Defend Truth

VEXED POLICY

ANC cadre deployment: A ‘cancer’ — or freedom of speech in action?

ANC cadre deployment: A ‘cancer’ — or freedom of speech in action?
From left: DA leader John Steenhuisen. (Photo: Gallo Images / Darren Stewart) | President Cyril Ramaphosa. (Photo: Leila Dougan)

The ANC’s controversial policy of cadre deployment is in the spotlight this week, as the Pretoria High Court hears the DA’s application to have the policy declared unconstitutional. In court on Monday, the DA’s lawyer compared cadre deployment to a ‘cancer’ — while the ANC’s counsel maintained that the policy is protected by freedom of speech.

‘We are here to chop that cancer from the body politic,” advocate Anton Katz told a full bench of the Pretoria High Court on Monday.

Katz was referring to the DA’s application to have the ANC’s policy of cadre deployment declared unlawful and unconstitutional.

The policy, under increasing scrutiny since the Zondo commission’s consideration of the issue, reflects the ANC’s desire to have key state positions filled by approved individuals. The party has an internal committee which meets to deliberate over such positions and candidates, with more details of its proceedings revealed by the 2021 release of the minutes of meetings held between 2018 and 2020.

DA: Cadre deployment fosters corruption

The DA is objecting to cadre deployment on several grounds. Central to the party’s argument, however, is that the policy is inconsistent with the Constitution, which requires South Africa’s public service to be free from political interference. The party also argues that the policy undermines the rule of law by fostering corruption, and that it effectively gave rise to State Capture.

In court on Monday, Katz played to his audience by asking the bench if they were “okay” with the ANC’s stated desire to control “all levers of the state” — including investigative and judicial functions.

While the ANC might argue that its internal policies were beyond the scrutiny of the court because they pertain to a private organisation, Katz contended that “the policy of cadre deployment effectively operates as a policy of government”.

The ANC is also arguing that its deployment committee merely “recommends” suitable candidates, without dictating to the relevant member of the executive who should be appointed. Katz said the fact that the policy specifies that executive members who fail to follow the recommendations of the committee need to supply an “explanation” for having done so, and may face disciplinary action as a result, means that what looks like “recommending” is effectively “dictating”.

A further element of the DA’s argument is that the ANC’s policy undermines the right to equality by discriminating against public service candidates who are not ANC members.

Counsel for AfriForum — which joined the matter as an amicus, or friend of the court — on Monday took this argument a step further, contending that the policy amounts to “indirect discrimination on the grounds of race”.

AfriForum’s submission was subsequently described by ANC advocate Les Morrison as “a tirade of political content”.

ANC: Our policy is protected by freedom of expression

The ANC’s argument is that the DA is trying to limit the rights of political parties to express preferences about who they would like in public office — which amounts to a restriction of the party’s freedom of speech.

Arguing for the ruling party, Morrison said the very idea that a policy could be unconstitutional was “nonsensical”. He gave the example of a political party which might campaign to bring back the death penalty, and would be within its legal rights to hold this as a policy.

“The ANC has had the policy since 1985, since it was banned. The question we pose to the DA is: when did it become unconstitutional?” the advocate asked.

Morrison acknowledged that the members of the cadre deployment committee “wanted powers to tell the government what to do”, which he described as “very human”.

But there was no evidence that they achieved their objectives, Morrison said.

This was a point subsequently expanded on by advocate Mfundo Salukazana for the ANC, with Salukazana arguing that the DA had failed to provide sufficient proof that the policy led to the appointment of unqualified cadres.

“There has been no attempt to show that the appointments singled out by the DA were made solely on the basis of the cadre deployment policy in order to perform corruption,” Salukazana maintained.

It would be fallacious to assume; “You were appointed, you turned out to be corrupt, it means the ANC always knew when they deployed you that you were corrupt,” the advocate said.

Counsel for the ANC also argued that what was being presented in these proceedings is “the ideology of the Democratic Alliance dressed up as law”.

How does the cadre deployment policy play out in real life?

At the heart of the current legal debate is the cadre deployment policy itself — not the ANC’s deployment committee, or its proceedings.

But the committee meeting minutes, released by the Zondo commission after pressure from the DA, are relevant to those of us outside the court because they provided the only available glimpse into how the ANC’s policy is actually implemented.

As reported by Daily Maverick at the time, one of the more eye-opening revelations of the minutes was that the committee has, in the past, discussed and recommended candidates to be judges. This contradicted testimony by both ANC president Cyril Ramaphosa and former deputy secretary-general Jessie Duarte, to the effect that the committee did not involve itself in judicial recommendations.

In Ramaphosa’s testimony to the Zondo commission, he also gave some indication of how seriously Cabinet ministers take the recommendations of the committee, saying: “I know of ministers who have been there [in front of the committee] three times or more just to get a list [of candidates] recommended”.

Visit Daily Maverick’s home page for more news, analysis and investigations

The suggestion there is clearly that if the committee disapproves of a candidate, the appointing member of the executive has to find a new one — somewhat belying the impression repeatedly given elsewhere by the ANC, and reiterated now in court, that the committee does nothing more than express an opinion which can be rejected.

But, as also noted by Daily Maverick separately, there is also clear evidence that not all the committee’s recommendations succeed. This was the case with regard to judicial appointments.

It is also not clear to what degree the deployment committee prioritises party membership over other relevant considerations, as the minutes show members discussing the skills, experience and CVs of candidates far more frequently than their ANC standing.

The ANC is arguing that the DA fails to understand the context in which the policy was born, which was one in which the majority of public service employees were “if not hostile, then sceptical” towards the new democratic administration, to quote Morrison on Monday.

But even some of the ANC’s current top brass have questioned whether the policy is still necessary, with Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana suggesting to Newzroom Afrika in 2021 that the objective of racially transforming the civil service has already been achieved. DM

Court proceedings continue on Tuesday.

Gallery

  • Fanie Rajesh Ngabiso says:

    What makes me want to pull my hair out is that it is clearly in everyone’s interest to have a clear separation between party and state – and this includes the ANC.

    The Cadre deployment policy may have been born at a time when it was required, but it is now killing the host and needs to stop with urgency.

  • Cadre deployment is conduct inconsistent with the Constitution that should be struck down by the court. Ours is meant to be an open and accountable form of government in which the values and principles informing the public administration and state owned enterprises, as set out in C195(1) are upheld.
    No candidate who is not a cadre of its National Democratic Revolution comes up for consideration at Luthuli House’s cadre deployment committees. It’s recommendations are regarded as binding and were dressed up something less to circumvent the outlawing of cadre deployment in the public service in Mlokoti’s case in which no appeal was ever filed.
    The National Democratic Revolution seeks hegemonic control of all levers of power in society, including in government – this is sinister in a multi-party democracy under the rule of law and it helped cause state capture.
    Cadre deployment should be confined to purely political positions from municipal councillor to provincial parliaments, the national parliament and cabinets right up to the president. That is the freedom of association that political parties enjoy. Excluding non-cadres from working objectively to implement the lawful policies of the government of the day is unfair discrimination against them and contravenes the equality clause that is section 9 of the Bill of Rights which the state is obliged to respect, protect, promote and fulfil. The freedom of speech of political parties is trumped by the requirements of C195(1) .

    • Thinker and Doer says:

      Thank you very much, indeed, Mr Hoffman, for your very eloquent and cogent argument. Cadre deployment needs to be explicitly banned, it has been a significant c0ntributor to state capture, and the ongoing crisis of corruption and maladministration that is imperiling the country.

      • virginia crawford says:

        Cadre deployment epitomizes ‘some animals are more equal than others’. I suggest Animal Farm be a set work book for the next ten years.

        • Alison Immelman Immelman says:

          Would that we could teach this novel. It has been expressly ‘suggested’ that it not be taught because it is ‘too political’.

        • Lesley Young says:

          I suggested this years ago. Problem is, in the book, the ‘more equal’ are the pigs.

  • Bryan Macpherson says:

    So, public service employees were “if not hostile, then sceptical” to the administration.
    Now, they are largely incompetent, dishonest and unqualified – and have destroyed Eskom, the SABC, Armscor, the Post Office, South African Airways etc.
    Is that progress?

  • Katharine Ambrose says:

    In what way is the ANC a private organisation? Unless its habit of doing things behind closed doors and hiding from public scrutiny is what they mean by this.

  • Kerry van Schalkwyk says:

    The ANC’s cadre deployment policy, headed up by our esteemed President, Cyril Ramaphosa for 10 years, is totally complicit in the epic failure of SOEs & the rampant corruption by the governing party, which he was ‘shocked’ to hear. To say it is protected by ‘freedom of speech’ is absolutely ludicrous & the worst form of gas lighting. If the cadre deployees had even half a brain cell to run the SOEs competently & deliver its mandated services to citizens, I may be able to half accept this racist, unconstitutional policy. It’s sad that these deployees would rather be appointed into high-paying positions though criminal means, than be appointed on merit. All they care about is looting & pillaging the fiscus without any regard for the millions of lives they are plunging into poverty & misery. How they sleep at night shows that they are completely morally bankrupt &, like a cancer, should be cut out from this country,

  • D'Esprit Dan says:

    I wonder what the good advocate Salukazana would consider “sufficient proof that the policy led to the appointment of unqualified cadres.” There would be no court case if the public service was well run, wasn’t completely corrupt and our infrastructure was even half decent: it’s not. Advocate Salukazana clearly lives on a different planet to ordinary South Africans if he doesn’t see the complete destruction wrought on South Africa by the completely unqualified cadres of the ANC!

  • André Pelser says:

    A political party cannot be a private organisation, neither can its deliberations about appointments in the public service – a process subject to public proceedings and scrutiny – be private. Surely the test is the link between their recommendations and the eventual appointments, merit of candidates and subsequent performance of the appointees ?
    The recent JSC proceedings re appointment to the Concourt and treatment of Unterhalter SC come to mind.
    Hopefully transformation, equity, BEE and demographic representativity – so called “positive discrimination” vs equal rights are also brought into focus.
    The appointment of ANC apparatchiks in SOEs was an unmitigated disaster. Civil servants should serve the public, not themselves and the party that appointed them.
    In terms of our constitution and legislation public administration must be for the common good – as stipulated in the Public Finance Administration and Municipal Finance Administration acts – and economic growth and development based on Integrated Development Plan- and Spacial Development Plan-based budgets.
    I hope the link between tendrepreneurs and ANC cadre deployment is demonstrated in the court proceedings.

  • Dragon Slayer says:

    The tragedy is that the opposing cadre deployment is to little to late to unwind the self-serving obligations imposed on and delivered by those already deployed to execute on behalf of their masters.
    Cadre deployment, tragically, will be an ANC curse that will haunt South Africa long after the ANC loses their majority. The corrupt and incompetent squatters already deployed are so well entrenched in all organs of state that weeding them out is unlikely to happen until retirement.

    • Alan Watkins says:

      One of the questions asked by the judges early on was what should happen to those already appointed in terms of cadre deployment if cadre deployment was declared illegal and unconstitutional. That opens the door for all public servants, or at least those in top positions, positions to have been illegally filled and for those positions to be refilled through a ew process in which cadre deployment should not be allowed. Am i dreaming? I dont know if this is possible right now but when the ABC is weakened substantially in 2024 elections it may be.

  • Ian McGill says:

    Does the ANC think that e.g., Dudu Myeni was the best qualified candidate for SAA? or Lucky Montana at Prasa? Pull the other one! Or are the ANC that stupid?

  • quinton says:

    I find it astonishing that the ANC continues to defend cadre deployment despite it’s obviously failures at the expense of the entire country. So glad the DA has taken this to court. Let’s hope and pray that it will be ruled unconstitutional.

    • Glyn Morgan says:

      Lets hope that the DA does well in the elections so that we can see the change. I doubt that it will be a “big bang” change, but it will certainly be big and over a long time. The DA will in effect unchain South Africa!

  • Confucious Says says:

    Political ideology! It all boils down to image. Russia, China, Cuba, Zim, SA…. nothing to do with the actual welfare of the populous, but rather an ideology of the rulers to be seen to be amazing and wonderful, even if the facts blatantly state otherwise. As long as they look good to themselves, that is the only thing that matters. Oh, and the ability to steal money from the discus (of course).

  • Malcolm Mitchell says:

    In purely academic terms “cadre deployment’ as some people term it is not unknown in public administration. In fact the USA does it successfully when a new administration is elected by the voters. The problem is that whilst in other countries where it is used the ‘deployees’ are professionally competent in our case this has been shown not to be the case. So let us address the procedure and not the principle.

    • Graeme de Villiers says:

      This is an excellent point. Of course those in power will place their ‘own’, inasmuch as the ruling government of the day will rewrite the history books to better suit their own narrative.
      It is the quality and merit of each appointee that should be interrogated. Those already entrenched can be made to reapply for their jobs (as often happens in private companies) and a new broom can sweep away any waste that does not meet a set of minimum criteria for any specific job.

    • William Stucke says:

      Oh, please! Don’t use the political failure that is North Mexico (or is it South Canada?) as an example of how anything to do with a democracy should be run.

      Really? Do we want candidates to make promises to rich donors to get the money that they need to run a campaign and get elected? Do we want wholesale bribery of the legislature by industry to get the laws they want, passed? Do we want an “Electoral College” to filter the people’s votes? Come to think of it, isn’t that exactly what the ANC’s branch delegate system does?

      • virginia crawford says:

        The civil service in the UK and Europe is apolitical. It serves the state not the party.

    • John Smythe says:

      Doesn’t hold water if those in power are themselves corrupt. Our esteemed previous president for example. The corruption was so deep that it was natural to appoint people who toe his line and turn a blind eye.

  • Keith Scott says:

    The ANC has always acted as if SA is a one-party state – and cadre deployment is an integral part of one-party state rule.

  • Helen Swingler says:

    “The ANC has had the policy since 1985, since it was banned. The question we pose to the DA is: when did it become unconstitutional?” the advocate asked. Perhaps it always was, but no-one called it out.

  • Michael Davies says:

    If you separate the right of the public from the right of the party, from the right of the individual, then in this case surely Cadre deployment (ie the rights of the party are infringing on the rights of the public and individuals).
    By not using best practice in selecting ministers and heads of Departments, the ANC are guilty of this, and turning a blind eye to non performers and corrupt deployments.
    Surely a court must be able to see this?

  • Rory Macnamara says:

    It became unconstitutional from day one when starting with Nelson Mandela who made some questionable cabinet appointments and from then it was par for the course. when the running of a country is jeopordised by incompetents such as we have in SOE’s and Cabinet, etc, the policy of a private body is irrelevant. the ANC’s attorney must be scraping the bottom of the barrel with his argument.

  • Peter Dexter says:

    Apart from the dozens of other examples, the most relevant case study is Eskom. As recently as 2003 Eskom was voted one of the best power utilities in the world. Cadre deployment succeeded in breaking it – properly!

  • John Smythe says:

    This attorney is also an ANC appointment and most likely a member too. And he’ll spout out what they’re all good at. Denial at all costs. How can they call it freedom of speech when the only people they’re deploying are cadres and no chance of the deployment of a non-cadre? There must surely be non-cadre candidates who are better candidates than the ANC’s pool of cadre candidates. One doesn’t play freedom of speech with insititions that are vital to the smooth operation of the country and its economy. Their “freedom of speech” has brought our country to its knees. Where’s the freedom in that?

Please peer review 3 community comments before your comment can be posted

Every seed of hope will one day sprout.

South African citizens throughout the country are standing up for our human rights. Stay informed, connected and inspired by our weekly FREE Maverick Citizen newsletter.