Turf wars hamper watchdog institutions

Recent reports concerning alleged witch-hunts against the Public Protector, Advocate Thuli Madonsela, and the head of the Asset Forfeiture Unit and the Special Investigating Unit, Willie Hofmeyr, both of whom were investigating alleged corruption in the South African Police Service, have triggered speculation about a conspiracy or orchestrated campaign against corruption-busters and Chapter 9 institutions.

The Chapter 9 institutions are watchdog bodies established by and protected in the Constitution tasked with strengthening and protecting the Constitution, democracy and citizens’ rights. Following the recent controversies, President Jacob Zuma, as well as the Speaker of Parliament Max Sisulu, found it necessary to publicly express their support for these institutions.

However, no evidence exists of any kind of large-scale, coordinated conspiracy to undermine key senior staff of these organisations. What is being witnessed are far more likely the symptoms of a young democracy in transition to maturity, as is common in most democracies.

Messy turf wars and protection of vested interests by groups and individuals characterise this phase as institutions and state entities continue to find their proper place and mandate in the systems and processes of a young democracy. Turf wars are in fact witnessed from time to time  in even well-established democracies.

It is unlikely that one will find a larger, centrally controlled conspiracy behind any of this, although some individuals and groups are always looking to exploit the relative chaos of such a phase for their own ends.

The danger is that unless proper guidance is provided by the political leadership, mandates are clearly established, procedures laid down and enforced, uncertainty is minimised as quickly as possible, and an ethical functional culture is established for the institutions and positions concerned, such a situation could attain a degree of permanence that threatens the longer-term integrity of the state.

The less the watchdog institutions are allowed to firmly establish and strengthen their purpose and roles during this phase, the greater the longer-term threat becomes. Within the immediate context the means are much more of a threat than the ends as the South African democracy moves through puberty to early adolescence.

Self-appointed accusers and critics commenting on current developments should guard against losing a balanced perspective in weighing the pros against the cons, the good against the bad.

For example, while negatively some kind of a witch-hunt may have been launched against Madonsela and Hofmeyer because of their probes into allegedly corrupt individuals and developments in certain state entities, the positive balance is provided by the fact that their offices exist, that the Office of the Public Protector is also constitutionally protected, that they are able to conduct such probes, that the efforts to possibly undermine their probes have been exposed, and that leading political figures have come to their defence. These contradictions and tensions are part and parcel of a dynamic democracy and it is only in an imaginary utopian state that they might not exist.

However, as the chairperson of the Council for the Advancement of the Constitution, Sipho Pityana, said in an interview with the Mail & Guardian last week, South Africa was on a "dangerous road" if state institutions were being used to fight personal vendettas or political battles. Pityana said state institutions were not "fiefdoms” and questioned why the political leadership had not condemned and acted against these developments and why Parliament had not called on Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa and National Police Commissioner Bheki Cele to account for the situation.

Pityana reportedly said he saw a pattern in these latest developments and previous similar developments when the defunct Scorpions probed former Police Commissioner Jackie Selebi, or when former national prosecuting chief Vusi Pikoli probed Selebi and President Jacob Zuma. There seems indeed to be a pattern in the manner of actions taken, but the various incidents and individuals are not necessarily linked through common objectives, cause or gain.

In the cases of Madonsela and Hofmeyr entirely different and unconnected people and entities have been mentioned in the alleged “witch-hunts”. In the case of Hofmeyr billionaire Dave King, who has been facing 322 charges of tax fraud, racketeering and foreign exchange contraventions, and National Prosecuting Authority boss Menzi Simelane are allegedly behind the corruption charges the police are said to be investigating.

In Madonsela’s case there were two incidents. In the first, fingers have been pointed at senior police crime intelligence officers said to be responsible for the apparently unauthorised raid on her offices, while in the second incident - a smear campaign claiming she was to be arrested for corruption - no culprits have yet been identified. Of course there are allegations and insinuations that have fingers pointing at the office of the national police commissioner, but these have so far lacked any substance or proof.

Going a little further back, the actions and developments that cost Pikoli his job as prosecuting boss, were initiated in two entirely different and opposing, political camps -- those headed respectively by former president Thabo Mbeki and by the man who ousted him, President Jacob Zuma.

None of these would fit together into some larger conspiracy. But that there are smaller and unconnected conspiracies trying to protect turf interests, seems fairly clear.