MK Party Bill to Abolish IDAC Forces Parliament’s Hand on Anti-Corruption Architecture
By Mpho Tumelo Modise | Editor-in-Chief, EZA News
The MK Party’s decision to table a Private Member’s Bill seeking the abolition of the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption and the return of its functions to the Hawks and National Prosecuting Authority is, whatever one thinks of its merits, a politically significant intervention that arrives at precisely the right – or worst – moment, depending on one’s perspective.
The Bill lands in the week that IDAC’s head resigned under a cloud so dark it has generated its own gravity. The timing is not subtle, and it is not meant to be. The MK Party is making an argument in legislative form that it has been making in press conferences for months: that IDAC, as constituted, is not an improvement on the institutional architecture that preceded it but a politically capturable appendage of executive discretion dressed up as independent oversight.
Whether that argument is correct is a debate that deserves serious engagement rather than reflexive dismissal. The proponents of IDAC’s continued existence – including Minister Kubayi, who stood firm this week against disbandment calls – argue that the problem is not the institution’s design but the character of the individual who led it. Remove Johnson, conduct the six-month reset, appoint credible leadership, and IDAC can yet fulfil its mandate. This is the optimistic read.
The sceptical counter-argument, which the MK Bill crystallises even if one does not accept its proposed solution, is that an anti-corruption directorate whose head can be dismissed in circumstances that raise questions about obstruction of a formal commission of inquiry reveals a structural vulnerability in the institution’s governance – a vulnerability that personnel change alone cannot resolve.
The Bill’s parliamentary passage is unlikely. But the debate it forces is necessary. South Africa spent the better part of a decade watching its anti-corruption institutions fail, was then forced to rebuild them through commission recommendations and legislative amendment, and is now confronted with evidence that the rebuilt institutions remain fragile. That is a conversation the country must have, in Parliament and in public, without the comfort of easy answers.
About The Author
