Phala Phala | Corruption Watch, OUTA welcome ruling

Añadido: 2026-05-10

[00:00:00]Reaction has been pouring in on the constitutional court's judgment. For more reaction, let's get the response from corruption watch and the organization undoing tax abuse to report and also to speak on the implications that it has. I'm joined on the line by Leuhang Ramoko who's the executive director of corruption watch as well as Wayne Duvenich who is the CEO of out.

[00:00:20]Good to have you both on the program this afternoon. Lehang, I'll start with you. I I want to get your immediate reaction to the constitutional court's ruling but also speaking to how significant it is a moment for accountability in this country. Let's speak to that.

[00:00:36]Thank you very much. I mean since the beginning of this matter in 2022, corruption watch has been very clear that parliament ought to do the right thing. It ought to be seen as transparent and holding anybody accountable. h anybody who is in a constitutionally mandated institution ought to be held accountable. And when they ignored that report that the president indeed there is premier fake evidence that he's got a case to answer to, we saw not that there are no rules and regulations, but that depending on who you are, they can be applied selectively. And it is very very important as stated within even our 2030 strategy >> that in this country we are having a lack of transparency and accountability.

[00:01:29]And it was so symbolic that this judgment was given on the 30th anniversary of the constitution. A constitution that was sitting at a site of struggle where even women were held that said never again we will have laws in South Africa. The preamble of the constitution starts with we the people, not we, the select few. And so we really welcome that judgment.

[00:01:54]>> Wayne, let's bring you in. I mean, Ala has long argued for stronger oversight and accountability as well. Do you believe this judgment then exposes serious failures, especially within our parliament?

[00:02:11]>> Wayne, if you'd unmute your microphone for us there.

[00:02:15]Sorry.

[00:02:15]>> Yeah. Go ahead.

[00:02:17]>> There we go. Sorry. Uh can you hear me?

[00:02:20]>> Loud and clear. Go ahead.

[00:02:21]>> Yeah. So very clear um this judgment to indicate that you cannot uh have a dominant party sideststepping the uh the need for accountability. Uh and so it was good to see the constitutional court uh finding that the National Assembly rule 129 certainly needed to be amended uh so that we can uh have parliament do what it's supposed to do which is apply meaningful oversight and uh to hold uh the president to account and those days now with this lack of m majority have changed in the new in the seventh administration and it's going to be very interesting to see which way it goes but if uh you look at all the facts. If you look at all the red flags and the the smoke that is billowing out of this case, >> it's very clear to us that the that that that judgment was good and that we're going to see uh a meaningful accountability playing out.

[00:03:16]>> Lehang, let's track back a bit. I mean, uh Corruption Watch says Parliament should have acted differently after the section 89 panel report, but where do you believe lawmakers failed in carrying out their constitutional duties?

[00:03:31]You know, I think Wayne has mentioned it. I think uh when people get into parliament, what happens um and it has happened over a a you know, a long period of time is that they don't act in the best interest of the people. They act in the best interest of their political parties and for a very long time they have used their majority to just sidestep the law. And in fact, I think this judgment is an indictment on everybody sitting in parliament, including the speaker.

[00:04:01]>> Yeah.

[00:04:01]>> H who failed really to say what does the law say? And this is not about President Ramaposa. I think this is just about whether or not we've got institutions constitutionally e constituted um instit institutions that can really rule on the on the on the you know on on the side of the people and follow the law and what has happened is the fact that all of this has been lacks because I mean when you've got a majority >> you know who can who can really stand um you know against you but I think h what has also happened is that parliament has believed um and and I don't know why do they do this to themselves that they can be a law on on on on themselves that the people of South Africa do not matter that the decisions that they make do not matter because as I say we are not having public servants in the um you know in the in the in the true sense of the word we are having people who are saving their parties and this is partly the party political stance that people are taking rather than serving the the house that they sit in and the mandate that they have as public servants and not public kings and queens.

[00:05:17]>> Wayne, as we round up our conversation, many South Africans still feel political interests often outweigh constitutional obligations. So speaking to that, has this ruling then strengthened concerns about party loyalty undermining oversight?

[00:05:33]>> Yeah, it has. Uh we've seen it far too often. We've seen it come out of the words the mouths of the leaders in the past where party is always put before the country and you can see that playing out in that in that uh decision that was taken some time ago. But what we are moved and comforted by now is the fact that we have a constitutional court that corrects those bad decisions. It took too long uh to get here. This should have happened some time ago. uh but it is comforting to know that we the constitutional court plays this role meaningfully without interfering with the executive powers. It sends them back and says do your job properly. So uh yeah party politics cannot trump accountability. It was a good judgment.

[00:06:15]>> Lehang as we conclude as well uh what reforms or safeguards would you like to see being implemented from now on to really strengthen parliamentary oversight but also accountability processes going forward?

[00:06:28]is going to start with the people that we elect especially because we are leading into local government elections.

[00:06:36]I think we need to interrogate the track record of many of the parties and I think we are going to have to ask them difficult questions but I think civil society needs to be strengthened as well to support such uh judgments and and to ensure that where there has been even judgments and and there has been outcomes of commissions that we do not stop the pressure of making those whether they are state or non-state um actors to account and to take action against all wrongdoing. It's it's in our hands and this is our country and we've got the laws to do so.

[00:07:11]>> Similarly, Wayne, with the little time that we have left, what reforms or safeguards would you like to see being implemented to really strengthen parliamentary oversight and accountability processes?

[00:07:22]>> Well, we can see that that that rule 129 has to be changed. Um, and and that's good. Uh, we cannot have what we saw going back. I mean, we've got a good constitution. We've got good laws. We've got good processes in place. So, nothing really needs to change. It does just come down to the political will uh of the people in parliament and uh and again, I think a message was clearly sent to those who uh voted in the wrong way um that they should never have done so. So, I don't think we need to change much as far as our laws and rules go. We really need to just apply them apply them more meaningfully going forward.

[00:07:59]Let me thank you both for your time and a very meaningful discussion as well unpacking all the happenings uh in parliament of course in the apex court in the constitutional court ruling on the parap matter that was lean raoku as well as Wayne Duven joining us from outer and giving us their perspectives on this constitutional court ruling.