So you’re bringing back the Scorpions?
No.
The ID will be using the same prosecution-led investigation model, won’t it?
It does have some of those features but we are making it permanent. For us the key issue is to have a strict focus on matters emanating from the Zondo commission of inquiry. That is the top priority the president committed to … and with this bill we are fulfilling that promise.
How permanent will the ID be when it starts investigating big names in the ruling party involved in state capture?
Even now its independence is guaranteed under the NPA laws. In terms of the constitution the NPA’s independence is protected.
How independent will the ID be if it stays housed within the NPA?
The constitution guarantees the independence of the NPA, and the NPA Act makes interference in its prosecutorial decisions either from the private sector or from the executive or from anyone, a criminal offence.
Doesn’t the constitution place the NPA under the final responsibility of the minister of justice?
Yes, it does.
Doesn’t the department of justice serve as the accounting officer of the NPA?
Yes, it does.
So how can the NPA be said to be independent?
Because neither the department of justice nor the minister has power by legislation to interfere in prosecutorial decisions.
If the ID upsets the ruling party it could be dissolved by a 51% vote in parliament, just like the Scorpions, couldn’t it?
The ID is doing its job and there is no-one who is intending to dissolve it.
You think the ruling party’s going to allow the ID to go after its leaders?
The ruling party has no policy to protect corruption. There is no doubt that the ANC supports work to strengthen institutions that are aimed to fight corruption.
The ruling party has no policy to protect corruption. There is no doubt that the ANC supports work to strengthen institutions that are aimed to fight corruption
If you and the ruling party are so serious about fighting corruption why haven’t you made the ID a chapter 9 institution?
The argument that only a chapter 9 institution is independent is misplaced. There’s no perfect model for any prosecutorial authority, even the Glenister case acknowledged that in its judgment.
Doesn’t your bill ignore requirements laid down in that judgment by the Constitutional Court for an effective corruption-fighting body?
The bill recognises and complies with that judgment. All those elements are in the bill, that it must be independent, there must be security of tenure ...
How does the bill comply with security of tenure?
The ID is now permanent. Everyone will be appointed on a permanent basis, there will be no threat to their security of tenure.
Don’t they have the same security of tenure threat faced by the Scorpions? A 51% vote in parliament?
Even a chapter 9 institution can be dissolved by parliament.
Only by a 75% vote?
Yes, but if we get the 75% it can be dissolved.
That’s a big difference, isn’t it?
Yes, but I don’t think security of tenure should be measured on the basis of a percentage in parliament, it should be measured in terms of the law that establishes security of tenure.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.