It would surprise Joy Phumaphi that 11 years after moving the motion calling on legislators to register their assets and liabilities the train has still not reached the station. At the time of its presentation the motion gained overwhelming support from both sides of the House. Ever since criticism has been levelled that there is foot dragging and no seeming inclination to give effect to the resolution of Parliament. That is not necessarily the case. In December 2005 the then Minister for Presidential Affairs and Public Administration, Phandu Skelemani, provided a glimmer of hope when in response to a question by Ponatshego Kedikilwe he informed Parliament that his proposals, in the form of a memorandum, were due before cabinet. Only with cabinet fiat would he then be able to resubmit the bill. The question had sought to know when the minister intended to resubmit the Members of Parliament Declaration of Assets Bill considering that there had been several reminders. Tracing the history of the Bill shows that after the Phumaphi motion was adopted, a draft bill was indeed brought before the House. Members were however unhappy about certain clauses. Most prominent of these was the clause that sought families of legislators to also register their assets. The reference to family was not specific, and during the second reading it was resolved to commit the bill to a select committee for fine-tuning. The select committee never got to complete its work because Parliament lapsed. It would appear that Skelemani, as promised in his response to Kedikilwe, did table his proposals before cabinet. In response to a query in February this year on progress made thus far, the minister informed Parliament that indeed his proposals had been discussed. But instead of a Declaration of Assets Bill, cabinet was in favour of a Code of Conduct Bill. This raised the question of whether a law on Declaration of Assets will necessarily differ from a Code of Conduct law. My contention is that materially it ought not to differ. Whether it is given any of the two nomenclatures should not dilute its intention and objective. For instance, in South Africa they have what is called a code of ethics for legislators, which is supplemented by the executive members' ethics act for cabinet ministers. In the United Kingdom (UK) they operate through a code of conduct. But in both jurisdictions, there is a provision for the registration of assets and interests; exactly what Phumaphi sought and which Parliament approved. For instance, in the two countries cited legislators have to declare their financial interests and shareholdings. This includes ownership of land and property. There is also a requirement to register gifts and hospitality to guard against graft. The register containing all the information is split into public and confidential sections. The public section is open for perusal by anyone. With the confidential part, which often contains information relating to the spouse or offspring of the member, access can only be obtained with the consent of the custodian of the register, or through a court order after showing good cause. Laws on assets registration will vary by jurisdiction but in the broad template is as stated. In our case the bottom line is that by which ever title the draft bill is brought, it must provide for registration of members' interests and assets. If not, the bill will depart from what the original motion asked for. In motivating her motion Phumaphi argued that a law of this nature would promote good governance, transparency and accountability. This it does by preventing conflict of interest and the use of confidential information for self enrichment. But in addition, and most crucially, such a law will protect legislators from innuendo and false allegations of impropriety and corruption. It is unfortunate but it comes with the territory that politicians will always be singled out for unfounded allegations about improper activities. In the eyes of some people being a politician, particularly one with influence, is synonymous with sleaze. It is now time for political office bearers to reclaim their hard won integrity. They must call the bluff of their accusers by passing the necessary legislation. But it should not stop there. This very important law must also cover civil servants at senior decision-making level. In our system public servants in both government and the parastatal sectors wield immense power and influence. It would be unfair not to include in the law people who do the actual paperwork and dispense advice to politicians.
