One of the rather more enduring pictures of the recent local government elections was President Jacob Zuma hanging out with Nkandla locals in the voting queue. He laughed and joked alongside them. And then they voted IFP.

Nkandla had already fallen to the IFP in a by-election in 2012. Nevertheless there is a rich irony in the locals not rewarding Zuma for his excesses no matter how much joking was happening in that queue last Wednesday.

Nkandla has become synonymous with excess, political hubris and that Concourt judgment which so carefully outlined Zuma’s breach of the Constitution. “Pay back the money!” has become a pay-off line in South African politics.

The EFF made Zuma and Nkandla front and centre of its election campaign and now play kingmakers in our major metros. The middle class, so-called “clever blacks”, and increasing numbers of the black working class have given the ANC a sobering reminder that despite it trying to sweep Zuma’s multitude of scandals and associated corruption under the carpet, the people have not forgotten.

Nkandla has become so much a part of the political discourse, as has Thuli Madonsela, our Public Protector. Although Madonsela is always at pains to point out that her office investigates thousands of matters each year and not all of them are high profile ones, she has become synonymous with Nkandla. Her steely determination finally brought the president to book. She suffered the slings and arrows of politics during the process and even endured threats on her life. She has truly been an extraordinary woman for this time in South Africa.

So, while coalitions will be uppermost in everyone’s minds, most of all the politicians’, the final part of a crucial process is taking place in Parliament on Thursday. The ad hoc committee on the appointment of the Public Protector, chaired by Dr Makhosi Khoza, will interview the 14 short-listed candidates for the position of Public Protector. One of them will have to fill Madonsela’s outsized boots.
The committee’s important work should not be lost in the noise of post-election horse-trading and drama.

To be eligible to become Public Protector one has to fulfill the following criteria in terms of the Public Protector Act.

“The candidate must be:

• a South African citizen who is a fit and proper person to hold such office, and who is a judge of a high court; or
• is admitted as an advocate or an attorney and has, for a cumulative period of at least 10 years after having been so admitted, practised as an advocate or an attorney; or
• is qualified to be admitted as an advocate or an attorney and has, for a cumulative period of at least 10 years after having so qualified, lectured in law at a university; or
• has specialised knowledge of or experience, for a cumulative period of at least 10 years, in the administration of justice, public administration or public finance; or
• has, for a cumulative period of at least 10 years, been a Member of Parliament; or
• has acquired any combination of experience mentioned in paragraphs (1) to (5) for a cumulative period of at least 10 years.”

Thanks to a vibrant campaign being run by Corruption Watch, the nomination process saw a plethora of names being thrown into the hat. At the last meeting of the ad hoc committee, 14 individuals who met the criteria in terms of the act were short-listed. There has though been some concern among civil society organisations regarding the short-listing process.

The act does not lay down a specific process regarding the appointment of a Public Protector, so the ad hoc committee has been left to fashion that itself. The selection process got off to an uneven start when some MPs were not in receipt of all the documents needed for the meeting to start. Initially the committee had agreed to a short list of 10, which later ballooned to 14. Unlike any job interview, there were no criteria against which short-listed candidates were measured despite the committee’s researcher presenting such criteria for consideration. Political parties simply nominated individuals by calling their names out aloud in an almost haphazard manner. There seems to have been no consideration of comments submitted by the public regarding some candidates, for instance. Some excellent candidates were not short-listed, and if they ever asked why, it would be difficult to explain.

The interview process on Thursday will be taxing for its sheer length. The first interview is scheduled to start at 07:45 and the last ends at midnight. The sheer impracticality of the timing has the effect of undermining an open process. Who will be able to monitor the process until midnight and effectively? And how effective will the 14^th candidate scheduled for 23:00 be? It is an absurd schedule that parties should not have agreed to.

Quite why that was agreed to is anyone’s guess. It will be irrelevant in many cases because the candidates are likely to be predictable in what they will say about the office and themselves. It is easy to have as many fanciful dreams about a Public Protector’s office that is better staffed and resourced. But then there is reality. Apart from being appropriately qualified, the real test of any candidate’s mettle is whether they are independent-minded and have in their “past lives” and careers been able to speak truth to power.

One cannot help thinking that it would be useful to examine the candidates’ professional lives and whether they have shown themselves able to deal with pressure and to stand up against wrongful or petty exercises of power from those in authority where it mattered. Looking beyond the CVs in that way would take some inquisitorial imagination from the committee and it is hoped they will dig deeply. Temperament is everything and this job will need more than merely being qualified “on paper”. It requires toughness that many might not possess.

In addition, 14 is far too long for a “short list”. More appropriate might have been five candidates and certainly no more than 10. The list however represents a good gender balance though the chair was quoted as saying, “It will be an antithesis therefore if we come with an all-boys choir. It will not work with me and I’m sure it won’t work with other women in the house,” and went further to say, “I’m canvassing you now, we must have women there.”

It is either well meaning or entirely condescending to the qualified, capable women on the list who may feel justified in thinking they made the short list so that it is representative and amid pressure from the chair. Khoza’s comments were curious to say the least.

When all is said and done, the ANC has a majority on the ad hoc committee with six members, two from the DA, one from the EFF and two from smaller parties, including the ACDP.

The process could go three ways; the ANC steamrollers a candidate whom it has firmly consolidated its support behind by this week and who is acceptable to the different parts of the ANC; second, a weak compromise candidate is chosen, acceptable to all parties, qualified but not strong enough to pose a threat to the vested interests during the last years of a Zuma presidency, and third, a candidate who meets the legal criteria but is also strong enough to stand up to political forces and is truly independent.

Quite which of the three options will win the day remains to be seen. It is crucial that the process be as open and transparent as possible, and the committee has ensured that will be the case. Thus far that has been so.

What is certain however is that the stakes here are very high. Madonsela has been urged to start an investigation into state capture and the president would have everything to lose should such an investigation come to pass.

One need only look at the battles over the SABC and Nkandla to see how far Zuma is prepared to go to wear down institutions of constitutional democracy that threaten his own interests. This job will not be for the faint of heart and civil society will need to be vigilant as the process unfolds. Makhosi Khoza has said she is “no push-over”. Those words will be put to the test soon. DM

Photo: Honoree and human rights lawyer, Thuli Madonsela, arrives at the Time 100 gala celebrating the magazine’s naming of the 100 most influential people in the world for the past year, in New York April 29, 2014. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson