Dear President Cyril Ramaphosa,

This letter is to thank you for your letter of August 23 to the ANC concerning corruption, and to make two specific requests to take this initiative further.

As you rightly state in your letter:

“As a movement representing the aspirations of the South African people, having fought a just struggle against a brutal regime, it was our intention and our hope that the overthrow of apartheid would herald a new era of integrity, honesty and ethical conduct by all in positions of responsibility.

“We sought not merely to change the political system, but to build a new nation on a fundamentally different moral foundation. It was to be a society based on equal rights for all, on solidarity, integrity and accountability.”

The South African Constitution sets out the moral foundation on which our republic is built, and the oath of office sworn by all public officials includes the promise to “obey, uphold and maintain the Constitution”.

The award and receipt of state tenders, for the provision of PPE or anything else, to people solely on the grounds of their political connections is a violation of the Constitution. The core violation is of Chapter 2 of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, which states that:

“The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone.”

Evidently, those bidding for state tenders who lack political connections are unfairly discriminated against when their bids are disregarded in favour of the connected.

Such tender procedures, particularly where they result in the state paying higher prices for goods and services than it should, are also a clear and unambiguous violation of Chapter 10 of the Constitution, which requires “a high standard of professional ethics” in public administration, and the “efficient, economic and effective use of resources”.

For these reasons, we call on you to denounce, firmly and clearly, the unfortunate yet common practice of ANC officials, including the party’s secretary-general, whenever a party member who has been accused of serious wrongdoing is appointed to a new public position, of justifying the appointment by saying the person is “innocent until proven guilty”.

Though legally true, the real point of reference for all public officials should instead be the Constitution and the officials’ oaths of office, with particular reference to the clauses highlighted above.

Beneficial ownership disclosure is indispensable in the fight against procurement ‘hyenas’

Secondly, we call on you to endorse and support the “advocacy comment” call by amaBhungane as recorded in Daily Maverick that the law be changed, either via the Companies Amendment Bill or via the Public Procurement Bill, to require full disclosure of the beneficial ownership of companies and trusts. The absence of this requirement currently impedes transparency in public administration, which is a violation of the Constitution (Ch 10, para 195, 1, f), and makes it harder than it should be for journalists, researchers and auditors to establish who is really benefiting from public tenders.

As amaBhungane notes:

“Tender fraudsters and beneficiaries of corruption are … people with names and ID numbers and houses in fancy neighbourhoods. And we need to know who they are…

“Finding the answer to that question is made all the more difficult when one of the parties to a transaction – say, a bidder seeking to be awarded a lucrative government contract – is a juristic person that is just one entity in a complicated organogram involving layers of shell companies and trusts.

“These arrangements, which are sometimes facilitated with the assistance of shrewd lawyers and consultants, are calculated to obfuscate the identities of those who profit from dodgy tenders. As a result, ‘following the money’ leads to dead ends, meaning that the perpetrators’ identities are obscured and they are shielded from being held accountable.

“amaBhungane is fighting for beneficial ownership disclosure in order to answer that very question. The ‘beneficial owner’ is the individual who ultimately owns or controls a legal entity: the person on whose behalf a transaction is being conducted. Where there is corruption, it is the answer to the question of who enjoys the spoils?”

Speaking out against the “innocent until proven guilty” justification for public officials implicated in corruption receiving new government positions, and lending public support for amaBhungane’s call for a change in the law on beneficial ownership would, in our belief, demonstrate your practical commitment to the fight against corruption and could have a significant, positive impact.

We call upon you to do so.

In peace,

From the Social Concerns Committee of the Quaker Community, Western Cape, and Quakers who share their concerns.

Electronically signed by:

George Ellis (co-Clerk), Julie Suberg (co-Clerk), Bridget Nomonde Scoble (co-Clerk), Michael Williams, Graham Thomas, Peter Tuffin, Thony Marshall, Shane Petzer, Gregory Mthembu Salter, Diane Salters, Neil Brathwaite DM