10TH International Conference of Ombud Institutions for the Armed Forces (10ICOAF) Emperors’ Palace
Advocate Busisiwe Mkhwebane, the Public Protector of South Africa
Lt. General (retired) T. T. Matanzima, South African Military Ombud
Ambassador Thomas Guerber, Director DCAF
Heads and Representatives of the Ombud Institutions for the Armed Forces
Inspector Generals
Heads of Delegations
Ambassadors, Defence Attaches,
AOMA Acting Secretariat,
Members of Parliament and Independent Commissioners,
Members of the media
Delegates, Ladies and gentlemen
It is a significant achievement to officially open this 10th International Conference of Ombud Institutions for the Armed Forces at the Emperors’ Palace organized by South Africa’s Military Ombud, Lt. General (Retired) T. T. Matanzima . It is poignant that we having the meeting at this venue, previously called the World Trade Centre, a location that was the playing ground and basis of the origins of our democracy, hosting the first multi-party negotiations, the Convention for Democratic South Africa, CODESA. This was at the end of 1991, and it was on these grounds that the basis of our constitution was born, after months and months of negotiations intermittently with the advent of the unbanning of the liberation movements and the beginning of the return of exiles as well as release of political prisoners. The Convention for Democratic South Africa was rudely interrupted in June 1993 when the white right-wing Afrikaner Weerstand Beweging (AWB) invaded and destroyed this structure with an armored vehicle, occupying the negotiations chamber and thus leading to the halt of the negotiations.
It is important to take a glimpse of our history to make us understand where we come from and the institutions of democracy that were created and by which we live today. A lot has happened since then, with the adoption of South Africa’s constitution in 1996 two years after the holding of the first ever free and fair democratic national elections on 27th April 1994. The cornerstones of our democracy established a state founded on three institutions of state – the executive, the judiciary and the legislature, each charged with respective, separate responsibilities but not in competition but in cooperation on the basis of the key principles of cooperative governance. In addition, important institutions were created to bolster our democracy, what is commonly referred to as Chapter Nine institutions. For purposes of this conference, I will single out the office of the Public Protector, which is represented today by the Public Protector, Advocate Mkhwebane. I single out this institution as it laid the basis for what is today the Office of the Military Ombudsman.
Early on in our democracy we set about changing the defence policy landscape, and in this regard went through the length and breadth of the country to find out from our people what kind of defence establishment they wanted. It must be recalled that at the time we had gone through the integration process of our disparate armed forces, no less than eight of them drawn from the liberation armies of uMkhonto we Sizwe (MK) and the Azanian Peoples Liberation Army (APLA); the former South African National Defence Force (SADF); the four former homeland armies of the Transkei Defence Force (TDF); Bophuthatswana Defence Force (BDF); Venda Defence Force (VDF) and the Ciskei Defence Force (CDF). The eight was the Kwa-Zulu Special Protection Force (KZSPF), which had not been part of the negotiations until within days before the historic elections on 27th April 1994.
The key policy document that was adopted by Cabinet and our Parliament was the White Paper on Defence in May 1996, which further cemented the basis for the establishment of the Military Ombuds institution. The White Paper had drawn extensively from the provisions of the Interim Constitution, and reflected a national consensus on defence policy. This national consensus was drawn from the substantial inputs from parliament, members of the public, non-governmental organisations, and the entirety of the defence establishment – both the SANDF, DOD and the defence industry respectively. Chapter 3 of the White Paper on Defence, deals with Civil-Military Relations, in particular the section 9 on Authority and Powers. It clearly states that “the DoD supports the creation of the post of Military Ombudsperson whose main duties are to monitor adherence to democratic civil-military relations, undertake investigations at the request of Parliament, and investigate complaints against the SANDF by military personnel and members of the public. The ombudsperson would be an independent official who is appointed by, and reports to, Parliament. The powers and functions of the ombudsperson would be spelt out in legislation.”
From the onset, as an effort to have this office in place, the DOD approached the former Public Protector, Advocate (now Judge of the North Gauteng High Court) Selby Baqwa, for the establishment of the office of the military ombud. It must be stated the ongoing engagement with the Public Protector at the time had limited results. The position of the Public Protector at the time was that “there is no need to have a fully-fledged, separate office of the Military Ombud” but an arrangement could be made for appointment of an official with the necessary qualification and skills to look into matters related to the armed forces as spelt out in the White Paper. Thus an appointment was effected of an Advocate Dave Scrooby, located within the office of the Public Protector. The office as it was then configured did not have enough teeth and parliament was not satisfied about its running and operations, with the view that it was “too close” to the defence establishment and could not satisfactorily launch investigations.
Over time the demise of the office was inevitable, and this was also coupled with the evolving South African National Defence Force, which was concentrating on consolidation as the newly integrated force and at the same time faced with the need to rationalise concomitant to the decreasing defence budget.
At the same time, parliament was still firmly of the view that the policy pronouncements of the 1996 White Paper on Defence must be implemented to the letter by the administration. It then became one of the priority tasks when the new administration took office following the national elections in 2009, reopening the chapter about the setting up of the office of the Military Ombud. Legislation was developed and taken through cabinet and parliament, eventually resulting in the enactment of the Military Ombud Act 4 of 2012. The office was created as an independent entity of the Minister of Defence and Military Veterans reporting directly to the Minister on its recommendations and with its own budget allocation transferred. The SANDF is obliged to implement the recommendations of the Ombud or take them on review should it be deemed fit.
In the South African context, what have been “the evolving roles and responsibilities of the armed forces and the implications for ombuds institutions” has been addressed earlier with the exposition of the evolution of South Africa’s ombud institution, a product of our democracy. Furthermore for the evolving roles, for South Africa this has been the establishment of a united, non-racial and non-sexist defence force through the integration process; the consolidation and rationalization of the armed forces, parallel, the demobilization of those members no longer wishing to be enlisted in the armed forces. The engagement in peace support operations, starting with observer missions in the AU predecessor the OAU, moving on to peace support operations, with “peacekeeping unusual” in Burundi, and later other missions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan to mention but a few.
I wish to take the opportunity to mention the hosting of this conference as a partnership with the Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of the Armed Forces (DCAF). It is supported by the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA) as well as the Federal Foreign Office of Germany; the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung; the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung. All of these have been sponsors and supporters in many ways over the years. I must also reflect that South Africa’s Department of Defence became a member of DCAF in 2001 and has remained actively involved ever since, culminating in this 10th international conference focusing on the military ombuds institutions and their evolving roles. The DOD previously, during 2006 and on the fiftieth anniversary of the 1956 Women’s March, jointly hosted, with DCAF, a seminar on “Women Making their mark in the Security Sector - Gender and Security Sector Reform”. That seminar drew delegates from across the security services in our country, as well as the Departments of Foreign Affairs (DFA), SSA and DCAF. In 2009 there was further a Gender Mainstreaming conference with the theme “Bringing the men in the armed forces on board”. This resulted in development of gender advisors after undergoing a course with DCAF’s support.
As we hold this 10th International Conference of Ombud Institutions, we need to reflect on the extent of involvement of our continent in these structures, and further how being members or participating in the activities of these will further enhance our countries’ own oversight mechanisms with the evolving roles and responsibilities. Account must also be taken that much as the focus tends to be on the military, there are many other elements of the security that get impacted and who have a role to play. In this regard I would single out areas of border control, migration, policing, customs, and arms control, to mention but a few. Our different countries’ configuration of force structure and design ultimately define who would fall under the scope of the ombud institutions of the armed forces. I am hoping that the next few days of the conference will result in an exchange of ideas and sharing best practice, assisting and motivating those who may not have institutions similar to or for the armed forces can traverse their way.
Furthermore, this being the 10th instalment of this conference should also give us an opportunity to reflect on lessons learnt. This is especially as the nature of war has changed drastically from what it was two decades ago, and the characterization as asymmetric warfare and more and more intra state conflicts with the involvement of external players.
As I conclude, I hope and trust that you will have robust discussions and that your recommendations will be considered in our respective countries. I am particularly pleased that this time there is a larger presence of countries from the continent, and trust that they will contribute to shaping the outcomes of the conference as well as implementation of the recommendations.
I thank you.
