Calls grow for a truly independent anticorruption agency
President Cyril Ramaphosa’s acceptance of Investigating Directorate Against Corruption head Andrea Johnson’s resignation should mark the beginning of a fundamental overhaul of South Africa’s anticorruption framework.
Rather than perpetuating temporary or overlapping investigative structures, parliament should seize this opportunity to establish a single, permanent and genuinely independent anticorruption agency by strengthening the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation, better known as the Hawks.
For too long South Africa has relied on institutions that remain vulnerable to real or perceived political influence. The Hawks should be reconstituted through legislation that guarantees complete operational independence from the president, cabinet and every other arm of the executive, while making the institution directly accountable to parliament.
To safeguard that independence, the national head of the Hawks should be appointed only with the approval of a two-thirds majority in parliament. Removal from office should require the same parliamentary threshold, thereby protecting the office from political expediency while ensuring democratic oversight.
An independent investigative body must also possess meaningful authority. The Hawks should be empowered to investigate, arrest and prosecute serious organised crime and corruption swiftly and without political interference.
At the same time, exceptional powers must be matched by exceptional accountability. Legislation should provide an efficient mechanism to investigate and prosecute members of the Hawks who abuse their authority once a high court judge is satisfied that sufficient prima facie evidence exists to justify such proceedings.
There is no compelling reason to postpone these reforms. Every political party and elected representative that professes a commitment to clean governance should unite behind legislation that places the fight against corruption beyond the reach of partisan politics.
Rozario Brown
Mouille Point
Fair Pay Bill’s payslip ban treats private employers like the enemy
Mmusi Maimane and Bosa’s Fair Pay Bill claims to champion workplace equity by banning companies from asking for an applicant’s past payslip. In reality, it is a piece of draconian overreach that treats private employers like the enemy and it is therefore no surprise that the leftist class has enthusiastically jumped on the bandwagon.
Follow the money. Union politburos are funded by payroll deductions, so higher state-mandated wages mean fatter union coffers. By turning voluntary job interviews into a legal minefield, this bill would protect a privileged, unionised elite while locking out millions of desperate, unemployed South Africans who would gladly negotiate their own entry into the workforce.
The DA is entirely correct to oppose this legislation. In our economy, a payslip is the foundational cornerstone of consumer credit, banking risk and corporate planning. Forcing businesses to hire completely blind based on rigid, state-mandated salary bands strips away the fundamental freedom of contract.
We absolutely need level playing fields, but we also need reciprocity. If a job seeker chooses to withhold their salary history that is their right. However, the employer must retain an equal, reciprocal right: to either walk away from the negotiation or pitch an offer based strictly on what their internal metrics say the role is worth.
South Africa is desperate for economic growth and flexible hiring, not more socialist red tape that suffocates the businesses trying to keep the country afloat.
Nathan Motjuwadi
Mohlakeng
Pause in impeachment process raises constitutional questions
The high court’s decision to pause the impeachment process involving President Cyril Ramaphosa pending the outcome of a review application has raised constitutional questions that deserve careful legal scrutiny.
The ruling appears to be unprecedented. It raises an important constitutional question: to what extent can a lower court suspend the implementation of a process that flows from a Constitutional Court judgment, even on an interim basis?
The order appears to preserve the status quo while the review is heard. It does not, and cannot, overturn or nullify the Constitutional Court’s earlier judgment. The distinction is not merely technical. Staying the implementation of a process pending a review differs from overturning a judgment.
The Constitutional Court remains the apex court on constitutional matters, and its eventual determination of the review will ultimately guide the next steps in the impeachment process.
Given the constitutional significance of this matter, greater clarity from the legal fraternity would be welcome. South Africans deserve a clear explanation of the legal principles at play, rather than commentary driven by political preference.
Public confidence in the judiciary depends not only on the independence of the courts but also on a shared understanding of their respective powers and the constitutional framework within which they operate.
Tsepo Mhlongo
Orlando East
JOIN THE DISCUSSION: Send us an email with your comments to letters@businessday.co.za. Letters of more than 200 words may be edited for length. Anonymous correspondence will not be published. Writers should include a daytime telephone number.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.