with our main briefing on our agenda today, I wish to
report that we have completed our further investigation that was carried out in
respect of Minister Skweyiya. We are about 50% towards completing our report in
this regard and we hope to submit it to the President soon. The delay is mainly
due to the amount of documentation that we had to go through before we could
settle down to write our report.

We will during the same period as stated above issue our report on the
alleged failure of certain Ministers and Deputy Ministers to declare their
financial interests, as required by the Executive Ethics Code.

All these matters are indeed of complex nature and indeed of public
interest. Our office will continue to summon every effort that similar
complaints in future are investigated within the shortest possible time. We
reiterate, they are indeed complex and convoluted and require a lot of time and
concentration.

We now come to the main business of the day, which is a briefing on our
report on an investigation of allegations against the Deputy President. We are
aware that some of you have already had sight of the report and have reported
on it, we however thought we should nevertheless give the media an opportunity
to interact with us on the merits and demerits of our findings and
recommendation.

As you are by now aware on 15 August 2006, I submitted my final report on an
investigation into allegations of unethical and improper conduct by Deputy
President P Mlambo-Ngcuka relating to her private visit to the United Arab
Emirates in December 2005, to the President of the RSA, the Hon Thabo
Mbeki.

At a previous media briefing that we held at our Pretoria offices where we
briefed the media on the progress of this matter we indicated that the
complaints against the Deputy President relating to her trip to the United Arab
Emirates (UAE) was lodged by a Member of Parliament, in terms the provisions of
the Executive Members' Ethics Act of 1998. The Act makes it peremptory on the
Public Protector to investigate any complaint of a breach of the Executive
Ethics Code lodged by a Member of the National Assembly against a Member of the
Cabinet. It also provides that the Public Protector must, at the conclusion of
such an investigation submit a report to the President, who is in turn enjoined
to submit such a report together with his/her comments, to the National
Assembly within 14 days thereafter. This means therefore that the report on the
investigation of the alleged private trip of Deputy President Mlambo-Ngcuka to
the UAE that was funded by the state would be regarded as having been
officially released once the President tables it together with his/her comments
at the National Assembly. We have now been informed that the Hon President
Mbeki has since tabled his report and comments at the National Assembly earlier
this morning. We have further been advised that the President concurs with our
findings and recommendations. The President further states as follows:
"Regarding other comments made by the Public Protector, relating to some of the
policy matters investigated and procedural matters, I have instructed the
Secretary of Cabinet, as recommended in the Report, to take urgent steps to
ensure that Cabinet addresses them and that they be included in an approved
Presidential Handbook".

On 10 January 2006, reports were published in the print media alleging that
the Deputy President went on vacation leave to the UAE at the expense of the
South African taxpayer in December 2005. It was averred that the Presidency
commissioned an aircraft of the South African Air Force (SAAF) to transport the
Deputy President, her husband and her children to the UAE, even though her
visit was unofficial and that the costs involved was in the region of R400
000.

The Presidency issued a statement in response to the said allegations of
impropriety committed by the Deputy President. The statement confirmed that the
Deputy President did indeed undertake a private visit to the UAE from 27 to 31
December 2005. It was elucidated that an aircraft of the SAAF was used to
transport her and her entourage to the UAE stating further that the State is
obliged to take full responsibility for her transport and security,
irrespective of whether her travels are official or private.

The media covered the allegations in connection with the Deputy President's
said visit to the UAE comprehensively. The Deputy President was reported as
having stated that her visit was partly work related and partly vacation. It
was also alleged that apart from her family, the Deputy President had also been
accompanied by Mrs T Skweyiya, the wife of the Minister of Social Development,
and Mr S Macozoma, a prominent businessman and an ANC Executive Member.

The Presidency again responded to the continued allegations of impropriety
as repeated by the media in their reports of 17 January 2006, reiterating what
it stated in its earlier statement. In addition it was, inter alia, stated
that:

* The President and the Deputy President do not decide themselves on the
modalities and manner of their travels, whether official or private, as it is
the responsibility of the South African Police Service.
* The Deputy President was also accompanied on the aircraft concerned by her
husband, two children, Mrs Skweyiya and the two children of her personal
assistant who is a single parent.
* No official meetings were held during her visit, but the Deputy President and
her entourage visited several buildings, sites and a public exhibition on
infrastructure development.
* The Deputy President and her entourage were afforded the hospitality of the
Government of the UAE that provided them with accommodation during their
stay.

On the same day, 17 January 2006, Mr Morgan, a Democratic Alliance (DA)
Member of Parliament lodged a complaint with us in terms of sections 3 and 4 of
the Executive Members' Ethic Act. He referred to the said statements of the
Presidency and the allegations in the media that the Deputy President had been
accompanied to the UAE by the spouse of a Minister and senior officials of the
ANC. Mr Morgan in essence expressed the view that the allegations of the
misappropriation of public money made against the Deputy President point at a
possible breach of the Executive Ethics Code as it might amount to:

* Conduct that is inconsistent with her office and not in the interests of
good governance.
* Exposing her to a situation involving the risk of a conflict of interest. In
this regard reference was made to the allegations that the Deputy President had
contact with a construction industry in the UAE during her visit. On this
particular excursion she is alleged to have been accompanied by her husband who
has interests in a South African construction company.
* An improper benefit for those who accompanied her who are not members of the
Government.

It was also suggested that the hospitality offered to the Deputy President
by the UAE during her stay amounted to a benefit that needed to be declared in
terms of the Code.

Mr Spies, a Freedom Front Plus Member of Parliament, also lodged a complaint
with us on 17 January 2006, requesting that we investigate the matter.

The DA moreover requested the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public
Accounts and the Auditor-General to investigate the alleged misappropriation of
public funds by the Deputy President. Having considered this request, the
Committee decided not to investigate the matter as requested by the DA. The
Auditor-General indicated that the matter would be considered during the normal
audit of the Presidency. This was of course a retraction from his earlier
pronouncements to the effect that he would consider investigating the matter
should he be approached with a request to do so.

The buck stopped with us and in February 2006 we commenced with an
investigation in terms of the Executive Members' Ethics Act. It was of course
at this stage and some time later that some journalist expressed concerns that
the investigation was unduly delayed and requested that this matter should be
treated as a matter of extreme urgency. While we concede the importance and
urgency of this matter, its magnitude and complexity cannot be overemphasised
as it will become clearer shortly.

During our investigation we exchanged extensive correspondences with and
received voluminous documentation from the Deputy President, the
Director-General and Chief Accounting Officer of the Presidency, the Department
of Defence and the South African Police Service. We also consulted the
Divisional Commissioner: Protection and Security Service of the SAPS, the
Secretary of the Cabinet and senior officials of the Office of the
Auditor-General.

An international comparative study in connection with the security and
transport arrangements designed for Deputy Presidents and office bearers of
equal status was commissioned and conducted by researchers of the Centre for
African Renaissance Studies of the University of South Africa. We also
considered and applied the relevant provisions of the Constitution, the
Executive Members' Ethics Act and the Executive Ethics Code.

The whole of this consultative exercise, exchanges of correspondences and
the subsequent research as commissioned was intended to assist us to arrive at
an appropriate decision. It must further be emphasised that this was a matter
of its own kind with no precedent to draw from.

Where reference was made to policies and similar considerations, we had to
determine whether the Public Protector has the powers to investigate such
government policies. On the basis of South African jurisprudence we came to the
conclusion that the Public Protector can investigate the formulation and
implementation of government policy. However, whether the contents of a policy
is otherwise desirable and appropriate under the circumstances is a political
issue that falls outside of the ambit of the jurisdiction of the Public
Protector.

The Deputy President departed on board an aircraft of the SAAF from
Waterkloof Air Force Base to the UAE on 27 December 2005. On board the aircraft
were also her husband, son, a dependant that lives with her, Mrs Skweyiya, a
member of the SAPS Presidential Protection Unit, the two children of her
Private Secretary and four flight crew members.

The Deputy President returned to South Africa on 31 December 2005, aboard
the same aircraft, the same passengers as well as Mr Moopeloa, the South
African Ambassador to the UAE.

The total cost of the trip to the UAE amounted to approximately R604 883,
excluding the costs of the SAPS Presidential Protection Unit. We were informed
that the cost was still an estimate as the final figure would only be known
once all payments shall have been effected. The Deputy President and her
entourage were accommodating at the expense of the Government of the UAE.

The provisions of the relevant legislation, the information obtained and the
evidence submitted during the investigation indicated that:

* The State has a constitutional obligation to protect the Deputy President
on a full time basis during her/his tenure and after she/he leaves office.
Former Presidents and Deputy Presidents are protected by the State, at
substantial cost, despite the fact that they are not performing any official
duties. In our investigation it indeed emerged that that the estimated
expenditure of the SAPS for the 2005/06 financial year relating to the
protection of former Presidents and Deputy Presidents amounted to:

* more that R2 million in the case of former President P W Botha
* R3 million in respect of former President and Deputy President De Klerk
* R5 million for the protection of former President Mandela
* R6,8 million in the case of former Deputy President Zuma

* The protection together with the associated expenditure of the Deputy
President in office is in the national interest. It is based on provisions of
the Constitution, national legislation and policies approved by the
Cabinet.

* The security measures instituted by the State to protect the Deputy
President apply irrespective of whether she/he performs official duties or is
on vacation.

* The status of Presidency or that of Deputy President does not vacillate
with the epoch of being or not on duty, the risk remains the same. At times
some unpopular decisions are taken in order to rule or to govern and therefore
such decisions do follow those who retire and the risks remain potentially the
same, hence the continued protection of those who retire.

* The policies and practices regulating the protection of the Deputy
President are in line with most international conventions, standards and
Practices.

* The SAPS is responsible for the maintenance of safety and security of the
Deputy President.

* The Deputy President is obliged to accept and conform to the protection
measures implemented by the SAPS. She/he has no control over the decisions
taken by the SAPS in this regard as it is based on government policy and
relates directly to the position that she/he occupies and not only to her/him
as a person. The risk and security assessments as conducted by the responsible
section of the police from time to time directs and give guidance of the modes
of transport to be used from time to time as well as the destination that can
be approved at any given time.

* The protection measures of the Deputy President currently include that
she/he is obliged to travel, locally and abroad, by an aircraft of the SAAF at
the expense of the Department of Defence, irrespective of the purpose of the
trip. She/he has no choice in the matter.

* The requirement that the Deputy President has to be transported by an
aircraft of the SAAF forms part of a total security package. The costs of such
air travels are budgeted and accounted for by the Department of Defence.
* Only in circumstances where an aircraft of the SAAF is not available, would
the Deputy President be allowed to travel by commercial airline.

In such circumstances, strict security measures would apply (at substantial
cost to the State) to ensure that the Deputy President is properly protected,
which include creating a safe and sterile departure point at the airport,
clearing the seating area in the immediate vicinity of the Deputy President and
special measures and clearances at the point of arrival to prevent diplomatic
incidents or embarrassment to her/him:

* The security arrangements that apply when the Deputy President travels by
commercial airline are cumbersome and cause significant inconvenience to the
travelling public and individuals who may have booked seats in advance. It
generates the animosity of those affected and causes embarrassment to the
Deputy President. The security equipment that has to accompany the Deputy
President when she/he travels by commercial airline is risky and costly to
transport. There is also always the risk that the luggage of the Deputy
President, which often includes documentation and other material that are of
national interest, will be stolen or lost. Aircraft of the SAAF transporting
the Deputy President enjoys full diplomatic immunity. Utilising this form of
transport is conducive to a much more secure travelling environment.

* The mode of transport that is allocated to the President as well as the
Deputy President must be such that it will always enable them to respond to any
emergency call in any part of the country at the shortest notice. Whether or
not they are on duty they remain on call for 24 hours.

* The Deputy President is entitled to take leave whenever it is possible for
her/him to do so and to travel to any destination of her/his choice when she/he
is on vacation.

* The obligation of the State to protect the Deputy President, even when
she/he is on leave, cannot infringe on her/his right to go on vacation to the
destination of her/his choice. It also cannot prevent her/him from being
accompanied by her/his family and friends/ should she/he wish to take them
along. The fact that the mode of transport is prescribed to her/him by the
SAPS, for security reasons and in terms of government policy does not
disqualify her/him from travelling wherever she/he wants to go on vacation.

* The Deputy President went on vacation to the UAE with the approval of the
President. The Presidency was informed of her visit and her Private Secretary
had to accompany her, in terms of the practice and policy of the Presidency.
Approval in this regard was granted by the Director-General of the
Presidency.

* In terms of the policies providing for the full time protection of the
Deputy President, she had to be transported to the UAE by means of an aircraft
of the SAAF at the expense of the Department of Defence.

* The expenditure incurred by the Presidency for the trip to the UAE was
approved by the Chief Accounting Officer in terms of the relevant provisions of
the Public Finance Management Act, 1999.

* The Deputy President was entitled, in terms of a policy approved by the
Cabinet in 1994, to be accompanied on her vacation trip to the UAE by her
family, friends and other passengers of her choice.

* The Deputy President was obliged, by virtue of her position, to consider
and accept the offer of the UAE Government to accommodate her and her entourage
during their stay in the UAE. Declining the offer could have insulted the Head
of State of the UAE and it would have been a contravention of protocol and
accepted international conventions on matters of this nature. A decline would
have had a negative impact on diplomatic relations between the two
countries.

* The hospitality that the Deputy President received from the UAE government
did not constitute a 'gift' in terms of the Executive Ethics Code this was not
a personal gift but a gift to the office of the Presidency.

* Under the circumstances it cannot be found that the Deputy President acted
improperly or that she failed to act in good faith and in the best interests of
good governance or in a manner that is inconsistent with her office, as
alleged.

She was entitled, as is anyone else in her similar position and status, to
take her family, a friend and the children of her Private Secretary with her to
the UAE, and no-one therefore improperly benefited from the trip.

The finding we made from the investigation is that:

The Deputy President did not act improperly or in breach of the Executive
Ethics Code when she went on vacation to the United Arab Emirates in December
2005.

We recommended to the President that the Secretary of the Cabinet take
urgent steps to ensure that the draft Presidential Handbook, which incorporates
the relevant policies and prescripts in one document, deals with the matters
and issues investigated in clear and certain terms and that it is submitted to
the Cabinet for consideration. As we stated above the President is in the
process to implement this recommendation.

I wish to thank the Deputy President, the Presidency, the Department of
Defence and the South African Police Service and the Department of Defence for
their cooperation and assistance in our investigation. It is the nature of
things and in conformity with human nature that I should commend and rejoice
with those who agree with my findings and recommendations and of course
commiserate with those who differ with my findings and recommendations,
darkness is followed by sunshine, so their day shall come.

Issued by: Public Protector South Africa
25 August 2006