#IEC lease agreement scandal – we have asked the Electoral Court’s opinion: The UDM strongly disagree with the way in which the IEC, and then Parliament, handled the matter of the Public Protector’s findings on the irregularities and wasteful expenditure that occurred with the lease agreement of the IEC’s current headquarters in Centurion. Subsequent to the release of her report [on the lease agreement], the Public Protector forwarded her report to the Speaker of the National Assembly requesting him to consider whether action should be taken against Adv Tlakula. … After weeks of deliberation, the Ad Hoc Committee resolved… that: “it was unable to accede to the recommendations or requests of the Public Protector addressed to the Speaker of the National Assembly, on the grounds that to do so would be unlawful and/or unconstitutional.” … The Ad Hoc Committee’s resolution was informed by a legal opinion, dated 23 October 2013, of the Parliamentary Constitutional and Legal Services. … Paragraph 55 of the legal opinion states that: “In the instant case the then Chief Electoral Officer resigned and was appointed as the Chairperson of the Electoral Commission. Due to her resignation, the Electoral Court lacks the jurisdiction to discipline the former Chief Electoral Officer as she is was no longer an employee of the Electoral Commission.” We entirely disagree with this statement, even if the circumstances had been different, and Adv Tlakula still held the position of CEO today, the Electoral Court would not have jurisdiction in the matter. The argument is flawed and it would appear that the Parliamentary Constitutional and Legal Services had misled the Ad Hoc Committee and therefore Parliament. The Electoral Commission Act clearly states in Chapter 3 that the Commission itself is responsible for the administration, staff and accountability, not the Electoral Court. Therefore the Commission, in all instances, is responsible to ensure that its employees are held accountable and to state otherwise seems disingenuous. In addition, on the 4th of October 2011, Adv Tlakula chose to respond to the allegations in the media with a statement that read “… issued by the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, Independent Electoral Commission, Centurion…”. Adv Tlakula was therefore fully aware that I had approached the Public Protector to investigate the allegations. … … a number of issues arise: According to Section 12 of the Electoral Commission Act (Act 51 of 1996) it is the responsibility of the Commission to appoint a CEO and it would therefore have jurisdiction over any misconduct of the CEO. The former Commission therefore erred when it had not acted against, or even suspended, the former CEO once the allegations over misconduct arose. The Presidency and the outgoing Commissioners were, at the time of Adv Tlakula’s appointment as Chairperson, aware of the complaint lodged with the Public Protector. The Presidency and the outgoing Commissioners should take responsibility for not acting against Adv Tlakula whilst she was still CEO. Parliament is following suit. The Presidency had erred when it appointed Adv Tlakula, because the rules of corporate governance, as outlined in the King III Report, were not applied as there was no cooling-down period after her resignation as CEO and her subsequent appointment as Chairperson. This is a classical example of the rules not being applied consistently to suit a particular agenda. It is ironic that Adv Tlakula uses her position as Chairperson to communicate with the media, as well as utilising official resources to defend herself and justify her conduct when she still was the CEO. Adv Tlakula seems to have been defiant from the word go, using her position as Commission Chairperson; we even wonder whether she is in fact cooperating with the forensic audit. This kind of behaviour suggests that the Electoral Court should indeed deal with this matter and pronounce itself on a person who flouts the rules. The lines have therefore been blurred and we strongly argue that, given Adv Tlakula’s current position, we are unconvinced that the Electoral Court lacks jurisdiction. Given the arguments raised above, we feel that the opinion is flawed and aimed at protecting Adv Tlakula in order to promote a nefarious agenda. There is a very unhealthy, symbiotic relationship between Adv Tlakula and the IEC officials (some of whom have been fingered in the sordid affair). She and those officials are responsible for making decisions about the appointment, and conditions of those appointments, of the companies/organisations that will provide services to the IEC during the 2014 National and Provincial Elections. … It is for the abovementioned reasons that the UDM requests the Electoral Court to take the matter under consideration, specifically to determine: 1.whether Adv Tlakula and other senior IEC officials should be let off the hook and they be allowed to avoid taking responsibility for their transgressions. 2. whether Adv Tlakula is fit to be the Chairperson of the Commission. 3. which would be the correct body to preside over the matter. *Extract from letter, that you kind find a full version of at udm.org.
Posted on: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 11:08:01 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015