THE interest and public participation in the process of appointing a new public protector to replace Thuli Madonsela has been unprecedented. With 14 candidates now shortlisted, public engagement in the work of the parliamentary committee making the selection becomes even more important.
The list of 14 was drawn from an original 61 and reflects all the political parties’ nominations, a wise move by the committee, whose chair, Makhosi Khoza, had also been commendably open to calls for the selection process to be a transparent and public one.
The TV cameras will be there when the 14 candidates are interviewed by the committee on August 11. And the public will be allowed to send in questions for the committee members to ask. The committee, in other words, can be held accountable for the decision it makes.
Crucially, its members and members of the public will not be able to say they didn’t know anything about the candidates’ backgrounds or missed salient details. Corruption Watch and the Democratic Governance and Rights Unit compiled and published a fairly comprehensive dossier on each of the 61. A more detailed dossier is being put together on the 14 on the short list.
We trust that will contribute to informed decision-making and help to ensure that the new public protector is a person who doesn’t just tick the boxes of the qualifications and experience required but does much more.
Madonsela has built the office of the public protector into a formidable institution that has become an essential underpinning for SA’s democracy at a time when so many of our other democratic institutions are being captured or eroded.
The new public protector has to have the independence, integrity and sheer competence to be able to stand up to political pressure, as Madonsela has done, so that the office she has built up can continue to provide the checks and balances on the abuse of power that SA so sorely needs.
READ THIS: EDITORIAL: Protector selection too important to be left to MPs
Institutions can be easily destroyed when those appointed to lead them pursue blatantly political agendas, or are clearly too close to the powers-that-be, and have no interest in holding presidents or others to account. But democratic institutions can be eroded too when those put in charge are too politically or personally compromised, or simply too mediocre, to stand up to pressure.
The person chosen to be the next public protector needs to have the stature, integrity and skill to ensure the office can continue to fight for SA’s democracy. She or he should be a person over whom there are no question marks.
Judged by that yardstick, some of the candidates on the short list should be treated with extreme caution by the committee. It may be too early for this newspaper to back one or other of the candidates.
However, it is hard to imagine that someone such as Judge Siraj Desai could possibly be an appropriate choice, given that he is personally and politically compromised, not to mention the question marks over his work ethic.
Nor surely, could it take seriously an ANC nominee such as Luthuli House legal adviser Krish Naidoo, who described Madonsela’s Nkandla findings as "fatally flawed".
Then there is Nomkhosi Princess Cetywayo, a former ANC branch and women’s league office-bearer who seems to have a law degree but may or may not have any of the other qualifications or experience for the job. Why would the committee even want to consider her when it could look at a standout candidate such as Bongani Majola, a Harvard-educated former Legal Resources Centre national director who served as deputy chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda?
It will be the committee’s job to subject them to the most intense scrutiny. And it will be our job as the citizenry to make sure the committee does the job it is supposed to do, wisely and well.
Thuli Madonsela. Picture: TREVOR SAMSON
THE interest and public participation in the process of appointing a new public protector to replace Thuli Madonsela has been unprecedented. With 14 candidates now shortlisted, public engagement in the work of the parliamentary committee making the selection becomes even more important.
The list of 14 was drawn from an original 61 and reflects all the political parties’ nominations, a wise move by the committee, whose chair, Makhosi Khoza, had also been commendably open to calls for the selection process to be a transparent and public one.
The TV cameras will be there when the 14 candidates are interviewed by the committee on August 11. And the public will be allowed to send in questions for the committee members to ask. The committee, in other words, can be held accountable for the decision it makes.
Crucially, its members and members of the public will not be able to say they didn’t know anything about the candidates’ backgrounds or missed salient details. Corruption Watch and the Democratic Governance and Rights Unit compiled and published a fairly comprehensive dossier on each of the 61. A more detailed dossier is being put together on the 14 on the short list.
We trust that will contribute to informed decision-making and help to ensure that the new public protector is a person who doesn’t just tick the boxes of the qualifications and experience required but does much more.
Madonsela has built the office of the public protector into a formidable institution that has become an essential underpinning for SA’s democracy at a time when so many of our other democratic institutions are being captured or eroded.
The new public protector has to have the independence, integrity and sheer competence to be able to stand up to political pressure, as Madonsela has done, so that the office she has built up can continue to provide the checks and balances on the abuse of power that SA so sorely needs.
READ THIS: EDITORIAL: Protector selection too important to be left to MPs
Institutions can be easily destroyed when those appointed to lead them pursue blatantly political agendas, or are clearly too close to the powers-that-be, and have no interest in holding presidents or others to account. But democratic institutions can be eroded too when those put in charge are too politically or personally compromised, or simply too mediocre, to stand up to pressure.
The person chosen to be the next public protector needs to have the stature, integrity and skill to ensure the office can continue to fight for SA’s democracy. She or he should be a person over whom there are no question marks.
Judged by that yardstick, some of the candidates on the short list should be treated with extreme caution by the committee. It may be too early for this newspaper to back one or other of the candidates.
However, it is hard to imagine that someone such as Judge Siraj Desai could possibly be an appropriate choice, given that he is personally and politically compromised, not to mention the question marks over his work ethic.
Nor surely, could it take seriously an ANC nominee such as Luthuli House legal adviser Krish Naidoo, who described Madonsela’s Nkandla findings as "fatally flawed".
Then there is Nomkhosi Princess Cetywayo, a former ANC branch and women’s league office-bearer who seems to have a law degree but may or may not have any of the other qualifications or experience for the job. Why would the committee even want to consider her when it could look at a standout candidate such as Bongani Majola, a Harvard-educated former Legal Resources Centre national director who served as deputy chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda?
It will be the committee’s job to subject them to the most intense scrutiny. And it will be our job as the citizenry to make sure the committee does the job it is supposed to do, wisely and well.
