SA needs a body to deal only with corruption – says former Con court judge

Former Constitutional Court judge Albie Sachs has suggested a constitutional amendment to enable a Chapter 9 institution to specialise in investigating and prosecuting corruption and protecting whistleblowers.

Sachs, who was part of a panel of high-profile speakers during a webinar to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the signing of the country’s constitution, mostly preferred to speak in his personal capacity.

He said during his time as ConCourt judge, the majority of judges felt – although corruption was not expressly mentioned in the Bill of Rights and no Chapter 9 institution focused on it – the scourge threatened the achievement of all other rights.

“It undermined it. It allowed people in power, who should be upholding fundamental rights themselves, to take kickbacks, to have interests just outside,” he said.

ALSO READ: We’re not all corrupt and lazy, says protesting govt officials

It’s not just money involved but also virtues of integrity and honesty and it destroyed the trust with the people in government agencies. The need to have an independent investigative and prosecuting body is a constitutional
requirement.

Graft was not mentioned in any of themes of the Bill of Rights and no institution dealing with it specifically. Other chapter 9 bodies existed but were not designed specifically to deal with graft.

“Something needs to be considered in the form of a constitutional amendment to create a body with the same independence that other Chapter 9 institutions have but devoted to dealing with corruption, protecting whistleblowers and ensuring prosecutions and creating information and understanding,” Sachs said.

“This is something that needs to be considered in this 25th anniversary of our constitution.”

The retired judge hoped political parties across the spectrum would support the idea. He defended the judiciary against accusation that it violated the constitution and protected the powerful.

The courts delivered a pro-vulnerable and pro-poor judgment in the case of the Treatment Action Campaign that forced the state to provide antiretrovirals to people living with HIV/Aids.

ALSO READ: Ramaphosa’s slow pace towards corruption reports could derail anti-graft plan

The court’s decision to find against former president Jacob Zuma in his defiance of the court ruling in his contempt of court matter was correct because he openly defied the court.

He added that while he respected Zuma as fellow comrade with whom he spent about 10 years in exile in Mozambique,

“people must take consequences for their decisions”.

Nelson Mandela Foundation chief executive Sello Hatang said South Africans must blame themselves if there was no rule of law because they were themselves the constitution.