WHEN our new Constitution came into effect on 4 February 1997, it replaced the Interim Constitution of 1993.
Section 32 of the Bill of Rights gave us as citizens, the right to access information, including all information held by government.
The Promotion of Access to Information Act 2000 (Act 2 of 2000)(PAIA) was enacted in response to the constitutional mandate, and came into force in large part in March 2001. Its preamble acknowledges the “secretive and unresponsive culture” of the pre-democratic era, and asserts that one object of PAIA is to “foster a culture of transparency and accountability in public and private bodies.”
Can those that govern this region, honestly say they have fostered such a culture? The answer is a resounding NO!
The tragedy is that despite this right being entrenched in the Bill of Rights there was still a need for the Right2Know campaign, which was launched in 2010. This organisation fights for this right, as politicians continually disregard the Constitution.
In eThekwini, it is a sad fact that those that are elected to manage the affairs of the region seem concerned that this right should not exist and continually make it difficult to get information that is required to make democratic decisions. In a municipality where there is a culture of cronyism, corruption and a downright dereliction of duty, then it is not surprising that the paid officials follow the lead set by the politicians.
Former chief justice Sandile Ngcobo put it succinctly in a 2011 Constitutional Court judgment: “The constitutional guarantee of the right of access to information held by the state gives effect to accountability, responsiveness and openness as founding values of our constitutional democracy. It is impossible to hold accountable a government that operates in secrecy. In a democratic society such as our own, the effective exercise of the right to vote also depends on the right of access to information. For without access to information, the ability of citizens to make responsible political decisions and participate meaningfully in public life is undermined.”
When questions are put to those in power, about decisions that seem suspect, and are funded by ratepayers, they use a well-known stalling tactic of ignoring the questions altogether. This is done intentionally to tire the critic, and if nothing is said, they hope the problem will just go away.
The municipality has a fully- fledged communications department but they have become a firewall to protect politicians and their decisions. Any difficult questions are deflected. This department is not about real communication or information but rather about putting a positive “spin” on everything that the municipality does, regardless of whether the actions can be defended or not.
A classic example was the deal done on the Selborne Road crematorium. Despite clear questions, which required more detailed answers for clarity, the stock answer was that this matter had been investigated, the rental was correct, and no further information would be supplied.
A second example was two properties bought by the municipality for excessive prices and which put millions into the pocket of a middleman. Even a simple question on the reason for buying the properties remains unanswered.
When the head off the health department has an egotistical spat with another department, which results in three clinics closing their doors, no answers are forthcoming.
We have seen the President of South Africa treat the constitution with utter contempt. It required the Public Protector and the Constitution Court to bring him to heel.
Is it too much to ask that those that are elected to the council next month give us an undertaking to honour our Constitution? We think all candidates, of all parties need to make this commitment to the voters.
Cheryl Johson
Kevin Dunkley
SAVE OUR BEREA
