An attack against the Protector is an attack on the people of SA

The South African Police Service has confirmed that it will be investigating an allegedly unauthorised raid by crime intelligence officials yesterday evening at the offices of the Public Protector in Pretoria.

Police spokeperson McIntosh Polela told Sapa today: “We condemn the raid and we didn’t sanction it and we are launching an investigation to deal with the people that are responsible. The belief is they were looking for documents that Cele was refused access to during the investigation by the Public Protector.”

This is a reference to Public Protector Thuli Madonsela’s recently released report, which found police commissioner General Bheki Cele guilty of improper conduct and maladministration after police authorised a R500 million lease for the Sanlam Middestad Building in Pretoria.

Madonsela found that although Cele did not sign the actual lease, he did sign a memorandum dated May 10 2010, which authorised funding for the lease. It was ultimately signed by the public works department.

She said that Cele’s conduct breached the Constitution, the Public Finance Management Act, Treasury regulations and supply chain management rules and policies.

Cele denied the findings and said that only a court of law could find him guilty.

Having said that Cele’s office has condemned the raid saying that it did not authorise it and would take urgent steps against those involved.

In context

The Public Protector is a body established in terms of Section 182 of the Constitution of South Africa to protect the people of this country against abuse by government or state.

It’s function is to investigate any conduct in state affairs or in the public administration in any sphere of government that is alleged or suspected to be improper or to result in any impropriety or prejudice, report on that conduct and then take appropriate remedial action.

An attack against that body is an attack on the people of South Africa.

Earlier I looked at the basis upon which the police could have relied to conduct the raid or as some reports now suggest make a “surprise visit”, at the offices of the Public Protector.

Unsurprisingly there is no legal basis that has emerged as yet.

The police, like the Public Protector are now subject to the Constitution and prescribed legislation in the form of the South African Police Services Act, Criminal Procedure Act, among others, as well as case law.

That applies as much to special units as the SAPS.

In addition the SAPS have a code of ethics which includes, inter alia, obedience of the law, integrity and public approval.

Accordingly unless crime intelligence officials can come up with something better than an unannounced visit followed by looking through documents that they had not had the decency to request then the shit has just hit the fan.

Because unlike their code of ethics, this smacks of a cover-up on behalf of individuals while acting outside the law, shows a total lack of integrity and can never have the public’s approval because it is their protection being trashed in the interest of self-serving agendas.

Watergate scandal

In the 1970s the US was rocked by a political scandal after a break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington, DC.

It resulted in the resignation of the president, Richard Nixon, on August 9 1974 and the indictment, trial, conviction and incarceration of several Nixon administration officials.

After the arrest of five of the men responsible, the FBI connected the payments to the burglars to a slush fund used by the 1972 Committee to Re-elect the President.

Facing near-certain impeachment in the House of Representatives and a strong possibility of a conviction in the Senate, Nixon resigned and handed over to Gerald Ford who incredibly pardoned him.

The lone rangers

What now needs to emerge are the names of those who carried out the surprise visit.

In addition the identity of the party/ies who instructed them.

Then exact details of what they were told to look for and the basis being given for their visit.

What were their instructions if they were confronted by staff or the Public Protector?

An explanation, following their being part of a senior unit, as to why they believed they were entitled to break the law.

Sanctions

The removal of the Scorpions followed by the proposed Protection of Information Bill and Media Appeals Tribunal are direct attacks on the constitutional democracy of this country.

Those were and are being done using the existing law.

This however may well be an illegal attack on a constitutional body using organs of state for what may have been corrupt purposes.

It requires the strongest possible sanctions.

President Jacob Zuma recently said that South Africa would never become another Egypt or Tunisia while proudly pointing to our constitutional democracy. That the freedoms and protections of the system would avoid people having to take the law into their own hands.

That is only true if the government protects and nurtures it.