Chief Justice Raymond Zondo recently questioned whether Parliament had the resolve to confront state capture should it re-emerge.

He reminded us that Parliament has the powers needed but the ANC prevented action being taken, acting in the interests of the party rather than the people.

Lawson Naidoo, executive secretary of the Council for the Advancement of the SA Constitution, says the rhetorical question posed by the Chief Justice is whether the majority party in Parliament would act differently now.

‘As the primary institution mandated to oversee executive conduct as well as that of organs of state, its failures contributed significantly to the impunity that enabled state capture.’

Writing in the Sunday Times, Naidoo notes Zondo has recommended a permanent commission be established to investigate and publicly expose acts of state capture and corruption.

‘He proposes that the commission will need to keep an eye on how Parliament performs its oversight function. It will be a constitutional paradox for a body, even an independent one, to oversee the functioning of a democratically elected body,’ says Naidoo.

He adds some ‘precise’ recommendations about Parliament include a committee to exercise oversight over the Presidency, appointing MPs from opposition parties to chair some portfolio committees, and greater resources and technical support for committees.

‘It is also proposed that MPs be protected from losing their party membership (and their seats) merely for exercising their oversight duties.’

Regarding Zondo’s call to Parliament to review the electoral system, Naidoo notes the government and parties in Parliament appear ‘hostile’ to any constituency system. ‘Zondo has tabled the notion of a directly elected President, but this is unlikely to gain momentum.’

He adds: ‘There has been consternation that Zondo’s recommendations are not binding, and therefore the state capture inquiry was a waste of R1bn. This could not be further from the truth even though a commission is instituted by a President, the recommendations are merely advisory. But the transparent way it was conducted means South Africans are familiar with the testimony and have a good idea of what action needs to be taken.’

Full analysis in the Sunday Times