Image created by AI

Transparency or Deception? The State of Asset Declaration in South Africa's Parliament

Published November 28, 2024
2 months ago

In a recent unfolding within South Africa's political landscape, surprise and skepticism have greeted the declarations in the Parliamentary Register of Members’ Interests. Particularly startling is the revelation that four prominent political party leaders, among them Julius Malema (EFF), John Steenhuisen (DA), Mzwanele Nyhontso (PAC), and Fadiel Adams (NCC), have reported holding no shares and no property. This information, as stated in the latest disclosure records required of Parliament members except the President, brings to light not only the lifestyle of these politicians but also questions the veracity and effectiveness of the current parliamentary disclosure system.





The requirement for MPs to declare their assets aims to enhance transparency and maintain public trust by averting any conflicts of interest. However, discrepancies such as that noted in a City Press article, which referred to Adams as a homeowner contradicts his parliamentary declarations, suggesting potential gaps or abuses within the system.


Parliament's spokesperson, Moloto Mothapo, described the asset declaration as an honor system depending heavily on individual honesty. This method, while ideally promoting integrity, also allows for errors and misreporting with minimal initial verification, thus casting doubt over the thoroughness and reliability of the disclosures.


Moreover, the Daily Maverick's investigation into the seemingly austere or contradictory asset declarations by MPs like Action SA’s Lerato Ngobeni, who claims no property ownership yet receives income from a rental property, has exposed the complex financial arrangements and additional incomes that many MPs claim are necessary to meet their responsibilities and sustain their families on a government salary.


Given these MPs' salaries commence at R1.2-million annually, an amount significantly above the national average income, the public’s scrutiny and the debate over whether MPs are misleadingly portraying their financial situations are both understandable and necessary. The article highlighted that only 1.6% of South Africans earn over R1 million, contrasting sharply with the MPs’ financial band.


Aside from direct financial declarations, the perks accompanying a parliamentarian's role—such as subsidized housing, free transport, and communications reimbursements—are substantial. These benefits outline a comfortable lifestyle funded by the state, which MPs supplement invariably through other incomes or perks not always transparently disclosed.


Furthermore, the allowances for additional earnings through side businesses, which must be cleared to avoid conflicts of interest, also show a prevalent culture of multifaceted income sources among MPs. These include interest-free loans from acquaintances and income from properties indirectly held or 'sideline' businesses, which blur the lines between personal gain and public service.


The rising concern is whether the parliamentary asset declaration system in its current form is robust enough to ensure true transparency and maintain a robust check on conflicts of interest. The ongoing debates and investigations into these declarations reflect a growing public demand for greater accountability and clearer insights into the financial affairs of elected officials.


As South Africa continues to grapple with these issues, the effectiveness of its governance systems and the trust of its citizens in their leaders remain at stake. The integrity of the asset declaration system is crucial not just for maintaining ethical standards but also for safeguarding the democratic foundations by which these officials operate.


Leave a Comment

Rate this article:

Please enter email address.
Looks good!
Please enter your name.
Looks good!
Please enter a message.
Looks good!
Please check re-captcha.
Looks good!
Leave the first review