What links the Spy Tapes, Seriti Commission and the Arms Deal?

Next Tuesday, 03 September, the Gauteng North High Court will hear Jacob Zuma’s application for leave to appeal against the Court’s order compelling the National Prosecuting Authority to comply with the order of the Supreme Court of Appeal to hand over the record of decision (including the “spy tapes”) that were used as reasons by the NPA to withdraw 700 charges of corruption, fraud, money laundering and racketeering against Jacob Zuma before he became President in 2009.

If that sounds confusing, that’s because it is.

It describes just a small part of the many twists and turns that Jacob Zuma’s legal team has taken to make sure he never has to appear in court to answer the charges against him.

Even if the High Court refuses the President leave to appeal, we expect Zuma’s legal team to continue their delaying tactics.  After ten years of legal obfuscation, prevarication, evasion and stonewalling, they have still not exhausted all their options. Their next move would be to petition the Supreme Court of Appeal, directly, for leave to appeal against a High Court order to comply with a previous order of Supreme Court of Appeal handed down 18 months ago. And that way they will probably win another few months.

There seems to be no end to the detours lawyers can take on behalf of clients who have a bottomless pit of money. If it were not for the South African taxpayer, Jacob Zuma would long since have had his day in the dock.

The DA has already spent millions of its own money trying to get to the truth in this matter. We will not give up because the principles involved are so important to our democracy: that everyone is equal before the law and that the National Prosecuting Authority must act without fear, favour or political influence.

But President Zuma’s continued cynical use of taxpayers’ money to avoid handing over the “spy tapes” (that supposedly reveal a political conspiracy against him) was a particularly bitter pill to swallow in a week when the mineworkers of Marikana were refused the same advantage.

The Constitutional Court ruled last week that it could not compel the state to pay for the workers’ legal representation at the Farlam Commission of Enquiry into the tragedy that unfolded on the platinum belt a year ago. While we understand the Court’s rationale - that it could not dictate to the executive how to spend scarce public resources - it only serves to underscore how much public money is being squandered by our president protecting his personal interests. 

Indeed, if we were to use the “public interest” as the yardstick for spending taxpayers’ money on court cases, we would stop funding the President’s endless diversions, and start funding the Marikana mineworkers so that they can appear before the Farlam Commission on a level playing field.

After all, the taxpayers are funding the police’s crack legal team of three advocates; and Lonmin, the mining company involved, is not financially constrained when it comes to legal representation. Each relevant government department has its own legal representatives for the Commission. 

Yet the mineworkers are expected to go unrepresented.  If they were appearing in a court of law, they would qualify for legal aid. But this right does not extend to a Commission of Inquiry. We think this arbitrary distinction is unfair and places the mineworkers at a disadvantage from the start. This cannot be in South Africa’s interests.  We need to know the truth of what happened during that tragic week of August 2012. And legal representation for the miners will help us get there. As the old adage goes: Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.

This brings us onto the controversial Seriti Commission into the Arms Deal where South African taxpayers are also covering the costs. The State Attorney will lead a team of advocates which will represent each government department involved. These are the Department of Defence and Military Veterans, Department of Trade and Industry and the National Treasury, former ministers who have been subpoenaed (Ronnie Kasrils, Mosiuoa Lekota and Alec Erwin) and the present minister in the presidency (the then minister of finance), Trevor Manuel, and former president, Thabo Mbeki.

We conservatively estimate that it is costing R41 999 200 per day. The total cost of the Commission is R101 874 284. Every witness is being cross-examined by lawyers acting for the government.

This means that if any interested party (such as the DA for example) wishes to challenge the state’s version of events, they would have to retain lawyers for the entire duration of the commission to cross examine witnesses in the same

If voters re-elect their abusers, they have no-one to way. This is clearly unaffordable to any except those who can rely on the taxpayers’ “largesse”.

Apart from all the other problems plaguing the Seriti commission, perhaps the biggest is that it does not provide a level playing field to all parties so that we can eventually get to the truth of the corruption in the estimated R70-billion Arms Deal. The costs have ballooned from R30-billion since it was signed in 1999.

But every democracy gives its taxpayers a chance to rectify these gross abuses of power. That chance is called a general election.  That is the mechanism that a democracy offers the people to fire leaders who abuse their money to advance their private interests.

If voters re-elect their abusers, they have no-one to blame but themselves. After all, in a democracy people get the government they deserve.

By Helen Zille, From SA Today.

The (un)sustainability of the South African welfare state

In political terms South Africa can best be described as a social democracy with the typical characteristics of the welfare state. Social spending now accounts for approximately 60% of total government expenditure, including an extensive set of cash transfer payments in the form of social grants.

State provision of education, health services, low-income housing, social old-age pensions, and disability grants has been part of South African public economics for many years, and State provision of circumscribed social services is apparently accepted in principle by South African civil society as an expression of social solidarity. What is rather at stake is the quality of the services delivered and whether they offer value for money.

However, what has become controversial is the extensive system of social grants paid to millions of individuals. The deterioration in government finances in the past four years has raised awareness of the risk to the fiscal sustainability of this programme.

For example, it is often mentioned that the number of beneficiaries of government grants (currently 16,5 million) now exceeds the number of personal income tax payers (4,5 million) by a wide margin.

The total cost of social grants in the current fiscal year is expected to amount to approximately R120 billion, including about R6 billion in administrative expenses. This is equal to 10,4% of budgeted consolidated government expenditure, or 3,5% of GDP, which is relatively high for South Africa’s stage of development.

The National Treasury’s projection that expenditure on social grants will grow by 7,5% per annum in the next three fiscal years, with the number of recipients increasing by 2,2% per annum, appears credible.

Because social grant payments are financed from the general revenue pool, their sustainability in the medium term is therefore embedded in the sustainability of government expenditure in general. The growth in expenditure on social grants over the past four years in particular has contributed to the increased structural budget deficit. A big problem is that it constrains capital expenditure.

Jac Laubscher of Sanlam of Sanlam believes that an increase in the tax burden of between 1% and 2% of GDP to lower the structural deficit in any case appears to be on the cards. This should be sufficient to also take care of the sustainability of social grant payments in the medium term.

But of course one need to distinguish between short-term and long-term sustainability and it is perhaps the latter that needs our attention more.

It will serve South Africa well to take note of other countries’ experiences in this regard – Europe serves as a good example of how the unsustainability of an ambitious system of social protection can creep up almost unnoticed on the fiscus. The lesson is that one should in the first place not allow social security to develop into a non-sustainable situation.

The ANC generates much of its votes from economically disadvantaged communities which rely on social grants for survival. Therefore it is not flawed thinking to believe that the ANC could use promises of increased social grant expenditure to draw votes in upcoming elections.

There is a real danger of over-promising in the short term that could lead to major financial issues in the long term. Politically, this is a real tightrope situation in which the government needs to balance social expenditure with what it can afford.

Russia promises to enforce anti-gay law during Olympics

Despite assurances from the International Olympic Committee that LGBT athletes and tourists will not be charged under Russia's anti-gay propaganda laws during the Sochi Winter Games, Russian Minister of Sports Vitaly Mutko said all of his country's laws will be enforced.

"No one is forbidding an athlete with non-traditional sexual orientation from coming to Sochi, but if he goes onto the street and starts propagandizing it, then of course he will be held accountable," Mutko explained.

"As a sportsman, he should respect the law of a country," Mutko added. "Come (to Sochi), but don't get young people involved, don't make propaganda. This is what we are talking about."

The vague law, however, means that even wearing a rainbow flag pin, or saying a little too loudly that being gay is okay, could lead to a run-in with the law.

On Monday, Vitaly Milonov, the man who helped pass the bill in the Russian parliament, also insisted gays would not get a free pass at the Games.

He said: "I haven't heard any comments from the government of the Russian Federation, but I know that it is acting in accordance with Russian law. And if a law has been approved by the federal legislature and signed by the president, then the government has no right to suspend it. It doesn't have the authority."

These statements will certainly increase calls by several groups to boycott the Olympics. But, as others have suggested, it may be a good thing to see Russia arresting athletes during one of the most watched televised sporting events in the world.

Zuma’s copter flights clip air force wings

Expensive daily helicopter flights between President Jacob Zuma’s Nkandla home and King Shaka International Airport are straining the South African Air Force budgets. This was claimed by the South African National Defence Union (Sandu).

An insufficient budget has led to half the Gripen fighter squadron being placed in storage‚ and the Agusta A109 light utility helicopter fleet being grounded. Flying hours per pilot have been cut by as much as two-thirds and numerous maintenance contracts have been placed on hold.

Sandu national secretary Pikkie Greeff said while many air force units were being starved of resources for operations and training‚ money was being spent to transport Zuma. In KwaZulu-Natal‚ two coastal helicopter squadrons have received no funding this year for sea and mountain rescue operations‚ but have funding for VIP flights‚ according to a report.

Beeld newspaper reported on Tuesday that 15 Squadron‚ in Durban‚ was allowed a small number of flight hours for training‚ but 300 hours for VIP flights. Zuma uses his presidential jet to fly to King Shaka Airport in Durban and two Oryx helicopters to fly 100km from there to Nkandla.

Beeld says these helicopter flights cost about R36 000 each.