In its wisdom, the previous Committee on Standing Rules and Orders then adopted procedures which entailed the public interviews and so on. At that time we did not have them enshrined in our Constitution. They were only enshrined in the current Constitution but I am saying it because I believe if we look at best practices elsewhere, where appointments are made with the approval of the Legislature and I will give an example of South Africa; their Public Protector is appointed by the President with the approval of Parliament. They have actually conducted hearings in terms of which they interview prospective candidates and then make an informed recommendation.
In America where the President makes appointments with the approval of the Senate, they also have some public hearings.
THE HON. SPEAKER: Can you confine yourself to what our Constitution says and not to the South African Constitution or the US Constitution please.
HON. GONESE: I was simply making reference to looking at best practices but let me go back to the procedure in our Constitution. It says that we must approve and I believe that this institution, for it to be able to make an informed decision needs to be guided. I believe that the appropriate vehicle to guide us is the Public Accounts Committee which can then make some recommendations so that when we come to the approval, we do so from an informed position.
This is a very critical office Mr. Speaker where issues of integrity, issues of stability are not confined to the issue of a CV. What has been put in our pigeon holes Mr. Speaker Sir is just a CV which gives us the background and the experience of the person. But the Committee on Public Accounts, if given an opportunity will then be able to look at the suitability of the candidate, the history of the candidate, how that candidate has conducted himself or herself in her previous work experiences, so that we can then decide as to whether that candidate is a candidate where we can repose our trust. We do so from a position of knowledge and not at this juncture whereby we are just given a CV and we are expected to do it at the speed of an identified flying object which is just flying past this august House. So, in my view Mr. Speaker, I believe that if the Minister can really consider seriously the submissions which I have made so that when we do make our informed decisions, it is a decision, we can all be proud and happy about.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am Mr. Speaker, I am going to finalise by saying that concerns have been raised by various legislators across the political divide. I have actually had some interactions with Members who are really having some misgivings about the appointment of the candidate in question. I do not want to pre-judge him but I believe that if we are given an opportunity; or at least if our Committee is given an opportunity, it can then do due diligence and at the end of the day, if and when we do make the appointment, it is something which we can all be proud of. Those are my submissions Mr. Speaker.
THE HON. SPEAKER: The Point of Order appears to be based on newspaper reports and the newspaper reports can be misleading. I think we are also guided in terms of our Standing Rules that we are not even allowed to come to this House and read as evidence what is written in newspapers. So, unless the argument is based purely on our constitutional provision that argument can be sustained.
Continued next page
(974 VIEWS)
