BBSA
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 30,227
- Reaction score
- 28,804
- Location
- People's Republic of South Africa
http://www.dispatch.co.za/article.aspx?id=400481
WHEN rules can be broken they are no longer rules – they become guidelines.
And that, unfortunately, is the consequence of President Jacob Zuma’s breach of the Executive Ethics Code and his reluctance to publicly atone for this breach.
As has been widely reported, the Public Protector found the President had breached the code by not reporting his and his family’s financial interests within 60 days of taking office.
The code, first published in 2000 ironically under then deputy president Zuma’s signature, is unambiguous.
Zuma’s lawyers claim the delay was due to uncertainties about how the provisions of the code affected the President. But this is nothing less than obfuscation. The code requires that all members of the executive make a declaration to the secretary of the Cabinet and that these declarations be contained in both a confidential and public register.
There is no confusion – the President makes his declaration to the Cabinet secretary like anyone else.
It is disingenuous for the President to claim he was delayed because it was unclear from whom the President should seek permission, for example, to accept gifts worth more than R1 000.
We would argue the answer to this “dilemma” is easy: The President should simply refuse to accept such gifts at all.
At the heart of the ethics code is the idea that South Africa’s top political leaders set an example of good governance. The spirit of the code should be the over-riding principle that governs our leaders’ conduct and if this is not done it only adds to South Africa’s moral rot.
Behaving ethically and correctly is the same as being pregnant: You either are or you are not.
Zuma’s rocky road to the presidency was littered with aspersions on his character.
However, once elected, many of even his most vitriolic critics decided to give him a chance to redeem himself and his reputation. Unfortunately, the President has stumbled yet again.
There is no getting around his breach of the code and instead of filibustering it would have been proper for him to have admitted his shortcoming and to make a heartfelt public apology.
Instead, the position he has taken only serves to deepen the stain on his integrity.
How, we must ask, can the President expect South Africa to take him seriously as he proposes a national dialogue on a “moral code” for the country against this breach of an ethics code which he himself signed 10 years ago? The answer, sadly, is that we cannot.
WHEN rules can be broken they are no longer rules – they become guidelines.
And that, unfortunately, is the consequence of President Jacob Zuma’s breach of the Executive Ethics Code and his reluctance to publicly atone for this breach.
As has been widely reported, the Public Protector found the President had breached the code by not reporting his and his family’s financial interests within 60 days of taking office.
The code, first published in 2000 ironically under then deputy president Zuma’s signature, is unambiguous.
Zuma’s lawyers claim the delay was due to uncertainties about how the provisions of the code affected the President. But this is nothing less than obfuscation. The code requires that all members of the executive make a declaration to the secretary of the Cabinet and that these declarations be contained in both a confidential and public register.
There is no confusion – the President makes his declaration to the Cabinet secretary like anyone else.
It is disingenuous for the President to claim he was delayed because it was unclear from whom the President should seek permission, for example, to accept gifts worth more than R1 000.
We would argue the answer to this “dilemma” is easy: The President should simply refuse to accept such gifts at all.
At the heart of the ethics code is the idea that South Africa’s top political leaders set an example of good governance. The spirit of the code should be the over-riding principle that governs our leaders’ conduct and if this is not done it only adds to South Africa’s moral rot.
Behaving ethically and correctly is the same as being pregnant: You either are or you are not.
Zuma’s rocky road to the presidency was littered with aspersions on his character.
However, once elected, many of even his most vitriolic critics decided to give him a chance to redeem himself and his reputation. Unfortunately, the President has stumbled yet again.
There is no getting around his breach of the code and instead of filibustering it would have been proper for him to have admitted his shortcoming and to make a heartfelt public apology.
Instead, the position he has taken only serves to deepen the stain on his integrity.
How, we must ask, can the President expect South Africa to take him seriously as he proposes a national dialogue on a “moral code” for the country against this breach of an ethics code which he himself signed 10 years ago? The answer, sadly, is that we cannot.
