Electoral Commission appointment process (postponed)

Meeting report

PMG was unable to capture the discussion from the start of the meeting

Electoral Commission appointment process

Ms T Kenye (ANC) said the Chief Justice had submitted a list of candidates and now the process had to be taken forward. She asked if there was documentation that gave the Committee the right to entertain any additional inputs into the process apart from those coming from the Chief Justice.

Ms N Dambuza (ANC) said the Committee appreciated the work done by the Chief Justice. She asked what the law said about the issue of external submissions. The Chief Justice would have followed the processes to allow all interested parties to participate in the process. She asked if processes had already been followed according to the constitution. Would another process be had or was the suggestion that only comments be taken from the public? How long would that take? She noted that parliamentary recess would take place in September and the Committee could not finalise the process only at the end of October if candidates were starting in November.

Ms D Raphuti (ANC) said the shortlisted candidates were selected by a credible person, namely the Chief Justice (together with a Panel), who had looked at all the capabilities and expertise. She expressed her hope that the Committee would be able to select the best candidate to ensure credible elections in 2019.

Ms N Mnisi (ANC) thanked the Office of the Chief Justice for a job well done. All the candidates are well versed to the issues of the IEC. She asked what the members of the committee were expected to do and what the timelines were for this to be completed.

Ms H Mkhaliphi (EFF) said that the Committee had agreed at a previous meeting to put aside a day to focus on the matter. Parties were then given a chance to go and caucus on the names being proposed. She said the EFF was ready because it had already caucused. Members were just repeating what had been said at the previous meeting. She asked why the Committee had met. The Committee needed to proceed.

The Chairperson said the process required consultation and it was important to understand when the work had to be finalised. The parliamentary process was drawn from the constitution where it states that Parliament may consult widely to gain comments on an issue. Parliament had a responsibility to hear all views because South Africa was an open participatory democracy. Members of the public had to be allowed to submit comments to raise points to the attention of the Committee, though they could not amend the list. The process had to be participatory. He agreed with the point raised earlier by Mr Waters on the decision which was taken to allow public submissions. If there were inputs, those would be distributed to members to assist in the process of appointment. He proposed that seeing as some parties were ready, but others were not the process should be allowed to take its course and at the next committee meeting the process would be finalised. This allowed a week’s time for anyone wishing to make a submission to the Committee. The Committee would then review the candidates and their CV’s. Two submissions have already been received from organisations, those could be distributed to parties in the meantime. The work of the Committee had to take place in the open and with respect for the public. The decisions made by the Committee would bind everyone in society. He suggested that the meeting be adjourned to allow for that to take place.

Mr A Figlan (DA) requested that all the submissions be sent to parties to allow for enough time to read them. The Chairperson had mentioned two submissions but only one had been distributed to members.

The Chairperson said that it had been emailed to members.

Mr M Waters (DA) asked how the public would be made aware that they would make submissions.

The Chairperson said that a parliamentary press release could be sent out.

Ms Mkhaliphi expressed dissatisfaction that the meeting was being adjourned because the ANC was not ready. The process had been clarified at the previous meeting. When the ANC is not ready it impedes the work of the Committee. Members should not be called to a meeting which would then be adjourned. She had asked what the timeframe would be at the previous meeting and was assured it would take place before the recess.

The Chairperson said that other parties might not be ready either and asked if the IFP was ready.

Ms S Nkomo (IFP) said the IFP was ready and the problem was that the ANC was not. It was inappropriate to expect members to rush to the meeting just for it to be adjourned. The IFP had the names it wanted to propose. In future if a shortlist was presented the Committee needed to be clear on how it should entertain other submissions and the timeline for doing that. She was uncertain whether going through the submissions would help since the candidates had already been shortlisted. She asked Mr Gumede to ensure that the ANC would move forward with the process as quickly as possible.

The Chairperson agreed that speed was important, but the public process needed to take place as well. This process needed to be fair and open so that the outcome could not be contested.

Mr D Gumede (ANC) said the IEC was a very important institution and pointed out that neither the DA or ANC were ready to engage on the matter. It was also important to maximize consensus on the matter. The ANC did not want to impose its majority but discuss and find consensus. At this point the parties did know one another’s positions. He emphasised that South Africa needed to come first.

The Chairperson encouraged parties to talk amongst each other to share their positions which would assist the process in the next meeting. In the meantime, the submissions would be sent to members.

Ms Ramaphuti attempted to present the names of candidates but the Chairperson interjected. She insisted that this was necessary for public consideration and transparency to know how many candidate and what their names were.

Other Matters

The Chairperson said that the topic of stateless persons would be added to the agenda of an upcoming meeting and the Department had been asked to present on the matter. The Committee would write to the chair of chairs to request a delegation to visit the OR Thambo airport on the issue of fireblades. Afterwards the new program would be scheduled. The Immigration Act needed to be finalised. There were matters that the members were confronted with by their constituencies and Parliament needs to have hearings on these urgently.  One of these problems was the performance at Home Affairs offices. He suggested that the Committee conduct unannounced visits to hold the offices accountable. Time would be allowed for that. The Secretary had been requested to write to the Indian High Commissioner to confirm which of the Gupta’s had renounced their citizenship. A report had been circulated for the Minister and Department to respond to questions posed to them.

The meeting was adjourned.