Action Alert

The Mpumalanga provincial legislature once again on October 13 barred the public from tabling written questions in portfolio committee sessions. The ruling was made by the committee of chairpersons and was confirmed by the committee's chairperson Thoko Mabena. Finance portfolio committee chair, Lassy Chiwayo, announced that legislature had decided to revoke the right when he refused to accept questions on donor fraud in the Premier's Office. "All questions should be put directly to MECs or officials in future or should be asked at press conferences," Chiwayo said.

The written questions requested an update on police and government investigations into the alleged theft of over R1-million in donor funds by former Premier Mathews Phosa's special advisor Pieter Roo. The alleged abuse was first uncovered by a written media question to the same committee in February 1999. Neither Chiwayo nor Mabena, were able to give a reason for the banning.

Both the press and public in Mpumalanga have been able to table written questions to portfolio committee chairpersons for immediate reply by government officials since late 1994. The only limitations on the questions have been that they should be directly relevant to the subject being discussed and should be approved as "fair" by the committee itself.

Last year, the provincial portfolio committee on public works rejected an attempt by journalists to table questions during the committee's sessions. This followed a written question from requesting details of a threatened multi-million rand damages suit against the provincial government by German aviation giant Daimler Benz. Journalists covering the committee meeting also tried to ask questions about the province's irregular purchase of ten luxury BMWs. Government officials consistently refused to answer media questions relating to both these issues.

The African Eye News Service said it was concerned that established rights of press freedom and access to information have been eroded with the decision. FXI said in a statement that the move was extremely disturbing and appeared to dilute the legislature's constitutional obligation to hold government accountable. "To allow questions to be asked of the MEC and not the committees inverts the transparency and accountability regime outlined in the constitution. While both the legislature and the executive should be transparent, the legislature and its committees must be moreso."

FXI has written to the Chairperson's Committee to obtain further clarity on this matter .

Ends