Who will guard the guardians in the GNU?

The seventh parliament is just over a month old and already MPs have had a packed programme relating to budgets and the committees overseeing the various ministries in the government of national unity (GNU).

Such oversight, however, does not apply to the all-powerful presidency. While every ministry has a dedicated parliamentary oversight committee, consisting of 11 MPs, there is no similar institution to oversee and scrutinise the work of the presidency.

As a result, there’s been a growing demand from the opposition — and from some within the GNU itself — for the establishment of a special presidency committee.

The call isn’t new. Chief justice Raymond Zondo recommended in his state capture commission report that parliament should consider “whether it would be desirable for it to establish a committee to oversee the presidency”. And MPs in the sixth parliament called for increased oversight — though the ANC, with its majority, objected.

Now, with the ANC down to 40% support and leading the GNU, things may change. Already the issue is the subject of debate, with some MPs arguing that increased oversight is necessary to ensure accountability and transparency in the executive branch. A committee overseeing the presidency could strengthen the checks and balances in the government and enhance public trust in the presidency.

However, so far there has been little interest from the ANC, with the party arguing that the president’s work is conducted through cabinet ministers who are all overseen by the committees. The party’s new chief whip, Mdumiseni Ntuli, told parliament during the presidency budget debate: “The president provides leadership to the government, and the presidency is critical in strengthening policy co-ordination.”

There’s been a lot of centralisation of power in the presidency and it has  absorbed  a number of entities, including all the SOEs

—  Kevin Mileham

It’s no trifling matter. The presidency under Cyril Ramaphosa has become particularly powerful, with several ministries, influential panels, task teams and presidential advisory councils located in his office.

The ministries of state security and of electricity & energy fall in the purview of the presidency, as does the ministry of planning, monitoring & evaluation. The last-mentioned department bears responsibility for all state-owned entities (SOEs). In Ramaphosa’s view, that will allow SOEs to be strategically better positioned and for their balance sheets to be strengthened, operational service to be improved and investment in infrastructure to be increased.

Then there are the task teams in the presidency, including Operation Vulindlela — a joint venture between the presidency and the National Treasury aimed at accelerating the implementation of several structural reforms and support for the economy — as well as the Energy Crisis Committee and the Presidential Climate Commission.

There are also forums and advisory councils, such as an anti-corruption advisory council and a presidential working group on disability, which report directly to the president. Ramaphosa argues that these advisory bodies are important for implementing key policies and says they have played a “pivotal role in transforming the government”. But the number of these structures has ramped up: according to the Parliamentary Monitoring Group, Ramaphosa has established close to 26 of these entities since taking office.

Taken together, the structures have allowed Ramaphosa to centralise power and streamline decision-making within the presidency. Supporters of the system believe the entities are necessary for efficient governance and the effective implementation of key policies.

But this consolidation of power has raised concerns about a “super-presidency” and about its implications for checks and balances in the government. Critics argue that this centralisation of authority could undermine democratic principles, lead to an overreach of executive power and open the door to corruption. It could, in short, lead to unchecked authority and abuse of power.

The DA’s Kevin Mileham says a limitation or removal of some of the authority of various ministries might result.

Political analyst Levy Ndou tells the FM that, with this centralisation of power, he is not surprised by the call for more oversight. “Some of these responsibilities would have been given to different ministries, including public enterprises, which are no more,” he says.

Mileham adds that in the GNU the DA, the Freedom Front Plus and the IFP also made the call for the separation of the different branches of government.

At the heart of South Africans’ unhappiness about democracy is the sense that government leaders are not accountable. There is no-one more obligated to set an example than you, Mr President

—  Songezo Zibi

The absence of presidency oversight was a key issue raised by parties during the debate of the presidency budget vote in late July. It was kicked off by the new leader of the opposition, MK’s John Hlophe, a former Western Cape judge president. He told parliament that Ramaphosa is not accounting to the institution enough, and said MK is concerned that this amounts to a lack of transparency.

“Accountability and transparency are very important, Mr President,” Hlophe said. “With the dissolution of the department of public enterprises, all the SOEs will now fall under the presidency, which means they will no longer be accountable to parliament. The president answers to parliament only during the quarterly question-and-answer sessions, which are often marred by bias and a lack of transparency.”

Songezo Zibi of Rise Mzansi, a member of the GNU, who is chair of the powerful standing committee on public accounts, told the National Assembly that there is a need for an oversight committee in the seventh administration. “This situation should not be allowed to continue. At the heart of South Africans’ unhappiness about democracy is the sense that government leaders are not accountable. There is no-one more obligated to set an example than you, Mr President,” he said. 

ActionSA’s Athol Trollip weighed in too, saying parliament needs a dedicated committee to oversee the presidency. “We have such committees across the provinces; why not here? Why is the presidency so averse to direct, inclusive oversight?” Trollip asked.

On the other hand, some people question whether the president has the time to come to parliament constantly to give an account. As Ndou tells it, you don’t want the president to be bogged down by constant questions in parliament when he has ministers to do the work. While oversight is needed, the president can’t be sitting in committee meetings.

“When you create this kind of establishment, it could be for a good cause, but the president has a responsibility to ensure the ministers do their work. [Otherwise] you might end up having a president with too many responsibilities because you want him to sit in committee meetings; it could be too much.”

Parliamentary spokesperson Moloto Mothapo tells the FM: “The question of establishing an oversight committee on the president is under consideration by parliament.”

Mothapo says the sixth parliament discussed this matter extensively and undertook both desktop and physical benchmarking studies of various countries with such mechanisms. Last year several MPs travelled to the UK and Kenya to study the oversight mechanisms. In 2002 the UK established a Liaison Committee, a select committee of the House of Commons that comprises the chairs of all the committees. They have to hear oral evidence from the prime minister about policy and must scrutinise the work of the government.

Mothapo tells the FM that the report, which has not yet been made public, has a set of findings and recommendations, and the seventh parliament will have to take it forward. “The current term of parliament certainly will look at the progress made on the work of the previous term, including reviewing the study reports, as it contemplates this issue,” he says.

Corné Mulder of the Freedom Front Plus also believes oversight should take a different form. “What we need is not a normal portfolio committee but a home-grown mechanism,” he said during the presidency budget vote. “The purpose is not to settle personal scores or to launch attacks on the person as an individual; that’s not the purpose of the unique method we need.”

For now, it will be business as usual, with oversight taking the form of Ramaphosa and his deputy Paul Mashatile appearing before the National Assembly and National Council of Provinces for quarterly question-and-answer sessions. Mashatile, as leader of government and business, also has to account to parliament, and the various ministers in the presidency routinely have to answer to committees.

But parliamentary insiders say these report-back sessions have their limitations and do not allow for detailed discussions of pertinent issues. “We get six questions once a quarter — that is not effective oversight; we cannot see where the presidency is overspending or underspending. You cannot hold the presidency accountable in this way,” says Mileham.

The rules committee of parliament is at present debating the establishment of some kind of oversight, Mileham says.

“I believe it’s very much in its power. But we won’t be walking away from the call for more oversight and that the presidency be held accountable.”