Time to end corruption and restore the rule of law: Paul Hoffman

Key topics:Court demands independent anti-corruption body; SA still non-compliant.Professor Mabunda supports Accountability Now’s anti-corruption stance.Citizens urged to push for STIRS-compliant reforms and whistleblower protection..Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox at 5:30am weekdays. Register here.Support South Africa's bastion of independent journalism, offering balanced insights on investments, business, and the political economy, by joining BizNews Premium. Register here.If you prefer WhatsApp for updates, sign up to the BizNews channel here..By Paul Hoffman*.The lot of a small civil society organisation that espouses unpopular causes is a lonely one. A voice crying in the wilderness against the excesses of corruption with impunity in SA today is a particularly unpopular one.It accordingly came as a surprise to hear Unisa’s Professor Dumisani Mabunda commenting in a manner compatible with the position taken up by Accountability Now (since 2012) on the subject of the reform of the criminal justice administration to better equip it to conquer the corrupt in our midst in SA.At the heart of the issue is a judgment which expressly requires a single body that is outside the control of the executive to deal effectively with the scourge of corruption. This decision, made by our highest court, has not been a popular one with those who govern in SA, despite its binding nature. The ANC remains, despite the formation of the GNU, committed to the tenets of its National Democratic Revolution (NDR). At the core of the revolution is the desire to secure hegemonic control of all the levers of power in society. That desire is incompatible with the Constitution in many ways..Read more:.Peter Hain: Bring looters to justice with an International Anti-Corruption Court.The doctrine of the separation of powers is contrary to the idea of hegemony. The rule of law demands checks and balances in the exercise of power, not comprehensive control by a dominant party. The decisions of courts, made independently and impartially, bind those involved in the litigation concerned in all cases. These decisions ought to be implemented but today, more than a decade after the court so ruled, there is still no body “outside executive control” in SA.Revolutionary zeal, oaths of office notwithstanding, has trumped constitutional principles and in particular the rule of stare decisis has been ignored in the way the court decision has been dealt with by the executive and legislature, both of which were parties to the litigation that spawned the criteria for anti-corruption machinery of state.The court requires a body of specialists, trained to do corruption-busting properly, independent in their structure and operations, resourced in guaranteed fashion and secure in tenure of office. These five criteria have become known as the STIRS criteria for anti-corruption machinery of state that truly works. Needless to say, no organ of state or institution of government is STIRS-compliant, despite the binding nature of the court findings.It was accordingly refreshing to hear Professor Mabunda raising his head above the parapet by making points and submissions that accord with those of Accountability Now over the years.Correspondence ensued in which the submission of Accountability Now to the ad hoc committee in the National Assembly which is considering the complaints made by General Mkhwanazi on 6 July 2025 was shared with Professor Mabunda.His response was swift and interesting:I read this document, and it is my view that this approach is the correct one. Kindly indicate specific part/role that is required on my part, and I will seriously consider such.It seemed imperative to give the learned professor a smorgasbord of options available, to strengthen the advocacy of the campaign for constitutionally compliant anti-corruption machinery of state..Read more:.Zondo slams Ramaphosa: Cabinet picks undermine anti-corruption fight.Ten suggestions were swiftly dispatched. One or more of them may commend themselves to others, whether they are academics or merely concerned citizens who have had enough of rampant corruption with impunity in SA. If you, dear reader, have had enough of corruption in the country, if you are “keelvol” of the impunity enjoyed by the corrupt, here are ten suggestions for you to consider acting on yourself.Thanks for the swift and most encouraging reply.You could consider:1. In your role as teacher of law, placing emphasis on the supremacy of the rule of law and the principles of stare decisis as they relate to the binding nature of para 200 of the judgment of the majority in Glenister 2.2. As an academic, that you are free to make and publish your own assessment of the way forward for dealing effectively with corruption as a means of getting the public , the faith based organisations, civil society organisations and academia to put pressure on parliament to do what is right and is required to conquer the corrupt and end their looting with impunity.3. If the content of the two private members bills currently pending in parliament, if necessary as tweaked by you, commends itself, making your support for the bills publicly known as widely as you can.4. In your valuable interactions with the media, thinking about expressing your assessment of the way forward to constitutionally compliant reform of the existing dysfunctional system.5. Publishing a critique of the NACAC non-binding recommendations, an assessment which highlights their flaws, flaws which may be attributed to fealty to the national democratic revolution and not to the constitution as interpreted in the Glenister decisions of the Concourt , which decisions bind government to properly implement the STIRS criteria.6. Encouraging your colleagues in academia to understand and embrace the Glenister rulings and to campaign for their proper implementation by encouraging their adoption in the two pending private members bills as tweaked, if tweaking is required.7. Highlighting the plight of whistleblowers in our current dispensation and calling for accelerated reform of their protection, compensation and veneration as the very lifeblood of conquering the corrupt.8. Arranging or participating vigorously in public debate, on television, in podcasts and other media around the way forward post the publication of the Madlanga findings.9. Making your own submission to the Madlanga Commission , even if only to endorse that of Accountability Now. Academic endorsement counts a lot. Encourage colleagues to do likewise.10. Doing the same, but separately, for the ad hoc committee of the National Assembly.We at Accountability Now value your support , however you choose to express it.Thank you..*Paul Hoffman SC, a native of Johannesburg and a Wits graduate, practised law at the side bar from 1975 to 1980 and at the Cape Bar from 1980 to 2006. He took silk in 1995 and acted on the Cape Bench at the invitation of three successive judges president. After retiring from the Bar, he was founding director of the Centre for Constitutional Rights and co-founder, in 2009, of Accountability Now, both NGOs that promote constitutionalism. He is best known for his work on the irregularities in the arms deals, on the unconstitutionality of the Hawks and on the bread cartel case in which a general class action was developed by the courts. Yoga and long dog-walks on the beaches and mountains around his home in Noordhoek help keep him inspired to seek that elusive better life for all. He is the author of many articles and two books, Confronting the Corrupt, and Countering the Corrupt..This article was first published by Daily Friend and is republished with permission

Time to end corruption and restore the rule of law: Paul Hoffman

Related Stories

Anthea Jeffery: Will the PIE Amendment Bill solve land invasions?

Ivo Vegter: FIFA — Power, greed and the world's most untouchable monopoly

Tim Cohen: Doubling down on transformation

South African law firms challenge equity code in court