Tell the truth, and the whole truth...

190811 (L) Communications DG Rosey Sekese and Communications deputy Minister Obed Bapela at the media brifing on the set top boxes.photo by Simphiwe Mbokazi

190811 (L) Communications DG Rosey Sekese and Communications deputy Minister Obed Bapela at the media brifing on the set top boxes.photo by Simphiwe Mbokazi

Published Apr 26, 2015

Share

Cape Town - Government officials found to be lying to Parliament could now face disciplinary action or being hauled before a court, should a new rule of the National Assembly get the go ahead.

The rules sub-committee is currently devising a plan to deal with officials found lying to a committee or misrepresenting information.

Up to now, rules have not catered for government officials who have to account to Parliament on a regular basis.

Home Affairs portfolio committee chairman and member of the rules sub-committee Lemias Mashile reminded members about the proposed rule.

“In the rules committee, remember we are revising the rules of the National Assembly and that discussion, which is where it has taken place to ensure that the rules provide for officials of departments. They should be informed before they actually speak to committees that the committee expects the truth and the truth only.

“So that’s where it is happening,” said Mashile.

He added the matter was still up for more discussion as the rules had not yet been approved.

“The discussion just happened last week. Remember that when somebody is invited to come and give evidence in a committee, there is a rule 138 A of the National Assembly rules, which is read for taking an oath,” he explained.

Rule 138 A of the National Assembly rule book states that prior to a witness giving evidence before a House or a committee, the member presiding shall inform the witness that he or she must “answer fully and satisfactorily all the questions lawfully put to you, or to produce any document that you are asked to produce…”

It further states that an answer or a document given to the committee “could incriminate you or expose you to criminal or civil proceedings or damages”.

“But that has actually not happened when you invite government officials. It is only for witnesses, a person that’s invited as a witness. Now the discussion is about expanding that to cover ordinary government officials who come and brief the committees to ensure that they know the consequences of misrepresenting or not giving the correct answers,” said Mashile.

He said officials working in the department on a daily basis under a director-general are “supposed to be knowing”.

“They can’t misrepresent and say a department is doing this and this (when) the department is not doing that. That’s what we’re trying to stop. And you will never even be aware when a government official misrepresents because you’ll only pick it up at the next meeting, when another officials presents something contradictory.

“Now we can haul them to a disciplinary process within the public service for an inquiry. And they must have consequences. Up to now we haven’t had that.”

DA chief whip John Steenhuisen said it would not be easy to introduce such a rule.

“The National Assembly already has powers to get you to give evidence under oath. But those rules apply to MPs. So it will be very difficult to pass rules of the house that deal with the conduct of officials.

“This might require an amendment of the Public Service Act,” said Steenhuisen.

One government official who was found to have misled Parliament in recent years is former communications director-general Rosey Sekese.

Sekese clashed with the committee and her bosses after she was found to have lied to Parliament about signing a performance agreement.

Sekese was called back to Parliament to explain herself after deputy communications minister Stella Ndabeni-Abrahams took the unprecedented stand of alerting the committee that Sekese had not signed her performance agreement for 2012/2013.

Parliamentary legal adviser Charmaine van der Merwe had to be called in to resolve the dispute.

She said the committee had to deal with the choice of going to the police and opening up a charge, as the transgression was a crime.

The other option, Van der Merwe said, was for the committee, as part of its oversight function, to refer the matter to the then minister Dina Pule, and ask her to act on the transgression.

Sekese was eventually put on special leave for lying to Parliament about her performance agreement.

Political Bureau

Related Topics: