Learn more

composite
36
36

South Africa

In law
36
In practice
47

In South Africa, public funding is provided, in law and in practice, to political parties for campaigns. Indirect funding, taking the form of free access to advertising, is also available during campaigns. Some non-financial state resources, including public buildings, were inequitably and illegally deployed during the 2014 elections for the benefit of particular parties. There are no restrictions on contribution and expenditure in South Africa. Parties may take in unlimited amounts of money from any kind of donor, and may spend as much as possible during elections. Where reporting requirements are concerned, parties must submit only reports on the use of public funding. No information on private contributions, or the use of those contributions, is mandated by law. This means, in practice, very limited information on the spending of political parties is available to the public. Third party actors are entirely unregulated in South Africa, despite their presence and influence during campaigns. Political finance is overseen by the powerful Independent Electoral Commission (IEC), the members of which are independent and possessing of merit. The IEC is well funded and well staffed, and conducts some investigations, in practice. Sanctions take the form of frozen disbursements of public funding, and are sometimes effective.

  • expand button!

    Direct and Indirect Public Funding

    More about category
    composite
    81
    • expand button!
      Direct Public Funding
      More about category
      • expand button!
        1
        Score
        YES
        In law, there is direct public funding for electoral campaigns.More about indicator

        In terms of the Electoral Act, 73 of 1998, in South Africa’s pure proportional representation system, individuals cannot stand for election. Individuals can be elected only if they are listed as members of political parties registered with the Electoral Commission. For this reason, this question has been interpreted and answered as if it applies only to political parties.

        Public funding is not provided solely for the purpose of or during the period of political campaigns. Rather, it is provided to political parties for a range of authorised activities, from three primary sources.

        First, funding is paid to political parties on an annual basis from the Represented Political Parties Fund. Section 1(1) read with s 5 of the Public Funding of Represented Political Parties Act of 1997 (the Public Funding Act) provides that the Represented Political Parties' Fund (the Public Fund) is established for the purpose of funding political parties that participate in Parliament and provincial legislatures. Subsection (2) provides that the Fund will be credited with ‘moneys appropriated to the Fund by Parliament...'. This allocation takes place annually via the Appropriation Act passed by Parliament.

        Second, in terms of s 8.7.1 of Parliament’s Policy on Political Party Allowances of 2005 (the Parliamentary Allowances Policy), funding is provided to political parties represented in the National Assembly of Parliament to support their ability to perform a range of internal administrative functions, to support the party leader specifically, as well as to operate constituency offices in the broad public interest, i.e. on a non-partisan basis to all members of the public. (The Appropriation Act, 33 of 2014, Item 5 ‘Associated Services’ in Vote 2 ‘Parliament’ identifies an amount of R348 487 000, none of which should be used for partisan or political party campaign purposes, in terms of Annexure A to Parliament’s Policy on Political Parties.)

        Thirdly, all nine provincial legislatures have passed laws similar in nature to the Parliamentary Allowances Policy.

        Section 57(1)(b) of the Constitution provides that the National Assembly may make rules and orders concerning its business, with due regard to representative and participatory democracy, accountability, transparency and public involvement.’ (Emphasis added) Section 57(2)(c) of the Constitution provides that the ‘rules and orders of the National Assembly must provide for ... ‘financial and administrative assistance to each party represented in the Assembly in proportion to its representation, to enable the party and its leader to perform its functions in the Assembly effectively.’ (Emphasis added) Section 236 of the Constitution ‘Funding for Political Parties’ provides for public funding to ‘enhance multi-party democracy’. National legislation must therefore provide for the funding of political parties participating in national and provincial legislatures on an equitable and proportional basis.’

        In terms of paragraph 3 ‘Policy Statement’ of the Parliamentary Policy on Political Parties’ Allowances (Parliamentary Allowances Policy) ‘Parliament commits itself to provide financial and administrative assistance to each party represented in the Assembly in proportion to its representation; and to enable the party and its leader to perform their functions in the Assembly effectively.’ Paragraph 4.1 ‘Purpose’ provides that funds are made available to political parties in order ‘to enable them to participate effectively in Parliament and provincial legislatures’.

        Peer reviewer comment: Agree. The South African Constitution (Section 236) stipulates that political parties represented in national and provincial legislatures must receive public funding and that such funding be allocated on an equitable and proportional basis. The Public Funding of Represented Political Parties Act (No. 103 of 1997) and its accompanying regulations give effect to this constitutional provision. The Public Funding of Represented Political Parties Act entitles all political parties represented in the NA and/or any provincial legislature to receive public funding. It establishes a Represented Political Parties Fund (RPPF) into which money appropriated for the funding of political parties, donations to the RPPF, and all interest on Fund investments is paid. In terms of the Act, South Africa’s chief electoral officer is the accounting officer and chief Executive officer of the RPPF. The President is responsible for issuing regulations on how funding should be allocated to political parties, for defining the purposes for which funds may not be used, and for setting out the reporting requirements recipients of public funding must comply with.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where there is direct public funding for both political parties and individual candidates to campaign. A 100 also applies where only one of the two actors can be elected and, therefore, only one is entitled to direct public funding.

        A MODERATE score is earned where per law only one of the two actors (either political parties or individual candidates) is allocated direct public funding to campaign, even though both can be elected.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Section 57 and 236 of the Constitution 1996, available at: http://www.constitutionalcourt.org.za/site/theconstitution/english-2013.pdf (accessed 30 October 2014)

        Section 2 of the Public Funding of Represented Political Parties Act 103 of 1997 (Public Funding Act), available at: http://www.elections.org.za/content/Parties/Party-funding/; and http://www.justice.gov.za/alraesa/projects/PublicFundingofRepresentedPoliticalPartiesAct103of1997.pdf (accessed 2 September 2014)

        Appropriation Act 33 of 2014, read with the Public Funding of Represented Political Parties Act 103 of 1997 (the ‘Public Funding Act’). Appropriation Act, 2014, available at: http://www.treasury.gov.za/legislation/bills/2014/Appropriation%20Bill%2004-2014.pdf (accessed 7 Sept 2014).

        The Appropriation Act of 2014 was passed by Parliament on 31 July 2014, and assented to by the President on 13 August 2014. Available at http://www.pmg.org.za/billsstatus/proceedings (accessed 7 Sept 2014).

        Regulations in terms of section 10 (1) of the Public Funding of Represented Political Parties Act, 1997. Proclamation R117 in Government Gazette 19478 of 20 November 1998 and amended by Proc. R47 GG 27986 31/8/2005. Available at: http://www.justice.gov.za/alraesa/projects/PublicFundingofRepresentedPoliticalPartiesRegulations_Act103of1997.pdf (accessed 7 Sept 2014).

        Section 8.7.1 Parliament’s Policy on Political Parties Allowances, 2005 (the ‘Parliamentary Allowances Policy’, adopted on 20 July 2005), available at: http://www.parliament.gov.za/content/POLICY%20on%20political%20parties%20allowances~2.pdf (accessed 7 Sept 2014).

        National Treasury: Estimates of National Expenditure (ENE) Vote 2 Parliament, 2014. Available at: http://www.treasury.gov.za/documents/national%20budget/2014/ene/FullENE.pdf (accessed 7 Sept 2014).

        National Treasury: Estimates of National Expenditure (ENE) Vote 4 Home Affairs, 2014, Available at: http://www.treasury.gov.za/documents/national%20budget/2014/enebooklets/Vote%204%20Home%20Affairs.pdf (accessed 7 Sept 2014).

        Provincial party funding laws 2007-2011 Note: Not all are directly and freely accessible online without a subscription to online databases. However, it appears that both the mechanism and the formula are determined by law.

        Eastern Cape Political Party Fund Act 1 of 2010. Provincial Gazette for Eastern Cape No 2474 Vol 17, 26 Nov 2010. Available at http://www.greengazette.co.za/documents/provincial-gazette-for-eastern-cape-2474-of-26-nov-2010-vol-17_20101126-ECP-02474.pdf (Note: Green Gazette publication is not accessible without payment of a fee; attempted to access on 7 Sept 2014)

        Free State Political Party Fund Act 3 of 2008. Indirect reference available at http://www.treasury.gov.za/documents/provincial%20budget/2014/4.%20Estimates%20of%20Prov%20Rev%20and%20Exp/FS/2.%20Estimates%20of%20Prov%20Rev%20and%20Exp/FS%20-%20Vote%2002%20-%20Free%20State%20Provincial%20Legislature.pdf (accessed 12 Oct 2014).

        Gauteng Political Party Fund Act 3 of 2007. Available at http://www.gautengleg.gov.za/legislature_documents/legislature%20documents/acts/2007/gauteng%20political%20party%20fund%20act,%202007%20[act%2003%202007].pdf. (NOT accessible 2 Sept 2014).

        KwaZulu-Natal Funding of Represented Political Parties Act 7 of 2008. Available at http://www.kznlegislature.gov.za/Portals/0/KZN%20Funding%20of%20Political%20Parties%20Act-2008.1.pdf (accessed 2 Sept 2014).

        Limpopo Political Party Fund Act 4 of 2008. Provincial Gazette for Limpopo No 1562 Vol 15, 26 Nov 2008. Available at http://www.greengazette.co.za/documents/provincial-gazette-for-limpopo-1562-of-26-nov-2008-vol-15_20081126-LIM-01562.pdf (link only accessed 12 Oct 2014).

        Mpumalanga Political Parties Support Fund Bill of 2008, apparently passed into law. Indirect reference in 2009 annual budget for the Mpumalanga legislature at para 5.4.1. Available at http://www.treasury.gov.za/documents/provincial%20budget/2009/Budget%20Statements/MPU/MP%20-%20Vote%2002%20-%20Provincial%20Legislature.pdf (accessed 12 Oct 2014).

        Northern Cape Political Party Fund Act 7 of 2009. Provincial Gazette for Northern Cape No 1357 Vol 16, 18 Nov 2009. Available at http://www.greengazette.co.za/documents/provincial-gazette-for-northern-cape-1357-of-18-nov-2009-vol-16_20091118-NCP-01357.pdf (link only accessed 12 Oct 2014).

        North West Political Party Fund Act 3 of 2010. Provincial Gazettes (North West), No 6897 of 30 May 2011. Available at http://www.greengazette.co.za/notices/north-west-petitions-act-2-2010-north-west-political-party-fund-act-3-2010-and-north-west-provincial-legislature-management-amendment-act-5-2010-for-general-information_20110530-NWP-06897-00128.pdf (link only accessed 12 Oct 2014).

        Western Cape Province – a law has apparently been passed. Although a copy has not been found, there is an indirect reference to its existence in the Western Cape Province Appropriation Bill 2014. Available at http://www.wcpp.gov.za/sites/default/files/Western%20Cape%20Appropriation%20Bill%20%5BB%203-2014%5D.pdf (accessed 12 Oct 2014).

        The State of Party Funding in South Africa Policy Paper, Money and Politics Project, Open Society Foundation for South Africa (forthcoming in 2014). See http://osf.org.za/now-available-mapp-money-politics-project-2012-briefs/. The paper contains details of most provincial laws, and argues that the provincial laws may be unconstitutional, as the Constitution provides only for a national law to regulate political party funding.

        See also in this regard - ‘R1-billion in ‘illegal’ party payouts’ Mail & Guardian, available at: http://mg.co.za/article/2013-03-08-00-r1-billion-in-illegal-party-payouts (accessed 30 August 2014)

        Questionnaire completed by Ms Ester de Wet, Manager: Budgets, Party Funding and Compliance, Independent Electoral Commission, 13 October 2014.

        Interview with Mr Hlengani Nkuna, Section Manager: Finance Department, Parliament of South Africa, 17 October 2014.

      • expand button!
        2
        Score
        YES
        In law, there is a transparent and equitable mechanism to determine direct public funding for electoral campaigns.More about indicator

        Section 2(2)(a) of the Public Funding Act provides that allocations are appropriated by Parliament through the annual Appropriation Act in terms of the provisions of s. 5(2) of the Public Funding Act and according to the formula prescribed in regulations promulgated by the President in terms of s.10 of the Act. Regulations promulgated in terms of s.10 of the Act in 1998 and amended in 2005 also prescribe the timing and frequency of payments (to enable parties to plan their cash flow), and determine the formula for the allocation of moneys from the Fund. In terms of a 2005 amendment to the Regulations, payments are made to qualifying political parties on a quarterly basis, commencing within four weeks of the start of each financial year. Payments are thus not linked only to expenditure related to election campaigns and are intended to enable political parties to maintain a stable core administrative structure.

        Consistent with the provisions of s.236 of the Constitution, section 5(2) of the Act provides that allocations from the Fund shall be made in accordance with a prescribed formula based in part on ‘the principle of proportionality’ and in part on ‘the principle of equity’. The current formula is prescribed in Regulation 2(2): ninety per cent of the total amount of funding is allocated ‘proportionally’ and ten per cent of the total amount of funding is allocated ‘equitably’.

        Regulation 3 prescribes that the proportional allocation of 90 per cent of the whole must be determined by dividing the total annual amount proportionally among the parties in accordance with the number of seats of each represented political party actually ‘participating’ in the National Assembly and the provincial legislatures ‘jointly’, or taken together.

        Regulation 4 prescribes that the equitable portion (of 10 per cent of the whole) must be shared between provinces in proportion to the number of members or seats of the respective provincial legislatures. ‘[T]he allocation to a particular province in terms of paragraph (a) must be divided equally among the participating parties in the legislature of that province’, i.e. regardless of their proportion or percentage of members or seats held.

        The Public Funding of Represented Political Parties Act (No 103 of 1997) provides for the management of the Represented Political Parties’ Fund (the Fund) by the Electoral Commission (IEC). The administration of the Fund forms an integral part of the Electoral Commission’s systems, policies, procedures and internal controls. The Audit Committee of the Electoral Commission presents its report for each financial year of the Fund to Parliament’s Home Affairs Portfolio Committee.

        The equitable nature of the 90:10 formula is the subject of intense and continued controversy. Smaller and new parties argue that allocating 90% of the funding on a proportional basis doesn’t reflect electoral reality and unfairly favours the ruling ANC by supporting incumbency rather than ‘multiparty democracy’ which is the stated objective of the enabling constitutional provision. It is arguable that s 236 of the Constitution favours equity over proportionality.

        The Parliamentary Allowances Policy provides for three types of allowances – to meet political parties’ administrative needs in Parliament, for their political parties’ leadership serving in the National Assembly of Parliament, as well as for political parties to operate parliamentary ‘constituency offices’ (PCOs). In terms of s 8.7.1 of the Policy, these offices are required to serve equally all members of the public on a non-partisan basis – not merely supporters of a particular member’s political party. Consistent with the current proportional representation electoral system, political parties – rather than the IEC or parliament – determine which of their MPs are allocated to a particular constituency office and where it will be located. Thus, although the current electoral system is a pure proportional system that is not based on legally delineated constituencies, political parties in Parliament’s National Assembly allocate each of their members to a party-defined area in order to facilitate more effective communication with members of the public who reside or work in those areas.

        Section 8.8.1 read with Annexure A of the Parliamentary Allowances Policy specifies that permissible usage of the allowance, which is closely related to the normal anticipated operations of a constituency office. However, the purpose and objectives of the allowance and offices are specified in s 4 ‘Purpose’ read with s 6 ‘Objectives/Principles’ as non-partisan and for the benefit of all constituents within the area surrounding the constituency office. It is therefore clear that the allowance may not be used to fund partisan political activities or electoral campaigns.

        In terms of the policy, the Secretary pays a lump sum amount determined by the Presiding Officers into each political party’s bank account. The lump sum amount is determined proportionally by multiplying the annual amount per Member by the party’s number of seats as determined at the last general election. Parties are each informed by letter of their allocation for the financial year. In non-election years, the parties are normally notified in March. In an election year the timing depends upon when the election is held. The funds are paid over in quarterly tranches.

        Funding in terms of s.57 for political parties’ use inside Parliament has, in practice, been itemised separately in Parliament’s ‘Associated Services’ budget, as ‘Political Party Support: Contribution to operations’ and ‘Party Leadership Support: Contribution to political parties for party leaders' remuneration’. (This helpful distinction is largely absent from provincial appropriation budgets.) In addition to this allowance, each party’s Parliamentary caucus is provided with a Political Party Operational Support Allowance and a Political Office Bearers Allowance/Party Leadership Allowance. The latter varies according to whether the Member is a Whip, a Party Leader, or Leader of the Official Opposition. Various national and international membership fees for MPs and Parliamentary staff are also paid as part of total amount transferred for these ‘Associated Services’. These amounts are transferred by National Treasury from the national fiscus to Parliament in terms of the annual Appropriation Act.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree. The Public Funding of Represented Political Parties Act (No 103 of 1997) provides for the management of the Represented Political Parties’ Fund (the Fund) by the Electoral Commission (IEC). The administration of the Fund forms an integral part of the Electoral Commission’s systems, policies, procedures and internal controls. The IEC must keep accurate financial records of all funds received by or accruing to the RPPF, all payments made from the fund, all expenditures arising from allocating the fund, and all assets and liabilities pertaining to the fund. The Audit Committee of the Electoral Commission must report to Parliament's Portfolio Committee on Home Affairs on moneys received by, disbursed and used from the RPPF as soon as possible after the end of each financial year. The report, statements, and the books and records of accounts relating to the fund must be audited by the Auditor-General.

        The IEC may suspend allocations to a political party if it is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that the party has not complied with the Act. Prior to doing so it must inform the party of the intended suspension and give it 30 days to motivate why its funding should not be stopped. The IEC may terminate the suspension once it is satisfied that it is no longer justified.

        Political parties must be able to account for the public funding they receive. The Act requires that parties keep the money allocated to them in a separate bank account. They must also appoint one of their office-bearers or officials as the accounting officer responsible for managing this money. The accounting officer must account for all moneys from the fund and ensure the party’s compliance with the Funding of Represented Political Parties Act, particularly in respect of the purposes for which the money is used. S/he must keep separate books and records of account; prepare a statement within two months of the fiscal year on amounts received and used, and the purposes for which the funds were used; and have the accounts audited, specifically with a view to evaluating whether the funds were used for purposes other than those allowed by the Act. The auditor’s report and audited statement must be submitted to the IEC within three months after the end of the financial year. If money from the fund is spent irregularly, the accounting officer may be liable for the misspent funds. The IEC can recover the funds through a civil claim against the accounting officer or by setting it off against future payments to the party.

        Parties may roll over funds which are unused, but the IEC can impose a percentage limit on funds (set at 50%) that are rolled over and may not set off credit balances in the hands of parties against a subsequent allocation. When a party ceases to qualify to receive funding, it must repay the unspent balances within 21 days.

        When Parliament and provincial legislatures are dissolved, each political party must close its books and records of account for money from the RPPF no later than 21 days before the election date, and must submit an audited statement to the IEC no later than 14 days thereafter.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where: 1) direct public funding for political parties and individual candidates' electoral campaigns is allocated through a clearly defined calculation mechanism that is transparent and equitable, and 2) there are clearly defined eligibility criteria.

        A MODERATE score is earned where direct public funding for political party and individual candidates' electoral campaigns is allocated through a clearly defined calculation mechanism that is transparent and equitable, but eligibility criteria are not clearly defined.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Public Funding of Represented Political Parties Act 103 of 1997 (Public Funding Act), Section 2, 5(2), available at: http://www.elections.org.za/content/Parties/Party-funding/; and http://www.justice.gov.za/alraesa/projects/PublicFundingofRepresentedPoliticalPartiesAct103of1997.pdf (accessed 2 September 2014)

        Public Funding Act, 1997; read with Regulation 2 of the Regulations, 1998. The Public Funding Act Regulations were published under Proclamation R117 in Government Gazette 19478 of 20 November 1998 and amended by Proc. R47 GG 27986 31 August 2005. Subsequent Amendment Regulations were published under Proclamation R24 of 16 April 2009.

        Regulations in terms of section 10 (1) of the Public Funding of Represented Political Parties Act, 1997.

        Parliament’s Policy on Political Parties Allowances, 2005 (the ‘Parliamentary Allowances Policy’, adopted on 20 July 2005), available at: http://www.parliament.gov.za/content/POLICY%20on%20political%20parties%20allowances~2.pdf (accessed 7 Sept 2014).

        Proclamation R117 in Government Gazette 19478 of 20 November 1998 and amended by Proc. R47 GG 27986 31/8/2005. Available at: http://www.justice.gov.za/alraesa/projects/PublicFundingofRepresentedPoliticalPartiesRegulations_Act103of1997.pdf (accessed 7 Sept 2014).

        Section 236 of the Constitution 1996, available at: http://www.constitutionalcourt.org.za/site/theconstitution/english-2013.pdf (accessed 30 October 2014)

        Provincial party funding laws 2007-2011 Note: Not all are directly and freely accessible online without a subscription to online databases. However, it appears that both the mechanism and the formula are determined by law.

        Eastern Cape Political Party Fund Act 1 of 2010. Provincial Gazette for Eastern Cape No 2474 Vol 17, 26 Nov 2010. Available at http://www.greengazette.co.za/documents/provincial-gazette-for-eastern-cape-2474-of-26-nov-2010-vol-17_20101126-ECP-02474.pdf (Note: Green Gazette publication is not accessible without payment of a fee; attempted to access on 7 Sept 2014)

        Free State Political Party Fund Act 3 of 2008. Indirect reference available at http://www.treasury.gov.za/documents/provincial%20budget/2014/4.%20Estimates%20of%20Prov%20Rev%20and%20Exp/FS/2.%20Estimates%20of%20Prov%20Rev%20and%20Exp/FS%20-%20Vote%2002%20-%20Free%20State%20Provincial%20Legislature.pdf (accessed 12 Oct 2014).

        Gauteng Political Party Fund Act 3 of 2007. Available at http://www.gautengleg.gov.za/legislature_documents/legislature%20documents/acts/2007/gauteng%20political%20party%20fund%20act,%202007%20[act%2003%202007].pdf. (NOT accessible 2 Sept 2014).

        KwaZulu-Natal Funding of Represented Political Parties Act 7 of 2008. Available at http://www.kznlegislature.gov.za/Portals/0/KZN%20Funding%20of%20Political%20Parties%20Act-2008.1.pdf (accessed 2 Sept 2014).

        Limpopo Political Party Fund Act 4 of 2008. Provincial Gazette for Limpopo No 1562 Vol 15, 26 Nov 2008. Available at http://www.greengazette.co.za/documents/provincial-gazette-for-limpopo-1562-of-26-nov-2008-vol-15_20081126-LIM-01562.pdf (link only accessed 12 Oct 2014).

        Mpumalanga Political Parties Support Fund Bill of 2008, apparently passed into law. Indirect reference in 2009 annual budget for the Mpumalanga legislature at para 5.4.1. Available at http://www.treasury.gov.za/documents/provincial%20budget/2009/Budget%20Statements/MPU/MP%20-%20Vote%2002%20-%20Provincial%20Legislature.pdf (accessed 12 Oct 2014).

        Northern Cape Political Party Fund Act 7 of 2009. Provincial Gazette for Northern Cape No 1357 Vol 16, 18 Nov 2009. Available at http://www.greengazette.co.za/documents/provincial-gazette-for-northern-cape-1357-of-18-nov-2009-vol-16_20091118-NCP-01357.pdf (link only accessed 12 Oct 2014).

        North West Political Party Fund Act 3 of 2010. Provincial Gazettes (North West), No 6897 of 30 May 2011. Available at http://www.greengazette.co.za/notices/north-west-petitions-act-2-2010-north-west-political-party-fund-act-3-2010-and-north-west-provincial-legislature-management-amendment-act-5-2010-for-general-information_20110530-NWP-06897-00128.pdf (link only accessed 12 Oct 2014).

        Western Cape Province – a law has apparently been passed. Although a copy has not been found, there is an indirect reference to its existence in the Western Cape Province Appropriation Bill 2014. Available at http://www.wcpp.gov.za/sites/default/files/Western%20Cape%20Appropriation%20Bill%20%5BB%203-2014%5D.pdf (accessed 12 Oct 2014).

        The State of Party Funding in South Africa Policy Paper, Money and Politics Project, Open Society Foundation for South Africa (forthcoming in 2014). See http://osf.org.za/now-available-mapp-money-politics-project-2012-briefs/. The paper contains details of most provincial laws, and argues that the provincial laws may be unconstitutional, as the Constitution provides only for a national law to regulate political party funding.

        See also in this regard - ‘R1-billion in ‘illegal’ party payouts’ Mail & Guardian, available at: http://mg.co.za/article/2013-03-08-00-r1-billion-in-illegal-party-payouts (accessed 30 August 2014)

        Interview with Mr Ebrahim Fakir, senior independent political analyst, 6 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Lance Greyling MP: Democratic Alliance (DA), 19 Sept 2014.

        Interview with Ms Cheryllyn Dudley MP: African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP), 1 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Ms Sybil Seaton ex-MP: Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP), 6 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Hlengani Nkuna, Section Manager: Finance Department, Parliament of South Africa, 17 October 2014.

      • expand button!
        3
        Score
        100
        In practice, to what extent is the mechanism to determine direct public funding for electoral campaigns transparent, equitable and consistently applied?More about indicator

        The IEC’s annual Report on the Public Fund for 2012-2013 states on p.6 that allocations to the fourteen represented political parties were in accordance with the prescribed 90:10 formula described in indicators 1 and 2. Previous reports indicate the same approach in practice. The 2013-2014 annual report (at p6) is to similar effect. The Report is tabled in Parliament in September each year, and is available on the IEC’s website a few days thereafter, as well as on the website of the Parliamentary Monitoring Group (PMG).

        The IEC’s Report on the Fund includes a report by the Auditor-General of South Africa (AGSA/AG) on his audit of the Fund.

        While the AG indicates (at para 6 on p48 of the Fund’s Annual Report for 2012-13) that in his opinion ‘the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the … Fund’, he also notes that – ‘I was unable to conduct the audit of performance against predetermined objectives as the fund is not required to prepare a report on its performance against predetermined objectives. The fund does not fall within the ambit of the Public Finance Management Act of South Africa, 1999 (Act No. 1 of 1999) and the entity-specific legislation does not require the reporting on performance against predetermined objectives.’

        In essence, the Fund is not required to show that the funding allocated according to the formula and criteria set out in the Public Funding Act and Regulations has been used for the prescribed purposes, which is what ‘performance against predetermined objectives’ entails. However, the AG does state (on para 9 on p49 of the Fund’s Annual Report for 2012-13) that his audit includes an assessment of the Fund’s compliance with applicable legislation and does not record any material non-compliance with their prescripts. Moreover, the Fund’s Accounting Officer states on p 52 of the Report that funds have been allocated according to the prescribed formula.

        The Parliamentary Oversight Authority (POA), convened jointly by the Speaker of Parliament and the Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces, decides on allocations according to the formulas set out in the Parliament Allowances Policy applied to the available budget for the particular financial year. The decision is communicated to each political party in a letter.

        Parliament’s annual report 2012/2013 states (at p41) merely that ‘Funding was made available in accordance with policy to enable parties to participate effectively in Parliament.’ Previous annual reports have been equally terse. However, the criteria for the allocation of funds to each of the three allowances are set out in the Policy, which is broadly proportional in nature. As is the case for the Public Fund, the Auditor-General’s annual reports on Parliament’s finances in terms of the annual Appropriation Act include a brief mention of the overall quantum and its assessment of the regularity of the allocation and expenditure of Parliamentary allowances.

        The procedure and formula applied by the IEC in respect of the Public Fund is transparently, equitably and consistently applied. Its annual report on the Fund is published on its website shortly after being tabled in Parliament.

        The procedure and formula applied by the POA in respect of Parliamentary Allowances is equitably and consistently applied, but the resulting allocations to political parties are not published by Parliament. Parliament’s annual report, while published on its website, is posted several months after the end of the financial year and includes only the overall budget allocation to Parliament for all the allowances.

        It is not clear whether political parties’ leaders and/or whips actually participate in meetings of the Parliamentary Oversight Authority (POA) convened by the Speaker of the National Assembly (NA) and the Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces (NCOP). The POA receives a technical submission from the Secretary to Parliament (who is Parliament’s accounting officer) and decides (possibly after consultation with parties’ whips) on the allocation of funds from the available budget envelope, in accordance with the criteria set out in the Policy. Each political party’s Chief Whip is informed by letter of their annual allocations and the breakdown of the allowance in quarterly tranches.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where: 1) electoral campaigns allocations are always defined through a clearly defined transparent and equitable calculation mechanism, and 2) the defined eligibility criteria are applied consistently.

        A 50 score is earned where: 1) electoral campaign allocations are usually defined through a clearly defined transparent and equitable calculation mechanism but exceptions exist, or 2) the eligibility criteria are usually applied but exceptions exist.

        A 0 score is earned where: 1) political campaign allocations are rarely or never defined through a clearly defined transparent and equitable calculation mechanism, or 2) the defined eligibility criteria are rarely applied.

        Sources

        Interview with Mr Lance Greyling MP: Democratic Alliance (DA), 19 Sept 2014.

        Interview with Ms Cheryllyn Dudley MP: African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP), 1 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Greg Solik (Managing Director and Coordinator, My Vote Counts), 3 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Ms Sybil Seaton ex-MP: Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP), 6 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Hlengani Nkuna, Section Manager: Finance Department, Parliament of South Africa, 17 October 2014.

        Questionnaire completed by Ms Ester de Wet, Manager: Budgets, Party Funding and Compliance, Independent Electoral Commission, 13 October 2014.

        Questionnaire completed by Mr Jonathan Moakes, CEO: Democratic Alliance (DA) 9 Oct 2014.

        IEC annual reports on its administration of the Represented Political Parties Fund. Available at http://www.elections.org.za/content/Parties/Party-funding/ (accessed 7 Sept 2014).

        Parliament of the Republic of South Africa Annual Report 2012/13. Available at http://www.parliament.gov.za/content/Annual%20Report_2013~1.pdf (accessed 8 Sept 2014).

        Auditor-General of South Africa (AGSA) annual general report for 2012-2013 in terms of the Public Finance Management Act PFMA annual general report, available at: http://www.agsa.co.za/Portals/0/PFMA2012-13/201213PFMAconsolidatedgeneral_report.pdf (accessed 7 Sept 2014)

      • expand button!
        4
        Score
        50
        In practice, to what extent does the entity in charge of public funding make disbursement information publicly available?More about indicator

        National Treasury, the IEC and Parliament all largely make disbursement information publicly available, albeit with varying degrees of proactivity and promptness.

        The proposed national budget, including Parliamentary funding during the forthcoming year, is published in extensive detail in National Treasury’s annual Estimates of National Expenditure, and the annual Appropriation Bill and Act, which are published on Treasury’s website. These documents are posted at about the time of the Minister of Finance’s annual budget speech, which is delivered in February each year and is followed immediately by Parliamentary debate on the budget. Details of each government department’s draft budget, and Parliamentary debates on the various divisions of the budget, including the IEC’s and Parliament’s proposed budgets, are also posted on the website of the Parliamentary Monitoring Group (PMG, a civil society organisation) when each budget component is debated in the various parliamentary committees. However, the level of detail in these documents includes only the total amount available for political parties in terms both the IEC’s and Parliament’s budget, and not the allocations to each political party.

        Parliament’s annual report, which is published on its website, includes only ‘headline’ financial information reflecting the same total amounts approved in the Appropriation Act. It does not provide additional details of the various allowances paid to each political party in terms of the Parliamentary Allowances Policy. The most recent available annual report is for 2013-2014, although it contains even less detailed information than the previous year's report. Detailed information on allocations per party and allowance can be accessed only by lodging a formal request in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000. An informal request is unlikely to yield that information. The transfers to individual political parties are undertaken quarterly, but only the overall total is reported in Parliament’s Annual Report. Parliament does not proactively disclose information about such quarterly transfers. In principle, it should be possible in terms of existing law to lodge a formal request for this information in terms of PAIA. In practice, as far as this researcher has been able to establish, only audited annual financial statements have been requested and obtained. Best practice in terms of PAIA is for the information to be provided within 30 days of the request being lodged.

        The IEC’s Public Fund annual report is made publicly available on its website shortly after it is tabled in Parliament in September each year. As for all other national departments and entities, this report must be tabled in parliament within six months after the end or the financial year on 31 March. The Public Fund’s annual report for 2013-2014 was tabled in Parliament, which was announced publicly on 1 September 2014 via the daily Announcements, Tablings and Committees (ATC) bulletin published by Parliament. About a week later, the annual report was available on the IEC’s website. The IEC’s Public Fund annual report is also made available for scrutiny in hard copy in the Office of the Clerk of the Papers, in Parliament. This report provides detailed information of the annual allocation to each political party, as well as their reports on the use of those funds. The IEC advises that transfers are made quarterly but details are published only annually. “The total amount available for disbursements to political parties for a particular financial year is published in the Government Gazette on or before 15 April of each year. In addition we provide, once gazetted, to all the represented political parties information on what the total amount available for distribution is and how it is distributed to each party."

        Dates of payments and amounts paid are publicly reported in the Pubic Fund Annual Report. The IEC is obliged to annually submit the audited Pubic Fund Annual Report to Parliament within 30 days after receipt of the Auditor General’s Report. Hard copies of the Annual Report are distributed to Parliament, all universities, relevant government departments, political parties and other interested stakeholders such as the media. Any member of the public may also request soft or hard copies of the Annual Report from the IEC.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where: 1) complete information on the disbursements is published less than a month after disbursement, and 2) the information is available on the Internet for free or in hard copy at photocopying cost.

        A 50 score is earned where: 1) the information published is incomplete or published more than two months after disbursement, or 2) obtaining the information costs more than photocopying.

        A 0 score is earned where: 1) disbursement information is published more than four months after disbursement, or 2) no disbursement information is published or released upon request.

        Sources

        National Treasury: Annual Budget 2014-2015. Available at: http://www.treasury.gov.za/documents/national%20budget/2014/default.aspx and http://www.pmg.org.za/report/20140304-2014-budget-fiscal-framework-and-revenue-proposals-public-hearings (accessed 7 Sept 2014)

        IEC annual reports on its administration of the Represented Political Parties Fund (the Public Fund). Available at http://www.elections.org.za/content/Parties/Party-funding/ (accessed 7 Sept 2014).

        IEC 2013/14 annual report on the Public Fund. Available at: http://www.elections.org.za/content/About-Us/Represented-Political-Parties/ (accessed 7 Sept 2014).

        The tabling of the IEC’s Public Fund annual report for 2013-14 was announced in Parliament’s ATC bulletin dated 1 Sept 2014. Available at: http://www.parliament.gov.za/live/content.php?

        CategoryID=227&DocumentStart=10&DocumentStart=20 (accessed 7 Sept 2014). Parliament of the Republic of South Africa Annual Report 2012/13. Available at http://www.parliament.gov.za/content/Annual%20Report2013~1.pdf (accessed 8 Sept 2014).

        Parliament of the Republic of South Africa Annual Report 2013-2014. Available at http://www.parliament.gov.za/content/WEB_AP.pdf (accessed 18 Oct 2014).

        Marianne Merten ‘What elections cost parties’ Pretoria News 4 September 2014, available at: http://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/what-elections-cost-parties-1.1746031#.VArN3fm1bz0 (accessed 6 Sept 2014).

        Interview with senior political correspondent for Independent Newspapers, 22 Sept 2014. (Identity kept confidential at request of interviewee).

        Interview with Ms Jeanne van der Merwe, political journalist for Media24, 23 Sept 2014.

        Interview with Mr Ebrahim Fakir, senior independent political analyst, 6 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Greg Solik (Managing Director and Coordinator, My Vote Counts), 3 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Hlengani Nkuna, Section Manager: Finance Department, Parliament of South Africa, 17 October 2014.

        Questionnaire completed by Ms Ester de Wet, Manager: Budgets, Party Funding and Compliance, Independent Electoral Commission, 13 October 2014. Aksim email correspondence January 2015.

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

    • expand button!
      Indirect Public Funding
      More about category
      • expand button!
        5
        Score
        MODERATE
        In law, use of state resources in favor of or against political parties and individual candidates is prohibited.More about indicator

        The conduct of public servants as employees of the public service is regulated in terms of s 195 of the Constitution, and sections 2 and 3 of the Code of Conduct for Public Servants issued in terms of the Public Service Act, 1994. Section 195 ‘Basic values and principles governing public administration’ provides in subsection (1) that public administration ‘must be governed by the democratic values and principles enshrined in the Constitution, including that a ‘high standard of professional ethics must be promoted and maintained’, ‘efficient, economic and effective use of resources must be promoted’, ‘services must be provided impartially, fairly, equitably and without bias’, ‘public administration must be accountable,’ and ‘transparency must be fostered by providing the public with timely, accessible and accurate information’.

        Section 2 of the Public Service Code of Conduct ‘Relationship with the Public’ provides that, among other things, ‘[a]n employee … promotes the unity and well-being of the South African nation in performing his or her official duties’; … ‘will serve the public in an unbiased and impartial manner in order to create confidence in the Public Service’; … ‘does not unfairly discriminate against any member of the public on account of race, gender, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, political persuasion, conscience, belief, culture or language’; and ‘does not abuse his or her position in the Public Service to promote or prejudice the interest of any political party or interest group…’. Section 3 ‘Relationship among Employees’ provides among other things that a public servant ‘deals fairly, professionally and equitably with other employees, irrespective of race, gender, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, political persuasion, conscience, belief, culture or language’; and ‘refrains from party political activities in the workplace.’

        Compliance with the Code is the ultimate responsibility of the Public Service Commission (PSC), which is tasked and empowered to investigate, monitor, and evaluate the organisation and administration of the Public Service. The PSC also has an obligation to promote measures that ensure effective and efficient performance within the Public Service, and to promote values and principles of public administration as set out in the Constitution throughout the Public Service. The PSC derives its mandate from sections 195 and 196 of the Constitution, 1996.

        Conduct of the national and provincial executives is regulated by the Executive Members’ Ethics Act, 1998 (Executive Ethics Act) and the Executive Code of Conduct, 2000 (Executive Code) issued in term of the Act. Section 2(2) of the Act provides that the Executive Code ‘must— (a) include provisions requiring Cabinet members, Deputy Ministers and MECs [members of executive councils, or provincial cabinets] — (i) at all times to act in good faith and in the best interest of good governance: and (ii) to meet all the obligations imposed on them by law; and (b) include provisions prohibiting Cabinet members, Deputy Ministers and MECS from— (i) undertaking any other paid work: (ii) acting in a way that is inconsistent with their office; (iii) exposing themselves to any situation involving the risk of a conflict between their official responsibilities and their private interests; (iv) using their position or any information entrusted to them, to enrich themselves or improperly benefit any other person: and (v) acting in a way that may compromise the credibility or integrity of their office or of the government.’

        Compliance with the Act and Code is the responsibility of the Office of the Public Protector, which is established by s 181 of the Constitution.

        Section 2.3 (c) and (d) of the Executive Code provides that members of the Executive may not ‘act in a way that is inconsistent with their position’; or ‘use their position or any information entrusted to them, to enrich themselves or improperly benefit any other person’.

        The conduct of Members of Parliament is regulated by the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament, 1999 (MPs’ Code). As MPs don’t ordinarily have direct access to or dispositive authority concerning the allocation or use of meaningful quantities of state assets, the MPs’ Code does not mention or regulate their use of public resources.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree. A score of 50 is earned, as the Electoral Act No. 73 of 1998 does not explicitly prohibit the use of state resources to influence election outcomes. Chapter 7 of the Electoral Act (ss 87-118) prescribed prohibited conduct relating to the exercise of undue influence, intimidation, personation, intentionally making false statements, interference with registration and voting activities and infringing the secrecy of the vote and contravention of the Electoral Code of Conduct. It also prohibits the use of language which provokes violence; intimidation of candidates or voters; publishing false information about other candidates or parties; plagiarising any other party’s symbols, name or acronyms; offering any inducement or reward to a person to vote for a party; and destroying, removing or defacing posters of other parties. In particular, the Electoral Act and its Code of Conduct states that no person or political party may offer any inducement or reward to another person to join or not to join a party, or that could influence political party allegiance. However the Code falls short of explicitly prohibiting the use of state resources to benefit political parties. Matlosa and Mbaya concluded in their survey of South Africa’s electoral law that this legal instrument is rather ambiguous (at best) in dealing with the use of state resources during and around elections (p. 23, p. 69).

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where there is an explicit ban on the use of state resources in favor of or against political parties and individual candidates. A YES is also earned where there are clearly defined exceptions, which are accessible to all actors equally.

        A MODERATE score is earned where an explicit ban exists but it only applies to one of the two actors, even though both can be elected. A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        A NO score is also earned where the law exists, but allows discretionary exceptions.

        Sources

        Executive Members Ethics Act 82 of 1998, s 2. Available at http://www.pprotect.org/legislation/docs/EXECUTIVE%20MEMBERS%20ETHICS%20ACT%2082%20OF%201998.pdf or http://www.saflii.org/za/legis/num_act/emea1998252.pdf (accessed 8 Sept 2014)

        Executive Members Code of Ethics, promulgated in terms of the Executive Members Ethics Act, 1998. Available at http://www.pmg.org.za/minutes/20000508-code-ethics-members-executive (accessed 8 Sept 2014)

        Office of the Public Protector, mandate of. Available at http://www.pprotect.org/aboutus/historybackground.asp (accessed 8 Sept 2014)

        Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, 181, 195. Available at http://www.gov.za/documents/constitution/1996/96cons10.htm (accessed 7 Sept 2014)

        Public Servants Code of Conduct, promulgated in terms of the Public Service Act, 1994, sections 2, 3, 195. Available at http://www.psc.gov.za/documents/code.asp (accessed 7 Sept 2014)

        Public Service Commission mandate. Available at http://www.psc.gov.za/about/mandates.asp (accessed 8 Sept 2014)

      • expand button!
        6
        Score
        50
        In practice, to what extent are no state resources used in favor of or against political parties and individual candidates' electoral campaigns?More about indicator

        The expenditure which can be defrayed against the money received by parties from Parliament is confined to annexures A and B of Parliament’s Allowances Policy. These allowances may not be used for political activities and are limited to inter alia payment of staff, office expenses, bank fees and audit fees. There are similar restrictions in legislation pertaining to most provincial legislatures. While permissible uses of the funds allocated by the IEC are regulated, they are more flexible and may include the arrangements of meetings and rallies and promotions and publications.

        One media report mentions allegations of misuse of Parliamentary constituency funds for party purposes, in that party members allegedly used PCO funds for travel purposes although they were not public representatives designated by their party to the constituency office in question in the Eastern Cape Province. ‘ANC sponges off forbidden funds’ Daily Dispatch 7 September 2013.

        The independent Electoral Institute for Sustainable Democracy in Africa’s (EISA)’s report ‘South Africa 2014 Election Update Three: Sticks & Stones - Political Intolerance, Violence & Intimidation’, at pp. 42-43, mentions two incidents. The first refers to ‘… several acts of intolerance and intimidation’ reported by the opposition parties in the Free State province that African National Congress (ANC)-controlled municipalities in the province refused them permission to use facilities for their election campaigns. According to the Democratic Alliance (DA) premier candidate, ‘all the public halls in Lejweleputswa have surprisingly been fully booked, despite remaining unused’. This allegation was confirmed by the Congress of the People (COPE) premier candidate. Both parties maintain that these denials of access to public facilities on the false pretext of their being already in use or reserved [are] a violation of the electoral law and demanded action. The ANC in the province ‘responded that it is not its responsibility to give permission for the use of municipal facilities.’ Source cited: ‘ANC accused of ‘dirty’ politics in Free State’, South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) 7 April 2014.

        The second was a DA allegation that a recent ANC political rally in the Free State province attended by ANC president Jacob Zuma was ‘another example of how the ruling party abuses state resources for electioneering’. During this event the South African Social Security Agency (Sassa) handed out blankets and food. ‘The DA was adamant that this is indicative of how the ANC uses “inducements” or “rewards” to encourage citizens to vote or not vote in a particular manner. According to the Social Development Minister, Bathabile Dlamini, the presence of Sassa at the Free State ANC election event was a coincidence.’ Source cited: Mariaan Merten ‘DA may go back to court over food parcels’ Daily News 8 April 2014.

        During the campaign for the 7 May 2014 general election, the IEC confirmed that it received formal complaints concerning the use of public funds by the Gauteng provincial legislature to advertise on bill boards in colours of the ruling party. In addition, complaints were received regarding the use of state funds to distribute food parcels during the election period. The Public Protector and the Electoral Commission considered these complaints, but both concluded that these issues do not fall within the Commission’s legal mandate and scope of responsibility. ‘No investigation into ANC-themed government ads’ Mail & Guardian 7 April 2014. The Co-Chairperson: Elections 2014 National Coordinating Forum (NCF) indicated that no official and substantiated complaints had been lodged with the IEC’s Party Liaison Committee (PLC). The NCF is a civil society network represented on the PLC, which is responsible for investigating complaints and taking appropriate remedial action in terms of the IEC’s Electoral Code of Conduct each political party must sign in order to participate in every general election.
        Overall, evidence of abuse appears mixed, while having some substance, i.e. credible sources or reports, but not (yet) officially confirmed or upheld.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree. Generally, the incumbent party enjoy certain advantages by virtue of being in government at the time of an election. In the weeks leading to the 2014 election there was a reported increase in the abuse of state resources.

        The DA alleged an effort by government departments to support the ANC’s election campaign by staging large state events to celebrate government and circulate party materials to voters.

        Political analyst and Professor at WITS Susan Booysen also noted that the elections were preceded by a ‘rapid succession … of official openings of dams, schools, houses, bridges and power stations’ to aid the ANC’s election campaign.

        The CASE report found intimidation to be more widespread than is generally acknowledged and that the ANC was the main perpetrator of this intimidation. Of the numerous forms of intimidation and coercion that had evolved, one of the most prevalent was ‘economic coercion’, or the spread of misinformation and threats by ANC party campaigners among poorer voters (who often depend on the state for grants and employment via public works programmes) that a vote for an opposition party would result in the loss of grants and the denial of jobs, contracts, services and development opportunities.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where there is no evidence of authorities using state resources in favor of or against political parties and individual candidates. A 100 is also earned where there are clearly defined exceptions and are equally accessible to all actors.

        A 50 score is earned where: 1) documented evidence indicates occasional use of state resources in favor of or against political parties and individual candidates, or 2) clearly defined exceptions are not equally accessible to all actors.

        A 0 score is earned where documented evidence indicates regular use of state resources in favor of or against certain political parties and individual candidates.

        Sources

        ‘ANC sponges off forbidden funds’ Daily Dispatch 7 September 2013, available at: http://www.dispatchlive.co.za/news/anc-sponges-off-forbidden-funds/ (accessed 6 Sept 2014)

        The Electoral Institute for Sustainable Democracy in Africa’s (EISA) ‘South Africa 2014 Election Update Three: Sticks & Stones - Political Intolerance, Violence & Intimidation’, at pp. 42-43, available at: http://www.electionupdate.org.za/2014eu3index.htm (accessed 30 August 2014).

        ‘ANC accused of ‘dirty’ politics in Free State’, SABC 7 April 2014, available at: http://www.sabc.co.za/news/a/69b7eb00438dc6f99e81df806cf46596/ANC-accused-of-'dirty'-politics-in-Free-State- (accessed 30 August 2014)

        Mariaan Merten ‘DA may go back to court over food parcels’ Daily News 8 April 2014, available at: http://www.iol.co.za/dailynews/news/da-may-go-back-to-court-over-food-parcels-1.1672562 (accessed 30 August 2014)

        ‘No investigation into ANC-themed government ads’ Verashni Pillay Mail & Guardian 7 April 2014. Available at http://mg.co.za/article/2014-04-07-00-no-investigation-into-anc-themed-government-ads (last accessed 6 Sept 2014).

        Interview with Mr Nkosikhulele Nyembezi, Co-Chairperson: Elections 2014 National Coordinating Forum (NCF), 8 Sept 2014.

        Questionnaire completed by Ms Ester de Wet, Manager: Budgets, Party Funding and Compliance, Independent Electoral Commission, 13 October 2014.

        Reviewer's sources:

        Collette Schulz-Herzenberg, The South African National and Provincial elections: the integrity of the electoral process, Institute for Security Studies, Policy Brief 62, August 2014.

        Susan Booysen, ‘Why ANC will stroll to an easy victory’, Sunday Independent, 4 May 2014, p. 17.

        David Bruce, ‘Just singing and dancing? Intimidation and the manipulation of voters and the electoral process in the build-up to the 2014 elections’, Report by the Community Agency for Social Enquiry (CASE), April 2014.

        Questionnaire completed by Mr Jonathan Moakes, CEO: Democratic Alliance (DA) 9 Oct 2014.

      • expand button!
        7
        Score
        YES
        In law, political parties and individual candidates have free or subsidized access to equitable air time for electoral campaigns?More about indicator

        Telecommunications and broadcasting are governed by the Electronic Communications Act, 2005 (ECA). Further requirements are imposed on telecoms operators in terms of the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-Related Information Act, 2002 (RICA). The Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA) is the regulatory authority and administers the ECA and is primarily responsible for the regulation of the communications sector. The Independent Communications Authority of South Africa Act, 2000, in terms of which ICASA is established, provides that ICASA is required to function without any political or commercial interference. ICASA is an ‘organ of state’, and its conduct in considering licence applications and performing other regulatory functions constitutes administrative action. This means that ICASA must act in a lawful, rational and procedurally fair manner in exercising its statutory powers. Should it fail to do so, its actions and decisions may be set aside on review by the courts.

        Section 192 of the Constitution requires the public broadcaster, the SABC, to ‘ensure fairness and a diversity of views that broadly represent South African society’. Free and equitable access to public and private radio and television broadcasts during the election campaign period is regulated by ICASA in terms of the provisions of the ‘Regulations on Party Election Broadcasts, Political Advertisements, the equitable treatment of Political Parties by Broadcasting Licensees and Related Matters’ (the Elections Broadcasting Regulations). The Regulations are issued in terms of the provisions of s 4(3)(j) of the Independent Communications Authority Act 13 of 2000, read with various sections of the Electronic Communications Act 36 of 2005. The Regulations have tended to be updated shortly before each general election as experience is gained.

        Parties are allocated Party Elections Broadcast slots in terms of a formula contained in Annexure A of ICASA’s Regulations on Party Election Broadcasts, Political Advertisements, the Equitable Treatment of Political Parties by Broadcasting Licensees and Related Matters. Subject to quality and content requirements, radio and television broadcasting service licensees are obliged to broadcast a maximum of eight one-minute party political advertisements per party, and an equitable share of party election events, during the election period formally declared by the Independent Electoral Commission. These time slots are allocated to political parties in terms of a formula that attempts to balance existing seats held in the national and provincial legislatures with the number of candidates being fielded to contest available seats.

        Nevertheless, political parties are required to pay the costs of producing these advertisements. Election campaign advertising is estimated to cost all parties together over R1 billion (approximately 92M USD).


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree. ICASA prescribes a formula for the allocation of airtime for party election broadcasts. It is worth noting that only in late 2008 were new regulations issued that required television and radio license holders to provide free time slots for election broadcasts during the designated campaign period for the 2009 elections. However, the opportunity of these new spaces for parties is not fully realised, mainly because smaller paries cannot afford to produce advertisements. Jane Duncan notes that ICASA made some changes to the 2009 regulations in time for the 2014 elections in terms of the allocation formula. In 2014, parties were not allowed to recycle their paid-for advertisements and use them for party election broadcasts as well. The more well-resourced parties which could afford paid-for advertisements, had used this approach in the 2009 elections to save money by avoiding production costs. In 2009 party election broadcast slots were allocated according to the number of candidates a party fielded rather than the number of existing MPs a party had, which opened up the broadcast space to new parties and was therefore a progressive step for political diversity. However, for 2014, the regulator introduced a more complicated formula for the allocation of airtime for party election broadcasts. The 2014 regulations include allocations according to the number of national and provincial seats currently held, while retaining allocations of time according to the number of candidates being fielded as well. As a result, this formula skewed allocations slightly against the newcomer parties such as the Economic Freedom Fighters and Agang.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where: 1) free or subsidized access to air time for electoral campaigns is granted in a transparent, equitable way, and 2) there are clearly defined eligibility criteria.

        A MODERATE score is earned where free or subsidized access to air time for electoral campaigns is granted in a transparent, equitable way, but eligibility criteria are not clearly defined.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        ‘ICASA Publishes The 2014 National and Provincial Elections Regulations’ 21 February 2014 - General Notice No. 101 in Government Gazette No. 37350 17 February 2014. Available at: https://www.icasa.org.za/LegislationRegulations/FinalRegulations/BroadcastingRegulations/Partyelectionbroadcastspoliticaladvertisement/tabid/150/ctl/ItemDetails/mid/865/ItemID/1819/Default.aspx and https://www.icasa.org.za/AboutUs/ICASANews/tabid/630/post/2014-national-and-provincial-elections-regulations/Default.aspx (accessed 17 Sept 2014).

        Electronic Communications Act, 2005 (ECA). http://www.doc.gov.za/documents-publications/acts.html?download=34:electronic-communications-act-2005

        Independent Communications Authority Act 13 of 2000, 4(3)(j). https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDMQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.doc.gov.za%2Fdocuments-publications%2Facts.html%3Fdownload%3D30%3Aicasa-act-2000&ei=6F5SVIHWEc7dsASejILYBw&usg=AFQjCNH45-JMPLvdEqgU2a6x80FvzlkzSA&sig2=CeQIZid2W8I0a2QwMa3RTw&bvm=bv.78597519,d.cWc

        Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-Related Information Act, 2002 (RICA). http://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/acts/2002-070.pdf

        Section 192 of the Constitution 1996, available at: http://www.constitutionalcourt.org.za/site/theconstitution/english-2013.pdf (accessed 30 October 2014)

        ‘Overview of the Regulatory Framework’, Bowman’s Attorneys. Available at http://www.bowman.co.za/TechnologyMediaTelecommunications/TelecommunicationsRegulatoryFramework.asp (accessed 11 Sept 2014). ‘Election windfall for ad industry’ Asha Speckman Independent Online 8 May 2014. Available at http://www.iol.co.za/business/news/election-windfall-for-ad-industry-1.1684990#.VCU2EPmSwrV (accessed 26 Sept 2014) Questionnaire completed by Ms Ester de Wet, Manager: Budgets, Party Funding and Compliance, Independent Electoral Commission, 13 October 2014.

        Reviewer's sources:

        Jane Duncan, ‘The South Africa media and the 2014 elections: Competition without diversity’, in Collette Schulz-Herzenberg and Roger Southall (eds), Election 2014 South Africa: The campaigns, results and future prospects, Jacana Media & Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, 2014, p. 147.

        Robert Mattes, ‘The 2014 election and South African democracy’, in Collette Schulz-Herzenberg and Roger Southall (eds), Election 2014 South Africa: The campaigns, results and future prospects, Jacana Media & Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, 2014, 176-7.

      • expand button!
        8
        Score
        100
        In practice, to what extent is free or subsidized access to air time provided in a transparent, equitable way to political parties and individual candidates for electoral campaigns?More about indicator

        During the most recent elections, the publicly provided airtime was provided according to legislative precepts described in #7.

        On behalf of ICASA, broadcast licensees are obliged to monitor content carried, while ICASA adjudicates disputes. In the absence of adequate ICASA monitoring capacity, a CSO, Media Monitoring Africa, has assumed the responsibility of monitoring the fairness of general media coverage of the general election campaign period. During the 2014 general election campaign it monitored 50 media outlets, including print, online and broadcast media. MMA reported that, overall, access and coverage was fair and balanced. Political parties are increasingly using social media platforms to communicate directly with supporters and the broader public. These media did not form part of the MMA’s assessment.

        The MMA reports that during the May 2014 general elections, the top 5 political parties enjoyed 85% of all the media coverage leading up to the election, ‘leaving the remaining 22 political parties to fight’ for 15% of the coverage. While each media outlet had varying coverage of the 27 political parties, the vast majority of the coverage was of the top 5 parties across the board. Overall, the ruling ANC received 38.2% of all media coverage; the official opposition DA received 25.3% of the coverage; Julius Malema’s Economic Freedom Fighters, the new opposition party to the left of the ANC, received 13.4%; while another new political party, AgangSA led by Dr Mamphela Ramphele received a relatively significant proportion of 3.1%. However, coverage and results did not correlate well. For example, the ANC obtained about 62% of the vote and the DA obtained about 22% of the vote.

        The DA complained of pro-ANC bias in news coverage by the South African Broadcasting Corporation ahead of the 7 May 2014 general election. It also laid a complaint with communications watchdog ICASA in April 2014 after the SABC refused to broadcast one of its election advertisements, saying it incited violence against the South African Police Service (SAPS), which had lodged a complaint against the content of the DA’s advertisement. ICASA referred the advertisement complaint case against the SABC to its Complaints and Compliance Committee (CCC), but reportedly only after the DA sought a court order compelling it to do so. ICASA upheld the complaint by the SAPS and ruled in the SABC's favour, as it did concerning a separate complaint by the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) over the public broadcaster’s refusal to air one of that party’s election advertisements.

        The DA complained of pro-ANC bias in news coverage by the South African Broadcasting Corporation ahead of the 7 May 2014 general election. ‘DA calls for ICASA inquiry into SABC’ April 2014. Nevertheless, the DA indicated to this researcher that it regards the SABC's overall practice during the 2014 general election campaign period as transparent and equitable.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree. Access to free slots is provided in a transparent manner but the parties cannot always use the opportunity due to limitations on their side. E.g cost of production of advertisements for TV and radio. The Independent Communications Authority of SA (Icasa) appeared at the build up of the 2014 elections to monitor the equitable treatment of political parties and the covergae afforded to their policy positions. (See newspaper coverage of Icasa statement below on IOL News). To date no political party has complained of unequal treatment or inequitable distribution of free adverts by the monitoring authority, Icasa. In the 2014 elections, nineteen parties used their radio party election broadcast allocations and twelve used their television allocations, suggesting that the majority of parties could not afford the production costs for television. Only seven parties paid for advertising slots, showing that this option was beyond the pockets of most.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where: 1) free or subsidized access to media advertising is always provided in a transparent and equitable way, and 2) the defined eligibility criteria are applied consistently.

        A 50 score is earned where: 1) free or subsidized access to media advertising is usually provided in a transparent and equitable way, but exceptions exist, or 2) the eligibility criteria are not always applied.

        A 0 score is earned where: 1) there's rarely free or subsidized access to air time for political campaign, and 2) access exists but is not provided in a transparent, equitable way.

        Sources

        Interview with Mr Wellington Radu, head of research: MMA, 26 September 2015.

        Karabo Rajuili - My Vote Counts ‘A Detective Story: following the money to understand the influence of secret political party funding on the 2014 elections’ in South Africa Election Updates: Issue Seven 2014, Electoral Institute for Sustainable Democracy in Africa (EISA). Available at http://www.electionupdate.org.za/2014eu7editorial.htm (accessed 25 August 2014)

        See http://elections2014.mediamonitoringafrica.org/ (accessed 24 September 2014); and http://www.mediamonitoringafrica.org/images/uploads/ReportingElectionsAGoodStorytoTell.pdf (accessed 26 Sept 2014).

        ‘DA calls for ICASA inquiry into SABC’ April 2014. Available at http://www.da.org.za/2014/04/da-calls-for-icasa-inquiry-into-sabcs-election-news-bias/ (accessed 17 Sept 2014); ‘DA launches new election ad, EFF marches over SABC 'ban'’ Mail & Guardian 28 April 2014, available at http://mg.co.za/article/2014-04-28-da-launches-new-election-ad-eff-marches-over-sabc-ban (accessed 17 Sept 2014); and ‘DA puts social media strategy in overdrive ahead of elections’ Business Day Live 8 April 2014, available at http://www.bdlive.co.za/national/politics/2014/04/08/da-puts-social-media-strategy-in-overdrive-ahead-of-elections (accessed 21 Sept 2014).

        ‘DA won’t withdraw court action despite Icasa decision to hear SABC advert dispute’ City Press 15 April 2014, available at http://www.citypress.co.za/politics/da-wont-withdraw-court-action-despite-icasa-decision-hear-sabc-advert-dispute/ (accessed 17 Sept 2014).

        ‘Icasa buckles under DA pressure’ Polity 15 April 2014, available at http://www.polity.org.za/article/icasa-buckles-under-da-pressure-2014-04-15 (accessed 17 Sept 2014).

        ‘Banning elections ads undermines free speech’ Jane Duncan TheMediaOnline 5 May 2014. Available at http://themediaonline.co.za/2014/05/banning-elections-ads-undermines-free-speech/ (accessed 1 November 2014).

        ‘DA launches new election ad, EFF marches over SABC 'ban'’ Mail & Guardian 28 April 2014, available at http://mg.co.za/article/2014-04-28-da-launches-new-election-ad-eff-marches-over-sabc-ban (accessed 17 Sept 2014); and ‘EFF to march to SABC over election ad’ Media24 28 April 2014, available at http://www.news24.com/elections/news/eff-to-march-to-sabc-over-election-ad-20140428 (accessed 17 Sept 2014).

        Questionnaire completed by Mr Jonathan Moakes, CEO: Democratic Alliance (DA) 9 Oct 2014.

        Reviewer's Sources: Regulations on party election broadcasts, political advertisements, the equitable treatment of political parties by broadcasting licencees and related matters, Government Gazette, No. 37350.

        Loyiso Sidimba, Treat parties fairly, broadcastrs warned, IOL News, 16 Mach 2014, http://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/treat-parties-fairly-broadcasters-warned-1.1661965#.VGSAQleUeaI [accessed at 13 November 2014].

        Jane Duncan, 'The media and the elections: Competition without diversity', in Collette Schulz-Herzenberg and Roger Southall (eds), Election 2014: The Campaigns, Results and Future Prospects. Jacana media, 2014.

  • expand button!

    Contribution and Expenditure Restrictions

    More about category
    composite
    0
    • expand button!
      General Rules on Electoral Campaign Contributions
      More about category
      • expand button!
        9
        Score
        NO
        In law, cash contributions are banned.More about indicator

        No such law exists.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where cash contributions are banned and all financial contributions must be made via the banking system.

        A MODERATE score is earned where cash contributions are allowed up to a maximum limit, regardless of the limit.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Interview with Mr Greg Solik (Managing Director and Coordinator, My Vote Counts), 3 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Ebrahim Fakir, senior independent political analyst, 6 Oct 2014.

      • expand button!
        10
        Score
        NO
        In law, there is a ban on anonymous contributions.More about indicator

        No such law exists.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where the law stipulates that anonymous contributions are banned.

        A MODERATE score is earned where the ban exists, but it applies only to one actor (whether political parties or individual candidates). A MODERATE score is also earned where small anonymous donations are allowed up to a maximum threshold equal to or less than the equivalent to US$300.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Interview with Mr Greg Solik (Managing Director and Coordinator, My Vote Counts), 3 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Ebrahim Fakir, senior independent political analyst, 6 Oct 2014.

      • expand button!
        11
        Score
        NO
        In law, in-kind donations to political parties and individual candidates must be reported.More about indicator

        No such law exists.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where all in-kind donations must be reported to the oversight authority.

        A MODERATE score is also earned if the requirement to report such information exists, but applies only to one actor (whether political parties or individual candidates).

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Interview with Mr Greg Solik (Managing Director and Coordinator, My Vote Counts), 3 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Ebrahim Fakir, senior independent political analyst, 6 Oct 2014.

      • expand button!
        12
        Score
        NO
        In law, loans to political parties and individual candidates must be reported.More about indicator

        No such law exists.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where all loans must be reported to the oversight authority.

        A MODERATE score is earned where loans must be reported, but the requirement applies only to one actor (whether political parties or individual candidates).

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Interview with Mr Greg Solik (Managing Director and Coordinator, My Vote Counts), 3 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Ebrahim Fakir, senior independent political analyst, 6 Oct 2014.

    • expand button!
      Limits on Contributions and Expenditures during Electoral Campaign Periods
      More about category
      • expand button!
        13
        Score
        NO
        In law, contributions from individuals are limited to a maximum amount.More about indicator

        No such law exists.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where: 1) individuals may not contribute more than a maximum amount established by the law.

        A MODERATE score is earned where a maximum amount exists, but it applies only to contributions for one actor (whether political parties or individual candidates). A MODERATE score is also earned where individuals are forbidden from making any contribution.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Interview with Mr Greg Solik (Managing Director and Coordinator, My Vote Counts), 3 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Ebrahim Fakir, senior independent political analyst, 6 Oct 2014.

      • expand button!
        14
        Score
        NO
        In law, contributions from corporations are limited to a maximum amount.More about indicator

        No such law exists.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where: 1) corporations may not contribute more than a maximum amount established by the law.

        A MODERATE score is earned where a maximum amount or ban exists, but it applies only to contributions for one actor (whether political parties or individual candidates). A MODERATE score is also earned where corporations are forbidden from making any contribution.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Interview with Mr Greg Solik (Managing Director and Coordinator, My Vote Counts), 3 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Ebrahim Fakir, senior independent political analyst, 6 Oct 2014.

      • expand button!
        15
        Score
        NO
        In law, contributions from foreign sources are banned.More about indicator

        No such law exists.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where it is forbidden for political parties and individual candidates to receive contributions (financial or in-kind) from foreign sources.

        A MODERATE score is earned where: 1) the ban exists but it applies only to one actor (whether political parties or individual candidates), or 2) contributions from foreign sources are allowed to a maximum amount.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Interview with Mr Greg Solik (Managing Director and Coordinator, My Vote Counts), 3 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Ebrahim Fakir, senior independent political analyst, 6 Oct 2014.

      • expand button!
        16
        Score
        NO
        In law, contributions from third-party actors (unions, foundations, think tanks, political action committees, etc.) are limited to a maximum amount or banned.More about indicator

        No such law exists.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where: 1) third-party actors may not contribute more than a maximum amount established by the law, or 2) are forbidden from making any contribution.

        A MODERATE score is earned where: 1) the maximum amount or ban exists only for the majority of third-party actors, but not all, or 2) the maximum amount or ban exists, but applies only to contributions for either political parties or individual candidates.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Interview with Mr Greg Solik (Managing Director and Coordinator, My Vote Counts), 3 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Ebrahim Fakir, senior independent political analyst Mr, 6 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Matthew Parks, Deputy Parliamentary Coordinator: Cosatu, 26 September 2014. (The ruling alliance consists of the ANC, the SACP and Cosatu.)

      • expand button!
        17
        Score
        NO
        In law, election campaign spending by political parties and individual candidates is limited to a maximum amount.More about indicator

        No such law exists.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where it is forbidden for political parties and individual candidates to spend more than a certain amount in a political campaign.

        A MODERATE score is earned where the maximum amount exists, but it applies only to one actor (whether political parties or individual candidates).

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Interview with Mr Greg Solik (Managing Director and Coordinator, My Vote Counts), 3 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Ebrahim Fakir, senior independent political analyst, 6 Oct 2014.

      • expand button!
        18
        Score
        --
        Open Question: Do the national laws regulating political finance also apply to sub-national units? If not, to what extent do sub-national units have laws regulating political finance?More about indicator

        Section 5 (1)(a) of the Public Funding Act regulates funds for parties represented at national and provincial levels and payments are made in four quarterly tranches per annum. As mentioned in indicators 1 and 2, provincial laws provide additional sources of public funds for political parties represented in provincial legislatures. The Parliamentary Allowances Policy applies only to the constituent houses of Parliament - the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces. National and provincial allocations from the public purse to political parties are regulated in virtually the same way.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree. There are no additional regulations for private funding at the provincial or local levels of government. The situation mirrors the national level in its absense of private funding regulations.

        Scoring Criteria

        Please describe the applicability of national political finance regulations at the sub-national level, being sure to answer: 1) whether national laws are applicable to sub-national campaigns; 2) if not, to what extent do sub-national units have similar laws regulating political finance; and 3) whether there are any reports of problems arising from gaps in this framework.

        Sources

        Interview with Mr Lance Greyling MP: Democratic Alliance (DA), 19 Sept 2014.

        Interview with Ms Cheryllyn Dudley MP: African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP), 1 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Greg Solik (Managing Director and Coordinator, My Vote Counts), 3 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Ebrahim Fakir, senior independent political analyst, 6 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Hlengani Nkuna, Section Manager: Finance Department, Parliament of South Africa, 17 October 2014.

        Questionnaire completed by Ms Ester de Wet, Manager: Budgets, Party Funding and Compliance, Independent Electoral Commission, 13 October 2014.

        Questionnaire completed by Mr Jonathan Moakes, CEO: Democratic Alliance (DA) 9 Oct 2014.

        Public Funding of Represented Political Parties Act 103 of 1997 (Public Funding Act), available at: http://www.elections.org.za/content/Parties/Party-funding/; and http://www.justice.gov.za/alraesa/projects/PublicFundingofRepresentedPoliticalPartiesAct103of1997.pdf (accessed 2 September 2014)

      • expand button!
        19
        Score
        --
        Open Question: What are the predominant sources of funding for electoral campaigns?More about indicator

        Given the absence of regulation of private funding for political parties, or any transparency or reporting requirements, definitive figures from private sources are hard to come by. Piecing together information in the public domain, as well as from interviews conducted, predominant sources usually vary according to the size of the political party, with smaller parties more dependent on public funding. The official opposition Democratic Alliance (DA) indicates that its primary source of funding is private donations.

        All political parties registered in the 2014 national elections were required to pay a minimum deposit of R200 000 (17,920 USD), and an additional R45 000 (4,030 USD) per province contested. In the 2009 general election, it is estimated that the African National Congress (ANC) spent approximately R200 million (19.9 million USD) on its campaign. Total campaign spending on the 2014 elections remains unknown. However, the ANC and the DA are estimated to have spent over R100 million on their campaigns in the Gauteng province alone.

        Advertising budgets of the larger political parties provide useful insights. The ANC spent an estimated R17 million on over 600 advertising spots on television prior to the voting period, while the DA spent an estimated R13.1 million on 377 spots. In addition, the ANC is known to have spent around R1-R2 million on 52 electronic billboards countrywide. Budget constraints meant smaller parties did not use TV as a campaign medium, and instead used the free party election broadcast slots allocated by the public broadcaster on its radio platforms, provided to each party contesting the election.

        The Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) budget for the 2014 elections was slightly in excess of R1.5 billion. Of this budget allocation, the 14 political parties represented in Parliament received a combined R114.8?million in 2013/2014 through the Represented Political Parties Fund (RPPF). Authorised expenditure includes costs of staff, travel, accommodation, meetings, rallies and other expenses related to furthering political, organizational, policy development, party outreach, communication and campaigning objectives. Of the R88 million that the IEC distributed to parties in 2009, R61 million went to the ANC, R10.5 million to the DA and R5.4 million to the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP). It was reported in 2013 that provincial legislatures had ‘pumped close to R1?billion into the coffers of political parties since 2007’. Calculations done by the Mail & Guardian estimated that Gauteng, the Eastern Cape, Limpopo and Kwa-Zulu-Natal had allocated a combined R850?million to political parties.

        The distribution of public funds according to the overwhelmingly proportional formula saw the ANC receive about five and a half times more of the taxpayer's money in 2009 as the next two parties combined. Analysing the impact of these public funds, Susan Booysen and Grant Masterson have argued that the existing largely proportional allocation of public funds does little to help the development of multi-party democracy – the stated objective of public funding in terms of s 236 of the Constitution. Instead, the situation helps consolidate the dominance of already strong and well-resourced parties, at the expense of other smaller or new political parties.

        In addition to these public sources, political parties attempt to raise funds through party-owned business interests, membership fees and funds raised by regional branches. The ANC has established the Progressive Business Forum through which it raises funds by selling seats to functions addressed by senior party leaders, including those in government. In exchange for a fee, it offers any businessperson access to, communication from and structured interactions with ANC policymakers. It also offers opportunities ‘to join ANC led trade missions and conferences around the world to specially selected countries’. The ruling party has also established the Chancellor House Trust as an investment vehicle. Controversially, it bought a 25% stake in Hitachi Power Africa (HPA) which won the R40bn tender to provide boilers to Eskom's new Medupi power station. Eskom is the state-owned electricity supply company. The contract was awarded while the ANC’s then-treasurer, Mohammed Valli Moosa, was chairperson of the Eskom board. The Public Protector (national ombudsman) found that Moosa was guilty of a conflict of interest for doing so. Undertakings over several years by the ANC to divest the Trust of its shares in HPA appear to have been recently fulfilled.

        Most parties are believed to require their public representatives to make regular contributions from their salaries. During the 2014 campaign, the ANC reportedly asked public servants . Amounts derived from public funding are significantly lower when compared with the amount that political parties receive from private donors. Private sources of funding to political parties increased from 100 million in 1994, to an estimated 550 million leading up to the 2009 elections. The ANC alone raised R1.66 billion between 2007 and 2012. While comprehensive data on private political funding is not available, it has been estimated that parties’ campaign expenditure increased 500% from 1994 to more than R550?million in the 2009 general elections.

        According to a recent media report, the ANC has again indicated that it plans to introduce framework legislation providing for public funding for political parties in all legislatures, this time including at local government level.


        Peer Reviewer comment: Agree. A recent chapter on the ANC’s 2014 election campaign by UCT Professor Anthony Butler argues that the money spent by the ANC in the campaign cannot be reliably determined but suggests that private sources comprise the greatest proportion of all sources of funding for ANC campaigns when he states the following about the two most recent campaign expenditures:

        'The ANC's deputy campaigns manager, Nomvula Mokonyane, stated that R200 million had been spent on the 2009 campaign but this excluding private donations (Independent on Saturday, 18 April 2009). One estimate for that campaign was around R400m or R500m (The Times, 18 April 2009. In 2014, the ANC was estimated to have a national spend of at least R500 million (of which less than R100m came from official public funding) (Everatt, 2014). Fund raising was more difficult for the ANC for its 2014 campaign. In March 2014, an announcement that ANC-aligned business Chancellor House would sell its stake in Hitachi Power Africa ignited rumours that the movement was desperate for cash to spend on its election effort (City Press, 1 March 2014).'

        Scoring Criteria

        Please describe the important sources of funding for electoral campaigns, being sure to answer: 1) where does the preponderance of funding come from - public, individual, corporate, or other; 2) to what extent do individual candidates self-finance; and 3) do political parties have other methods of generating campaign funds, such as owning their own businesses or trusts.

        Sources

        Interview with Mr Lance Greyling MP: Democratic Alliance (DA), 19 Sept 2014.

        Interview with Ms Cheryllyn Dudley MP: African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP), 1 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Greg Solik (Managing Director and Coordinator, My Vote Counts), 3 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Ebrahim Fakir, senior independent political analyst, 6 Oct 2014.

        Questionnaire completed by Ms Ester de Wet, Manager: Budgets, Party Funding and Compliance, Independent Electoral Commission, 13 October 2014.

        Questionnaire completed by Mr Jonathan Moakes, CEO: Democratic Alliance (DA) 9 Oct 2014.

        Karabo Rajuili - My Vote Counts ‘A Detective Story: following the money to understand the influence of secret political party funding on the 2014 elections’ in South Africa Election Updates: Issue Seven 2014, Electoral Institute for Sustainable Democracy in Africa (EISA). Available at http://www.electionupdate.org.za/2014eu7editorial.htm (accessed 25 August 2014)

        Hamadziripi Tamukamoyo, ‘Democracy for sale? The need for transparency in political party funding’ ISS Today 2 September 2013. This ISS Today first appeared in The New Age newspaper on 30 August 2013. Available at http://www.issafrica.org/iss-today/democracy-for-sale-the-need-for-transparency-in-political-party-funding (accessed 30 August 2014)

        Caiphus Kgosana, ‘ANC seeks more party funding’ City Press 27 July 2014. Available at http://www.citypress.co.za/politics/anc-seeks-party-funding/ (accessed 7 September 2014) ‘Progressive Business Forum’ available at http://www.pbf.org.za/ and ‘Participants Benefits’ available at http://www.pbf.org.za/show.php?id=3532 (accessed 1 September 2014)

        ‘ANC: Statement by the Office of the ANC Progressive Business Forum, delegation visits Russia’ Polity 9 October 2013. Available at http://www.polity.org.za/article/anc-statement-by-the-the-office-of-the-anc-progressive-business-forum-delegation-vists-russia-09102013-2013-10-09 (last accessed 1 Sept 2014).

        ‘Chancellor House Trust’, Mail & Guardian summary page. Available at http://mg.co.za/tag/chancellor-house-holdings (accessed 1 September 2014);

        Lynley Donnelly, ‘ANC: Banning party investment arms not the answer’ Mail & Guardian 27 March 2014. Available at http://mg.co.za/article/2014-03-27-anc-banning-party-investment-arms-not-the-answer (accessed 1 September 2014);

        ‘Spotlight on Hitachi deal’ Corruption Watch, 8 April 2013. Available at http://www.bdlive.co.za/business/2013/04/07/spotlight-on-hitachi-contract (accessed 9 April 2013).

        Rowan Philp, ‘ANC’s Chancellor House in secret R170m Eskom supplier deal’ City Press 26 April 2014 available at http://www.citypress.co.za/news/ancs-chancellor-house-secret-r170m-eskom-supplier-deal/ (last accessed 1 Sept 2014);

        Tabelo Timse, ‘ANC's Chancellor House lands new deal’ Mail & Guardian 27 July 2012. Available at http://mg.co.za/article/2012-07-27-00-ancs-chancellor-house-lands-new-deal (accessed 1 September 2014);

        Franz Wild, ‘Hitachi buys ANC’s stake in SA unit after criticism’ Business Day 28 February 2014. Available at http://www.bdlive.co.za/business/energy/2014/02/28/hitachi-buys-ancs-stake-in-sa-unit-after-criticism (accessed 1 September 2014).

        Public Protector Report No. 30 of 2008/2009 ‘REPORT ON AN INVESTIGATION INTO AN ALLEGATION OF IMPROPER CONDUCT BY THE FORMER CHAIRPERSON OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ESKOM HOLDINGS LIMITED, MR V MOOSA, RELATING TO THE AWARDING OF A CONTRACT’. https://www.dropbox.com/s/sdwgpxyxvk2ue8c/Eskom%20and%20Valli%20Moosa%20-%20OPP%20Report%2030%20of%202008-9.pdf?dl=0

        Reviewer's sources: Anthony Butler, 'The ANC's campaign in 2014', in Collette Schulz-Herzenberg and Roger Southall (eds), Election 2014 South Africa: The campaigns, results and future prospects, Jacana Media & Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, 2014, 51. Comment by David Everatt after the presentation of a paper, ‘Politics, polling and social change in South Africa: The fight for Gauteng in election 2014’, at 1994-2004: 20 Years of SA Democracy. 24-26 April 2014. St Antony’s College, Oxford. Session III. http://www.africanstudies.ox.ac.uk/sites/sias/files/documents/SA%201994-2014%20Conference%20Programme%20Final%20Version%20Apr.17.pdf

      • expand button!
        20
        Score
        --
        Open Question: Have there been documented instances of violations of contribution or expenditure limits or any of the laws mentioned above (Section 2)?More about indicator

        There are no constraints or limits on contributions from private sources, and no quantitative limits on expenditure of funds derived from either public or private sources. For example, s 2(2) of the Public Funding Act provides that the Fund will (in theory) be credited with moneys from virtually any source, including ‘(a) moneys appropriated to the Fund by Parliament; (b) contributions and donations to the Fund originating from any sources, whether within or outside the Republic’; (c) … and (d) moneys accruing to the Fund from any other source’. This limited form of regulation makes contribution violations almost impossible.

        However, there are qualitative restrictions on permissible uses of public funds. For example, the Public Funding Act provides quite broadly for the permissible uses of moneys paid from the Public Fund. They ‘may be used for any purposes compatible with its functioning as a political party in a modern democracy. These purposes include, amongst others - (i) the development of the political will of people; (ii) bringing the political party's influence to bear on the shaping of public opinion; (iii) inspiring and furthering political education; (iv) promoting active participation by individual citizens in political life; (v) exercising an influence on political trends; and (vi) ensuring continuous, vital links between the people and organs of state’.

        By comparison, Parliament’s Policy on Political Party Allowances (the Parliamentary Allowances Policy) adopts a more explicitly restrictive approach and includes, in paragraph 8.8 read with Annexure A, a lengthy ‘closed list’ of permissible expenditure items for the Constituency Allowance. Annexure B to the Policy contains items of permissible expenditure in respect of the Party Leader Allowance and the general Party Administration Allowance.

        As official reporting on infractions is extremely limited, even terse, it is unclear whether the few infractions disclosed officially have been substantive or technical. There have apparently been instances where political parties have failed to submit their audited financial statements timeously to the IEC as required by the Public Funding Act. In these cases, funding was suspended by the IEC until such time as the audited financial statements are received. In general, in cases of irregular use or misuse of funds, an equivalent amount is recovered from future payments to the relevant party. The accounting officer of a party is held responsible for paying back any irregularly spent monies.

        In 2012, there were reports of irregularities in the Congress of the People’s (COPE) spending of their Parliamentary allowances, which led to ongoing litigation, but these problems have been ascribed to intra-party disputes that have not affected the party’s compliance with reporting requirements. Parliament’s Annual Report for 2012/2013 reports only (at p41) that – ‘All parties submitted audited financial statements with the following outcomes: • Three political parties received a qualification on the Constituency Allowances • Two political parties received a disclaimer on the Constituency Allowances • One political party received a qualification on the Party [Administration] Support [Allowance] • Two political parties received a disclaimer on the Party [Administration] Support [Allowance]’

        It adds that ‘[o]ne political party which received disclaimers on both allowances for two consecutive years was requested to submit financial records to Parliament quarterly for scrutiny before the next quarter’s transfer is made’.

        Parliament’s Annual Report for 2013/2014 is even less forthcoming. It reports (at p32) that – ‘Funding was provided to political parties and audited’.

        Scoring Criteria

        Please list and describe all documented instances of: 1) violation of contribution limits, 2) violation of expenditure limits, and 3) financial contributions that circumvent the regulatory framework. The objective of this question is to learn more about the local context, so please explain the cases in as much detail as relevant.

        Sources

        Interview with senior political correspondent for Independent Newspapers, 22 Sept 2014. (Identity kept confidential at request of interviewee).

        Interview with Mr Lance Greyling MP: Democratic Alliance (DA), 19 Sept 2014.

        Interview with Mr Greg Solik (Managing Director and Coordinator, My Vote Counts), 3 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Ebrahim Fakir, senior independent political analyst, 6 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Hlengani Nkuna, Section Manager: Finance Department, Parliament of South Africa, 17 October 2014.

        Questionnaire completed by Ms Ester de Wet, Manager: Budgets, Party Funding and Compliance, Independent Electoral Commission, 13 October 2014.

        Parliament of the Republic of South Africa Annual Report 2012/13. Available at http://www.parliament.gov.za/content/Annual%20Report_2013~1.pdf (accessed 8 Sept 2014).

        Parliament of the Republic of South Africa Annual Report 2013-2014. Available at http://www.parliament.gov.za/content/WEB_AP.pdf (accessed 18 Oct 2014).

        Public Funding of Represented Political Parties Act 103 of 1997 (Public Funding Act), available at: http://www.elections.org.za/content/Parties/Party-funding/; and http://www.justice.gov.za/alraesa/projects/PublicFundingofRepresentedPoliticalPartiesAct103of1997.pdf (accessed 2 September 2014)

        Parliament’s Policy on Political Parties Allowances, 2005 (the ‘Parliamentary Allowances Policy’, adopted on 20 July 2005), available at: http://www.parliament.gov.za/content/POLICY%20on%20political%20parties%20allowances~2.pdf (accessed 7 Sept 2014).

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

  • expand button!

    Reporting and Public Disclosure

    More about category
    composite
    17
    • expand button!
      Reporting Requirements to the Oversight Entity
      More about category
      • expand button!
        21
        Score
        NO
        In law, political parties and individual candidates report itemized contributions and expenditures both during and outside electoral campaign periods.More about indicator

        The law requires only annual reporting only by political parties, and only concerning contributions and expenditures from the Public Fund and from Parliamentary allowances. In these instances, reporting must be in accordance with the categories itemised in the Public Funding Act and in the Parliamentary Allowances Policy. No law exists requiring any reporting on contributions from other sources.

        Section 6 of the Public Funding Act requires political parties to account for moneys allocated to them from Fund, read with the Regulations in terms of s 10 of the Act prescribe certain categories of expenditure in respect of fund monies. Each political party’s accounting officer must, for each financial year for which moneys have been allocated to the relevant political party from the Fund, keep separate books and records of account, in the prescribed manner, in respect of those moneys and all transactions involving those moneys. Within two months after the end of a financial year for which moneys have been allocated to any political party from the Fund, that accounting officer must prepare a statement showing all amounts received by the party from the Fund during that financial year and its application of those moneys, as well as the purposes for which the various amounts have been applied.’

        Paragraph 8.13.3 of the Parliamentary Allowances Policy provides that the records for the Party Leader Allowance, the Party Administration Allowance and the Constituency Allowance ‘must reflect – a) Records of all transactions involving allocated moneys; b) Records of all assets acquired with allocated moneys; and c) Records of all commitments entered into in respect of allocated moneys.’

        Paragraph 8.14.2 of the Policy provides that the financial statements prepared in relation to the party allowances paid should reflect amounts spent during the financial year (or period under review) under the ‘descriptive categories’ detailed in Annexure B. Annexure B is extensive and details a large number of items in respect of each allowance, with least detail for the Party leader Allowance and most detail for the Constituency Allowance. Items include personnel and research, office premises (rental), equipment and supplies, including computer hardware and software and internet charges, local government service levies, bank charges, insurance, non-current assets and depreciation of non-current assets.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where political parties and individual candidates are required to report itemized contributions and expenditures to the oversight authority, both during and outside electoral campaign periods.

        A MODERATE score is earned where: 1) the requirement applies for itemized contributions, but not for itemized expenditures, or 2) it applies only during the electoral campaign but not outside it. A MODERATE score is also earned where the requirement exists, but it only applies to one actor (whether political parties and individual candidates).

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Interview with Mr Hlengani Nkuna, Section Manager: Finance Department, Parliament of South Africa, 17 October 2014.

        Questionnaire completed by Ms Ester de Wet, Manager: Budgets, Party Funding and Compliance, Independent Electoral Commission, 13 October 2014.

        Questionnaire completed by Mr Jonathan Moakes, CEO: Democratic Alliance (DA) 9 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Ms Cheryllyn Dudley MP: African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP), 1 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Greg Solik (Managing Director and Coordinator, My Vote Counts), 3 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Ebrahim Fakir, senior independent political analyst, 6 Oct 2014.

      • expand button!
        22
        Score
        NO
        In law, political parties and individual candidates are required to report their financial information on a monthly basis during the electoral campaign.More about indicator

        Reporting on finances is required only once annually, whether or not an election campaign occurs during that time. The law requires reporting only by political parties, and only concerning contributions and expenditures from the Public Fund and from Parliamentary allowances.

        In terms of s 6(2) and (3) of the Public Funding Act, political party accounting officers must annually prepare and submit financial statements audited by a registered auditor.

        Paragraphs/Sections 8.12, 8.13 and 8.14 of the Parliamentary Allowances Policy also make provision for annual audited financial statements.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where political parties and individual candidates must report monthly their financial information to the oversight authority during the electoral campaign.

        A MODERATE score is earned where the requirement exists on a quarterly basis. A MODERATE score is also earned where the requirement only applies to one actor (whether political parties or individual candidates).

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Section 6 of the Public Funding of Represented Political Parties Act 103 of 1997 (Public Funding Act), available at: http://www.elections.org.za/content/Parties/Party-funding/; and http://www.justice.gov.za/alraesa/projects/PublicFundingofRepresentedPoliticalPartiesAct103of1997.pdf (accessed 2 September 2014)

        Interview with Mr Hlengani Nkuna, Section Manager: Finance Department, Parliament of South Africa, 17 October 2014.

        Questionnaire completed by Ms Ester de Wet, Manager: Budgets, Party Funding and Compliance, Independent Electoral Commission, 13 October 2014.

        Questionnaire completed by Mr Jonathan Moakes, CEO: Democratic Alliance (DA) 9 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Ms Cheryllyn Dudley MP: African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP), 1 Oct 2014.

      • expand button!
        23
        Score
        NO
        In law, political parties and individual candidates are required to report their financial information on a quarterly basis outside of electoral campaign periods.More about indicator

        Reporting on finances is required only once annually, whether or not an election campaign occurs during that time.

        The law requires annual reporting by political parties, and only concerning contributions and expenditures from the Public Fund and from Parliamentary allowances. In these instances, reporting must be in accordance with the categories itemised in the Public Funding Act and in the Parliamentary Allowances Policy.

        Section 6 of the Public Funding Act requires political parties to account for moneys allocated to them from Fund, read with the Regulations in terms of s 10 of the Act prescribe certain categories of expenditure in respect of fund monies. Each political party’s accounting officer must, for each financial year for which moneys have been allocated to the relevant political party from the Fund, keep separate books and records of account, in the prescribed manner, in respect of those moneys and all transactions involving those moneys. Within two months after the end of a financial year for which moneys have been allocated to any political party from the Fund, that accounting officer must prepare a statement showing all amounts received by the party from the Fund during that financial year and its application of those moneys, as well as the purposes for which the various amounts have been applied.’

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where political parties and individual candidates must report quarterly their financial information to the oversight authority outside of electoral campaign periods.

        A MODERATE score is earned where the requirement exists on a yearly basis. A MODERATE score is also earned where the requirement only applies to one actor (whether political parties or individual candidates).

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Section 6(3) of the Public Funding of Represented Political Parties Act 103 of 1997 (Public Funding Act), available at: http://www.elections.org.za/content/Parties/Party-funding/; and http://www.justice.gov.za/alraesa/projects/PublicFundingofRepresentedPoliticalPartiesAct103of1997.pdf (accessed 2 September 2014)

        Paragraphs/Sections 8.12.3 and 8.15.1 of Parliament’s Policy on Political Parties Allowances, 2005 (the ‘Parliamentary Allowances Policy’, adopted on 20 July 2005), available at: http://www.parliament.gov.za/content/POLICY%20on%20political%20parties%20allowances~2.pdf (accessed 7 Sept 2014).

        Interview with Mr Hlengani Nkuna, Section Manager: Finance Department, Parliament of South Africa, 17 October 2014.

        Questionnaire completed by Ms Ester de Wet, Manager: Budgets, Party Funding and Compliance, Independent Electoral Commission, 13 October 2014.

        Questionnaire completed by Mr Jonathan Moakes, CEO: Democratic Alliance (DA) 9 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Ms Cheryllyn Dudley MP: African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP), 1 Oct 2014.

      • expand button!
        24
        Score
        0
        In practice, to what extent do political parties and individual candidates report itemized financial information monthly?More about indicator

        Practice in regard to the Public Fund generally accords with the legal requirements set out in indicators 21-23. Annual reports are made, and these only concern contributions and expenditures from the Public Fund and from Parliamentary allowances

        In respect of Parliamentary allowances, Parliament’s annual report for 2012/2013 indicates (on p41) that one political party was required to submit financial records to Parliament ‘quarterly for scrutiny before the next quarter’s transfer is made’. This practice has evolved in order to prevent failure to submit adequate or complete financial statements on time annually in accordance with the Parliamentary Allowances Policy.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where: 1) political parties and individual candidates report on their financial information monthly, and 2) the reports include both itemized contributions and itemized expenditures.

        A 50 score is earned where: 1) the reports are occasionally general rather than itemized or don't contain all accounts, or 2) the reporting frequency is quarterly.

        A 0 score is earned where: 1) political parties and individual candidates rarely or never file reports, 2) the reports are filed but are rarely or never itemized or refer only to either contributions or expenditures, or 3) the reporting frequency is less than quarterly.

        Sources

        Interview with Mr Hlengani Nkuna, Section Manager: Finance Department, Parliament of South Africa, 17 October 2014.

        Questionnaire completed by Ms Ester de Wet, Manager: Budgets, Party Funding and Compliance, Independent Electoral Commission, 13 October 2014.

        Questionnaire completed by Mr Jonathan Moakes, CEO: Democratic Alliance (DA) 9 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Ms Cheryllyn Dudley MP: African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP), 1 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Ms Sybil Seaton ex-MP: Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP), 6 Oct 2014.

        Parliament of the Republic of South Africa Annual Report 2012/13. Available at http://www.parliament.gov.za/content/Annual%20Report_2013~1.pdf (accessed 8 Sept 2014).

      • expand button!
        25
        Score
        0
        In practice, to what extent do financial reports by political parties and individual candidates include all types of contributions?More about indicator

        No, political parties report only on funds disbursed from the Public Fund (s 8 of the Public Funding Act) and in terms of the Parliamentary Allowances Policy (in terms of public budget transparency requirements in the Constitution, the Public Finance Management Act, and the Promotion of Access to Information Act). Financial reports submitted to Parliament, the IEC and provincial legislatures include only money received from these entities.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where: 1) reports include an itemized list of all contributions indicating their type (in-kind, cash where allowed, etc.) and amount (estimated value for in-kind contributions), and 2) contain donors' names and addresses (or other personal identifier).

        A 50 score is earned where only one of the two conditions listed in the 100 criteria is met.

        A 0 score is earned where neither condition is met.

        Sources

        Interview with Ms Cheryllyn Dudley MP: African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP), 1 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Ms Sybil Seaton ex-MP: Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP), 6 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Hlengani Nkuna, Section Manager: Finance Department, Parliament of South Africa, 17 October 2014.

        Questionnaire completed by Ms Ester de Wet, Manager: Budgets, Party Funding and Compliance, Independent Electoral Commission, 13 October 2014.

        Questionnaire completed by Mr Jonathan Moakes, CEO: DA 9 Oct 2014.

    • expand button!
      Availability of Electoral Campaigns' Financial Information to the Public
      More about category
      • expand button!
        26
        Score
        NO
        In law, financial information from political parties and individual candidates must be available to the public.More about indicator

        Existing law requires public availability of information only in respect of funds disbursed by and received from Parliament, the IEC and provincial legislatures. Section 32 of the Constitution, 1996, part of the Bill of Rights contained in Chapter 2 of the Constitution, prescribes a right of access to information held by the state, as regulated by national legislation.

        National legislation has been enacted in the form of the Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2 of 2000 (PAIA). The preamble to PAIA explains that it is enacted in order to ‘foster a culture of transparency and accountability in public and private bodies by giving effect to the right of access to information; actively promote a society in which the people of South Africa have effective access to information to enable them to more fully exercise and protect all of their rights’. Section 7 ‘Rights’ of the Constitution requires that the State must respect, protect, promote and fulfill all the rights in the Bill of Rights which is the cornerstone of democracy in South Africa. Section 8 ‘Application’ declares that the ‘Bill of Rights applies to all law, and binds the legislature, the executive, the judiciary and all organs of state’. A provision of the Bill of Rights also ‘binds a natural or a juristic person if, and to the extent that, it is applicable, taking into account the nature of the right and the nature of any duty imposed by the right’. Natural persons include private individuals, such as citizens, and juristic persons include private companies, associations and clubs.

        The state is broadly defined in PAIA to include information held by organs of state, state agencies and constitutional institutions, subject to normal constraints, such as privacy and commercial interests. The right of access to any information held by a public or private body may be limited ‘to the extent that the limitations are reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom’ as contemplated in s 7(3) and s 36 of the Constitution. The scope of the right to privacy and confidentiality is more generously defined in the case of private entities, such as individuals, companies and private associations.

        The only court decision concerning the existence of a right of voters to access to information about sources of funding (Idasa and Others v ANC and Others, 2005) held that, ordinarily, political parties are private associations rather than public bodies, or bodies that perform public functions. As a result, in terms of the existing law, they were held not to be obliged to disclose their sources of funding. However, the court also recognised the public interest in greater transparency concerning political parties’ funding sources and accepted an undertaking by the ruling ANC that it would urgently introduce legislation to regulate transparency and access to information in this regard. The ruling party has failed since 2005 to introduce such legislation and has rebuffed efforts by opposition MPs to do so.

        My Vote Counts (MVC) recently initiated litigation against the Speaker of parliament in order to compel the introduction of this long-promised legislation.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where in law financial information of political parties and individual candidates must be made available to the public, whether online or digitally within two days of request.

        A MODERATE score is earned where financial information must be made available to the public, but no requirement exists regarding cost, format or number of days within which it must be made available.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Chapter 2 of the Constitution, 1996. Available at http://www.gov.za/documents/constitution/chapter-2-bill-rights (accessed 30 August 2014)

        Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2 of 2000. Available at http://www.justice.gov.za/paia/paia.htm and http://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/acts/2000-002.pdf (accessed 30 Aug 2014)

        Institute for Democracy in South Africa and Others v African National Congress and Others (9828/03) [2005] ZAWCHC 30; 2005 (5) SA 39 (C) [2005] 3 All SA 45 (C) (20 April 2005). Available at http://www.saflii.org/cgi-bin/sinosrch-adw.cgi?query=+Idasa&method=auto&results=50&meta=%2Fsaflii&mask_path=za%2Fcases%2FZAWCHC (accessed 9 Sept 2014)

        Interview with Ms Cheryllyn Dudley MP: African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP), 1 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Hlengani Nkuna, Section Manager: Finance Department, Parliament of South Africa, 17 October 2014.

        Questionnaire completed by Ms Ester de Wet, Manager: Budgets, Party Funding and Compliance, Independent Electoral Commission, 13 October 2014.

        Questionnaire completed by Mr Jonathan Moakes, CEO: DA 9 Oct 2014.

      • expand button!
        27
        Score
        25
        In practice, to what extent can citizens easily access the financial information of all political parties and individual candidates?More about indicator

        Citizens can access only the information concerning funds received from public sources. Information concerning disbursements to political parties by the IEC from the Public Fund is most readily available in the IEC’s annual report on the Public Fund, which the IEC submits to Parliament in hard copy and electronically, posts on its website, and makes available on request in both hard and soft copy (as a pdf).

        Information concerning disbursement and use of the various political party allowances allocated in terms of Parliament’s Allowances Policy is available from Parliament only by lodging a formal request and paying a modest fee in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act of 2000 (PAIA). An Independent Newspaper journalist who made an ordinary request for information concerning parliamentary allowances was refused access by both Parliament and by the larger political parties. Moreover, details of disbursements to political parties and of their reporting on use of the funds disbursed are not made available in Parliament’s annual report.

        PAIA is the legislative framework giving effect to the right to information held by the state and by private persons in terms of s 32 of the Constitution. However, PAIA is increasingly observed in the breach, and very few organs of state comply with the statutory obligation to proactively disclose even uncontroversial information. Most organs of state failed even to respond to requests. It appears that Parliament may be an exception in regard to this information. Section 32 also provides that information held by a private person or entity, but which is required for the exercise or the protection of other rights, must be disclosed. According to the only court decision to date on this question, political parties are private associations that are not required to disclose to anyone, including voters, any information about their finances, including donations from private, corporate or foreign sources. The prescribed administrative fee applicable to all access to information requests in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act of 2000 (PAIA) is currently set at R50.00, which includes the cost of any postage of the copies of the records of the institution, whether on paper or on CD. However, additional fees are prescribed to cover the costs of providing the requested copies. For example, the regulations permit the institution to levy a charge of R0.60 per A4 page copied, and R60.00 for a copy of a ‘visual image’.

        In March 2014, shortly before the 7 May 2014 general election, the CSO My Vote Counts (MVC) wrote to 14 political parties participating in the election campaign on behalf of a broad cross-section of CSOs, asking these parties to provide ‘a detailed breakdown of all private donations that your party received over the past twelve months (1 March 2013 – 28 February 2014)’. Although none provided the requested information, two of the smaller parties indicated support in principle for funding regulation and transparency, and one party provided some information, stating broadly that none of its funding came from foreign governments or individuals, or from ‘large conglomerates’.

        It is possible in practice for a member of the public to lodge a formal request in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) and to obtain a political party’s audited annual statements submitted to Parliament in terms of the Parliamentary Allowances Policy. Ms Jeanne van der Merwe of Media24 has successfully obtained copies of several political parties’ annual financial statements in respect of the past three financial years, including those of the African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP), the African National Congress (ANC) and the Democratic Alliance (DA) for the financial year ended 31 March 2014. The IEC has noted, “We view the RPPF financial statements of political parties as public documents. Up to now we have provided the information free of charge to interested members of the public, provided that the financial statements were already tabled in Parliament. We prefer that the original hard copy financial statements be scrutinised at our offices by an interested member of the public in order to ensure that documents are not tampered with and the integrity of the relevant party be placed at risk.”

        The ACDP’s statements include a report from a registered independent audit firm, which includes (at p3) a statement of professional opinion (dated 9 June 2014) that the moneys allocated to the Party in terms of Parliamentary allowances have been used ‘in accordance with the rules and regulations included’ in the Policy. The ANC’s financial statements include a similar statement of opinion by their independent auditor declaring (at p4)that ‘the annual financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, … in accordance with … the requirements of the Policy, Procedure and Practice Statement: Political Party Allowances’. The DA’s AFS include (at p4) the following declaration of opinion (dated 21 May 2014) by that party’s independent registered auditor: ‘In my opinion, the annual financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the Democratic Alliance Secretarial Allowances … and of its financial performance and cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with the International Financial Reporting Standards and in the manner required by the Policy on Political Parties Allowances’.

        The IEC's annual report on its administration of the Public Fund contains extracts from political parties' audited financial statements submitted to the IEC. A copy of the ANC’s AFS for the year ended 31 March 2014 was provided on request by the IEC. The independent auditor’s statement of opinion appears at pp3-4 of the financial report. It declares (at p3) that in their opinion ‘the statements present fairly, in all material respects the African National Congress Independent Electoral Commission [sic] in accordance with the International Financial Reporting Standards and in the requirements [sic] in the Public Funding of Political Parties Act, 1997 … and the regulations … 1998’ in terms of the Act. The statement continues to report that ‘… nothing has come to our attention that causes us to believe that the monies received were not spent for purposes authorised by the Act’. The financial statements appear to accurately reflect the summary of income and expenditures presented in the IEC’s annual Public Fund Report for 2013-2014 (at pp15-18).


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree 1. Citizens cannot access the financial information about private sources of funding to political parties, which comprise the vast majority of overall funds for the larger political parties. 2. There are real limitations facing most citizens wanting to access information on public funds. Political party allowances from Parliament require a fee and a PAIA application, both of which are costly and bureaucratic exercises for most citizens, many of whom live in poverty.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where: 1) all relevant financial information is freely available online, 2) it can be obtained digitally within two days of requesting it, and 3) it is in a machine readable format (for example in csv or xml format).

        A 50 score is earned where: 1) information is available but in some cases is incomplete or lacking detail, 2) obtaining complete information takes up to a month, or 3) it's not necessarily digital or in machine readable format.

        A 0 score is earned where: 1) the information is not publicly available, or 2) obtaining it takes more than three months, or 3) the cost of obtaining it is prohibitive for the regular citizen.

        Sources

        ‘Mystery of how political parties spent a whopping R298m’, Marianne Merten Independent Online 11 July 2011. Available at http://www.iol.co.za/the-star/mystery-of-how-political-parties-spent-a-whopping-r298m-1.1096444?ot=inmsa.ArticlePrintPageLayout.ot (accessed 9 Sept 2014).

        Interview with senior political correspondent for Independent Newspapers, 22 Sept 2014. (Identity kept confidential at request of interviewee).

        Interview with Ms Jeanne van der Merwe, political journalist for Media24, 23 Sept 2014.

        Interview with Mr Greg Solik (Managing Director and Coordinator, My Vote Counts), 3 Oct 2014.

        The Promotion of Access to Information Act Annual Report 2012-2013, South African Human Rights Commission, especially at pp21-22 and pp38-39; and PAIA Shadow Report 2012-2013, CSO PAIA Network, at pp1-2.

        Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2 of 2000. Available at http://www.justice.gov.za/paia/paia.htm and http://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/acts/2000-002.pdf (accessed 30 Aug 2014)

        Institute for Democracy in South Africa and Others v African National Congress and Others (9828/03) [2005] ZAWCHC 30; 2005 (5) SA 39 (C) [2005] 3 All SA 45 (C) (20 April 2005). Available at http://www.saflii.org/cgi-bin/sinosrch-adw.cgi?query=+Idasa&method=auto&results=50&meta=%2Fsaflii&mask_path=za%2Fcases%2FZAWCHC (accessed 9 Sept 2014)

        My Vote Counts (MVC) funding disclosure letter to political parties, ‘Update: Endorse the Call for Party Funding Reform’ 29 April 2014. Available at http://www.myvotecounts.org.za/page/2/ (accessed 10 Sept 2014)

        Agang SA’s response to MVC, available at http://www.myvotecounts.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/AGANG-SA-Response-to-My-Vote-Counts-Campaign.pdf (accessed 10 Sept 2014)

        Azanian People’s Organisation (Azapo) response to MVC, available at http://www.myvotecounts.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/AZAPO-Response-to-My-Vote-Counts-Campaign-letter-31-March-2014.pdf (accessed 10 Sept 2014)

        Additional information provided by the IEC on 5 November 2014, including a copy of the ANC's audited Annual Financial Statements.

        Email correspondence with Ms Ester de Wet: Budgets, Party Funding & Compliance Verification, Electoral Commission Of South Africa (IEC). January, 2015

        Copies of audited Annual Financial Statements submitted to Parliament by the ACDP, the ANC and the DA, provided by Media24 on 4 November 2014.

      • expand button!
        28
        Score
        25
        In practice, to what extent is financial information published in a standardized format?More about indicator

        The annual financial statements prepared for purposes of the Public Fund conform to GRAP (Generally Recognised Accounting Practice) as well as the requirements of the Public Funding Act as to the categories and level of detail in which information is presented. In terms of s 7 of the Regulations to the Public Funding Act, ‘separate books and records of account must be kept according to generally accepted accounting practices, and must’ include certain prescribed information. There are slight variations in practice between political parties as to how information is presented in their audited financial statements, extracts from which are included in the IEC’s Public Fund annual reports.

        Party-specific information is not reported in detail and according to a standardised format in Parliament’s annual report, which contains only ‘headline’ information, such as the overall amount paid to all political parties in the particular financial year. However, the Parliamentary Allowances Policy prescribes in extensive detail the nature and purpose of permissible expenditures, and political parties’ reports submitted to the Secretary to Parliament paid to and accounted for by each political party.

        It is possible in practice for a member of the public to lodge a formal request in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) and to obtain a political party’s audited annual statements submitted to Parliament in terms of the Parliamentary Allowances Policy. Ms Jeanne van der Merwe of Media24 has successfully obtained copies of several political parties’ annual financial statements in respect of the past three financial years, including those of the African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP), the African National Congress (ANC) and the Democratic Alliance (DA) for the financial year ended 31 March 2014.

        The ACDP’s statements include a report from a registered independent audit firm, which includes (at p3) a statement of professional opinion (dated 9 June 2014) that the moneys allocated to the Party in terms of Parliamentary allowances have been used ‘in accordance with the rules and regulations included’ in the Policy. The ANC’s financial statements include a similar statement of opinion by their independent auditor declaring (at p4)that ‘the annual financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, … in accordance with … the requirements of the Policy, Procedure and Practice Statement: Political Party Allowances’. The DA’s AFS include (at p4) the following declaration of opinion (dated 21 May 2014) by that party’s independent registered auditor: ‘In my opinion, the annual financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the Democratic Alliance Secretarial Allowances … and of its financial performance and cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with the International Financial Reporting Standards and in the manner required by the Policy on Political Parties Allowances’.

        The IEC's annual report on its administration of the Public Fund contains extracts from political parties' audited financial statements submitted to the IEC. A copy of the ANC’s AFS for the year ended 31 March 2014 was provided on request by the IEC. The independent auditor’s statement of opinion appears at pp3-4 of the financial report. It declares (at p3) that in their opinion ‘the statements present fairly, in all material respects the African National Congress Independent Electoral Commission [sic] in accordance with the International Financial Reporting Standards and in the requirements [sic] in the Public Funding of Political Parties Act, 1997 … and the regulations … 1998’ in terms of the Act. The statement continues to report that ‘… nothing has come to our attention that causes us to believe that the monies received were not spent for purposes authorised by the Act’. The financial statements appear to accurately reflect the summary of income and expenditures presented in the IEC’s annual Public Fund Report for 2013-2014 (at pp15-18).


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree. A 25 is earned, as while some of the information relating to public funding can be obtained it is not published in a standardised format for ease of access, and any persons wanting to identify and compile this information will need to locate it from various sources. Also, it does not include information relating to private funding.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where financial information for all political parties and individual candidates is available to the public in a standardized format.

        A 50 score is earned where only part of the information is published in a standardized format. A 50 score is also earned where the information is standardized, but it doesn't cover all political parties and individual candidates.

        A 0 score is earned where financial information is not available in a standardized format.

        Sources

        Interview with Ms Jeanne van der Merwe, political journalist for Media24, 23 Sept 2014.

        Interview with Ms Cheryllyn Dudley MP: African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP), 1 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Hlengani Nkuna, Section Manager: Finance Department, Parliament of South Africa, 17 October 2014.

        Questionnaire completed by Ms Ester de Wet, Manager: Budgets, Party Funding and Compliance, Independent Electoral Commission, 13 October 2014.

        Questionnaire completed by Mr Jonathan Moakes, CEO: Democratic Alliance (DA), 9 Oct 2014.

        IEC annual reports on its administration of the Represented Political Parties Fund (the Public Fund). Available at http://www.elections.org.za/content/Parties/Party-funding/ (accessed 7 Sept 2014).

        IEC 2013/14 annual report on the Public Fund. Available at: http://www.elections.org.za/content/About-Us/Represented-Political-Parties/ (accessed 7 Sept 2014).

        Parliament of the Republic of South Africa Annual Report 2012/13. Available at http://www.parliament.gov.za/content/Annual%20Report_2013~1.pdf (accessed 8 Sept 2014).

        Parliament of the Republic of South Africa Annual Report 2013-2014. Available at http://www.parliament.gov.za/content/WEB_AP.pdf (accessed 18 Oct 2014).

        Additional information provided by the IEC on 5 November 2014, including a copy of the ANC's audited Annual Financial Statements.

        Copies of audited Annual Financial Statements submitted to Parliament by the ACDP, the ANC and the DA, provided by Media24 on 4 November 2014.

      • expand button!
        29
        Score
        100
        In practice, to what extent do mainstream journalism media outlets use political finance data in their reporting?More about indicator

        Print and online media outlets, including Independent Newspapers / Independent Online (IOL), Media24 (including City Press), the Mail & Guardian and Business Day all frequently use publicly available data from the IEC and Parliament, as well as leaked information about party finances. After the tabling in Parliament of the Public Fund annual report, newspapers usually report on parties who have not complied with the provisions of the Public Funding Act.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree. This score is accurate if it applies only to official sources of information. However, if one considers that there are no official sources of private funding then it should be downgraded. Journalists can only speculate on sources and amounts of private funding.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where at least three independent mainstream journalism media outlets have used officially published political party or individual candidate financial information as part of their reporting.

        A 50 score is earned where one independent mainstream journalism media outlet has used officially published financial information as part of its reporting.

        A 0 score is earned where no mainstream journalism media outlet has used officially published financial information as part of its reporting.

        Sources

        Questionnaire completed by Ms Ester de Wet, Manager: Budgets, Party Funding and Compliance, Independent Electoral Commission, 13 October 2014.

        Interview with senior political correspondent for Independent Newspapers, 22 Sept 2014. (Identity kept confidential at request of interviewee).

        Interview with Ms Jeanne van der Merwe, political journalist for Media24, 23 Sept 2014. ‘ANC seeks more party funding’, Caiphus Kgosana City Press 27 July 2014. Available at http://www.citypress.co.za/politics/anc-seeks-party-funding/ (accessed 7 Sept 2014)

        Graphic of IEC and parliamentary public funding up to 2013, City Press 11 May 2014. Available at http://www.citypress.co.za/multimedia/graphic-public-funding-political-parties/ (accessed 7 Sept 2014)

        ‘IEC party funding rises?to a record … R114m’ Moyagabo Maake City Press 11 May 2014. Available at http://www.citypress.co.za/politics/iec-party-funding-rise%E2%80%89%E2%80%89to-record-r114m/ (accessed 6 Sept 2014).

        ‘Absa: No more funding for political parties’ SAPA City Press 24 February 2014. Available at http://www.citypress.co.za/politics/absa-funding-political-parties/ (accessed 6 Sept 2014).

        ‘R1-billion in ‘illegal’ party payouts’ Tabelo Timse, Frank Phoshoko, Stefaans Brümmer Mail & Guardian 8 March 2013. Available at http://mg.co.za/article/2013-03-08-00-r1-billion-in-illegal-party-payouts (last accessed 6 Sept 2014).

        ‘Zille: DA received money from Gupta employee’ Nickolaus Bauer Mail & Guardian 29 January 2013. Available at http://mg.co.za/article/2013-01-29-zille-we-did-not-receive-money-from-the-guptas (last accessed 6 Sept 2014).

        ‘Ramphele: Agang funding comes from SA not US’ SAPA Mail & Guardian 19 February 2013. Available at http://mg.co.za/article/2013-02-19-ramphele-agang-sa-funding-comes-from-south-africa-not-us (last accessed 6 Sept 2014).

        ‘Secret party funding fuels electorate’s suspicion’ Bezekela Phakathi Business Day 18 March 2014. Available at http://www.bdlive.co.za/national/politics/2014/03/18/secret-party-funding-fuels-electorates-suspicion (accessed 6 Sept 2014).

      • expand button!
        30
        Score
        0
        In practice, to what extent were there no news reports or other documented incidents of violation or abuse of political finance laws?More about indicator

        There are no constraints or limits on contributions from private sources, and no quantitative limits on expenditure of funds derived from either public or private sources. This limited form of regulation makes contribution violations almost impossible.

        As official reporting on infractions is extremely limited, even terse, it is unclear whether the few infractions disclosed officially have been substantive or technical. There have been instances where political parties have failed to submit their audited financial statements timeously to the IEC as required by the Public Funding Act. The IEC’s Public Fund Annual Report for 2013-2014 indicates (at pp 62-63) that, in that financial year (ie 1 April 2013 – 31 March 2014), 4 of 14 political parties who received public funding failed to timeously submit audited AFS. They were the African People’s Convention (APC), the Minority Front (MF), the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) and the United Democratic Movement (UDM). This reflected an increase in non-compliance when compared with the 2012-2013 financial year, when only the Azanian People’s Organisation (AZAPO) and the PAC did not comply.

        In these cases, funding was suspended by the IEC until such time as the audited financial statements are received. In general, in cases of irregular use or misuse of funds, an equivalent amount is recovered from future payments to the relevant party. The accounting officer of a party is held responsible for paying back any irregularly spent monies.

        However, as discussed in #20, there are qualitative restrictions on permissible uses of public funds. Parliament’s Policy on Political Party Allowances (the Parliamentary Allowances Policy) adopts a more explicitly restrictive approach and includes, in paragraph 8.8 read with Annexure A, a lengthy ‘closed list’ of permissible expenditure items for the Constituency Allowance.

        Allegations were published of ANC party officials’ misuse of Parliamentary allowances intended for non-partisan Parliamentary Constituency Offices (PCOs). The newspaper report alleged that senior party members had used parliamentary constituency funds to ‘jet around the province and stay in luxury hotels’. ‘ANC sponges off forbidden funds’ Daily Dispatch 7 September 2013. In terms of the Parliamentary Allowances Policy, these funds may be used only by public representatives appointed to operate the PCO.

        Journalists often don’t have adequate time and other resources to interrogate or verify allegations or other information of which they become aware. It is unclear whether or not Parliament has investigated this allegation.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree. It is extremely difficult to quantify the extent of abuse of parliamentary allowances for constituency office work. It would require extensive investigation and research. The only sources available to partly substantiate violations of parliamentary allowances for constituency office work can be found in a limited number of journalistic reports which allege that there is a lack of transparency about how these are funds are used. The media articles listed as sources below speak to the opaque nature and possible abuses of constituency funds.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where there were no news reports or other documented incidents of violation or abuse of political finance laws during the most recent national election.

        A 50 score is earned where there were news reports or other documented incidents of no more than two cases of violation or abuse of political finance laws during the most recent national election.

        A 0 score is earned where there were frequent news reports or other documented incidents of violation or abuse of political finance laws during the most recent national election.

        Sources

        Zine George, ‘ANC sponges off forbidden funds’, Daily Dispatch 7 September 2013. Available at http://www.dispatchlive.co.za/news/anc-sponges-off-forbidden-funds/ (accessed 7 Sept 2014).

        Verashni Pillay, ‘No investigation into ANC-themed government ads’, Mail & Guardian 7 April 2014. Available at http://mg.co.za/article/2014-04-07-00-no-investigation-into-anc-themed-government-ads (last accessed 6 Sept 2014).

        ‘ANC accused of ‘dirty’ politics in Free State’, South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) 7 April 2014. Available at http://www.sabc.co.za/news/a/69b7eb00438dc6f99e81df806cf46596/ANC-accused-of-dirty-politics-in-Free-State-20140704 (accessed 6 Sept 2014).

        Interview with senior political correspondent for Independent Newspapers, 22 Sept 2014. (Identity kept confidential at request of interviewee).

        Interview with Ms Jeanne van der Merwe, political journalist for Media24, 23 Sept 2014.

        Interview with Mr Greg Solik (Managing Director and Coordinator, My Vote Counts), 3 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Ebrahim Fakir, senior independent political analyst, 6 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Nkosikhulele Nyembezi, Co-Chairperson: Elections 2014 National Coordinating Forum (NCF), 8 Sept 2014.

        Questionnaire completed by Ms Ester de Wet, Manager: Budgets, Party Funding and Compliance, Independent Electoral Commission, 13 October 2014.

        Interview with senior political correspondent for Independent Newspapers, 22 Sept 2014. (Identity kept confidential at request of interviewee).

        Interview with Mr Lance Greyling MP: Democratic Alliance (DA), 19 Sept 2014.

        Interview with Mr Hlengani Nkuna, Section Manager: Finance Department, Parliament of South Africa, 17 October 2014.

        Parliament of the Republic of South Africa Annual Report 2012/13. Available at http://www.parliament.gov.za/content/Annual%20Report_2013~1.pdf (accessed 8 Sept 2014).

        Parliament of the Republic of South Africa Annual Report 2013-2014. Available at http://www.parliament.gov.za/content/WEB_AP.pdf (accessed 18 Oct 2014).

        Public Funding of Represented Political Parties Act 103 of 1997 (Public Funding Act), available at: http://www.elections.org.za/content/Parties/Party-funding/; and http://www.justice.gov.za/alraesa/projects/PublicFundingofRepresentedPoliticalPartiesAct103of1997.pdf (accessed 2 September 2014)

        Parliament’s Policy on Political Parties Allowances, 2005 (the ‘Parliamentary Allowances Policy’, adopted on 20 July 2005), available at: http://www.parliament.gov.za/content/POLICY%20on%20political%20parties%20allowances~2.pdf (accessed 7 Sept 2014).

        Peer Reviewer's sources. Alicestine October and Jeanne van der Merwe, SA's R250m constituency mystery, City Press, 31 August 2014, http://www.citypress.co.za/politics/sas-r250m-constituency-mystery/

        Gregory Solik, Party funding, the illness at the heart of our society. Daily Maverick, 2 April 2014. http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2014-04-02-party-funding-the-illness-at-the-heart-of-our-society/#.VGXI8VeUeaI

      • expand button!
        31
        Score
        0
        In practice, to what extent were there no news reports or other documented incidents of vote-buying?More about indicator

        There were several news reports of alleged vote-buying during the 2014 general election campaign. The official opposition DA issued a statement detailing four alleged instances of vote-buying by the ANC. They included the Department of Agriculture printing yellow T-shirts depicting national and ANC President Jacob Zuma.

        The Electoral Institute (EISA) recorded a DA allegation that an ANC political rally in the Free State province attended by ANC president Jacob Zuma was ‘another example of how the ruling party abuses state resources for electioneering’. During this event the South African Social Security Agency (Sassa) handed out blankets and food. ‘The DA was adamant that this is indicative of how the ANC uses “inducements” or “rewards” to encourage citizens to vote or not vote in a particular manner. According to the Social Development Minister, Bathabile Dlamini, the presence of Sassa at the Free State ANC election event was a coincidence.’ Source cited: Mariaan Merten ‘DA may go back to court over food parcels’ Daily News 8 April 2014.

        According to the IEC, while there have been some reports of allegations of vote-buying, but none have been proven to be well-founded.

        However, Professor Jane Duncan has noted that, according to research undertaken by David Bruce for the Community Agency for Social Enquiry (CASE) ‘has shown how the IEC has failed to develop mechanisms to respond to pre-election intimidation. Rather, the Commission has confined its role mainly to ensuring voting goes off without a hitch on election day, and has generally done so very efficiently. However, it has paid insufficient attention to the deeper preconditions for political participation in elections. It has not responded decisively enough to a range of coercive practices, especially by the ANC, which according to Bruce, was the most at fault.’

        Bruce’s research records instances where the IEC has initially denied some allegations of its ineffectiveness that were subsequently found to be accurate, and numerous media reports detailing instances of alleged vote-buying, and interviews with representatives of many political parties. He notes that it is difficult to prove that state resources are being distributed specifically to promote the ANC or other party, or whether they are ‘just delivery’ of public services. He concludes that ‘if intimidation is loosely defined as referring to practices that involve coercion, violence, threats or manipulating people’s fears and anxieties, then some of the practices that function on more of an ‘economic’ level [notably in poorer communities] can also be labelled as forms of intimidation’. (p92)


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree. The IEC were not correct to say that allegations of vote buying are not well-founded. Vote buying in the campaign period before an election is an increasing problem in South Africa. Vote buyng comprises subtle forms of manipulation of pooper communities in two distinct ways:

        1. Government departments increased budgets for and the distribution of material goods such as food parcels, vouchers and cash grants to poorer communities during the 2014 campaign period. Opposition parties and the NGO Black Sash have voiced concerns in this regard. (http://www.citypress.co.za/politics/food-votes/.) A study by the University of Johannesburg Centre for Social Development in Africa (CSDA) found that in 2014 voters regard food parcels before an election as a vote-buying tactic by the governing party. (http://www.bdlive.co.za/national/2014/05/28/poor-see-food-parcels-as-vote-buying-says-study)

        2. The other prevalent form of possible vote buying was ‘economic coercion’, or the spread of misinformation and threats by ANC party campaigners among poorer voters (who often depend on the state for grants and employment via public works programmes) that a vote for an opposition party would result in the loss of grants and the denial of jobs, contracts, services and development opportunities. The study by David Bruce, 'just singing and dancing' corroborates these anecdotal reports prior to the 2014 election with respondents' stories of government officials warning poorer voters during the campaigning period that they would not receive grants if they don’t vote ‘the right way’.

        However, vote-buying as a phenomenon requires far greater research before it can be quantified.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where there were no news reports or other documented incidents of vote-buying during the most recent national election.

        A 50 score is earned where there were news reports or other documented incidents of no more than two cases of vote-buying during the most recent national election.

        A 0 score is earned where there were frequent news reports or other documented incidents of vote-buying during the most recent national election.

        Sources

        Mariaan Merten, ‘DA may go back to court over food parcels’ Daily News 8 April 2014.

        ‘How the ANC is abusing state funds for election campaigning - Helen Zille’ Statement issued by DA leader Helen Zille 7 April 2014. Available at http://politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71654?oid=587022&sn=Detail&pid=71654 (last accessed 3 Sept 2014)

        ‘ANC abusing your cash to buy votes’ Editorial in The Citizen 14 April 2014. Available at http://citizen.co.za/160004/anc-abusing-cash-buy-votes/ (accessed 10 Sept 2014).

        Interview with senior political correspondent for Independent Newspapers, 22 Sept 2014. (Identity kept confidential at request of interviewee).

        Interview with Ms Jeanne van der Merwe, political journalist for Media24, 23 Sept 2014.

        Interview with Mr Greg Solik (Managing Director and Coordinator, My Vote Counts), 3 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Ebrahim Fakir, senior independent political analyst, 6 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Nkosikhulele Nyembezi, Co-Chairperson: Elections 2014 National Coordinating Forum (NCF), 8 Sept 2014.

        Questionnaire completed by Ms Ester de Wet, Manager: Budgets, Party Funding and Compliance, Independent Electoral Commission, 13 October 2014.

        ‘Just singing and dancing? Intimidation and the manipulation of voters and the electoral process in the build-up to the 2014 elections’ David Bruce for the Community Agency for Social Enquiry (CASE) April 2014. Available at http://www.nelsonmandela.org/uploads/files/intimidation-in-elections.pdf (accessed 1 November 2014).

        ‘Banning elections ads undermines free speech’ Jane Duncan TheMediaOnline 5 May 2014. Available at http://themediaonline.co.za/2014/05/banning-elections-ads-undermines-free-speech/ (accessed 1 November 2014).

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

        Reviewer's sources: Carien du Plessis and Yolandi Groenewald, ANCs food for votes, 5 January 2014, http://www.citypress.co.za/politics/food-votes/

        Khulekani Magubane, Poor see food parcels as vote-buying, says study, 28 May 2014. http://www.bdlive.co.za/national/2014/05/28/poor-see-food-parcels-as-vote-buying-says-study

        SAPA, ANC accused of Tlokwe vote-buying, 4 October 2013, http://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/anc-accused-of-tlokwe-vote-buying-1.1587408#.VGXSRVeUc0g

      • expand button!
        32
        Score
        100
        In practice, to what extent do civil society organizations use political finance data?More about indicator

        Several civil society organizations have used officially published political party or individual candidate financial information as part of their advocacy or awareness work. However, it is worth emphasising that the data used by CSOs is largely limited to information officially released by state institutions, as political parties do not officially release any financial data.

        The Right2Know Campaign’s Secret State of the Nation Report for 2014 noted that ‘[i]n most democracies, it is recognised that the public has a right to know who is funding political parties. Yet in South Africa political parties are not required by law to disclose who their private donors are. Six weeks before the 7 May elections, over 60 civil society organisations made an open call to the 14 biggest political parties calling for them to disclose their sources of private funding. Not one of them did. The secret space between politicians and their financiers undermines democracy, allowing corporations, wealthy individuals and even foreign governments to buy influence and favours from the political elite.’

        In July 2014, My Vote Counts (MVC) approached the Constitutional Court, effectively to force Parliament to make good on years of promises to enact a law to regulate private funding of political parties. MVC is seeking an order that would compel Parliament to pass a law requiring political parties to declare their funding.

        The Money and Politics Project (MAPP) has sought to use publicly available information from annual reports and sustainability reports of the top 40 companies listed on the Johannesburg Securities Exchange to track whether they disclose donations to South African political parties.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where at least three civil society organizations have used officially published political party or individual candidate financial information as part of their advocacy or awareness work.

        A 50 score is earned where one civil society organization has used officially published financial information as part of its advocacy or awareness work.

        A 0 score is earned where no civil society organization has used officially published financial information as part of its work.

        Sources

        ‘Election Time and Party Funding’ My Vote Counts, 3 February 2014. Available at http://www.myvotecounts.org.za/page/4/ (accessed 10 Sept 2014).

        ‘MVC launches application at the Constitutional Court – 16 July 2014’. Available at http://www.myvotecounts.org.za/ (accessed 10 Sept 2014).

        Various papers and briefs produced by the Money and Politics Project (MAPP) (2012-2014), available at http://osf.org.za/now-available-mapp-money-politics-project-2012-briefs/ (accessed 10 Sept 2014).

        ‘Secret State of the Nation Report 2014’, Right2Know campaign, September 2014. Available at http://www.r2k.org.za/2014/09/09/r2k-secrecy-report-2014/ (accessed 10 Sept 2014).

        ‘How campaign funds are regulated’ Corruption Watch, 24 March 2014. Available at http://www.corruptionwatch.org.za/content/how-campaign-funds-are-regulated (accessed 10 Sept 2014).

        Interview with Mr Greg Solik (Managing Director and Coordinator, My Vote Counts), 3 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Ebrahim Fakir, senior independent political analyst, 6 Oct 2014.

        Reviewer's sources: Alicestine October and Jeanne van der Merwe, SA's R250m constituency mystery, City Press, 31 August 2014, http://www.citypress.co.za/politics/sas-r250m-constituency-mystery/

        Gregory Solik, Party funding, the illness at the heart of our society. Daily Maverick, 2 April 2014. http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2014-04-02-party-funding-the-illness-at-the-heart-of-our-society/#.VGXI8VeUeaI

      • expand button!
        33
        Score
        --
        Open Question: Have there been political finance legal reforms or reform bills presented to the legislature in the last 10 years?More about indicator

        The following reform bills have been presented in the national Parliament during the past ten years - a) Lance Greyling MP (then-Independent Democrats, now Democratic Alliance) – regulation of political finance (2010) b) Ian Davidson MP (DA) – regulation of business interests of public representatives (2010) c) Gareth Morgan (DA MP) – regulation of advertising expenditure during election campaigns (2005)

        Greyling submitted a proposal to regulate private funding of political parties. The objects of the proposal included the regulation of disclosure of private donations to political parties; to regulate election expenditure and possibility introduce spending caps; to regulate political parties’ business interests; and to regulate donations from foreign entities.

        Parliament accepted a brief letter from Parliament’s legal advisor that was erroneously described as a ‘legal opinion’ but which merely highlighted some relevant constitutional principles. Some of the principles appeared to contradict each other, such as the rights to privacy and the right to transparency. Instead of seeking to weigh them up and to identify an appropriate balance, the letter mentioned unidentified ‘unintended consequences of maybe private people not wanting to support political parties’, and Section 1(d) of the Constitution of 1996, which set out a multiparty political system as one of the country’s ‘founding values’. On this implausible basis, the Parliamentary Committee on Private Members’ Legislative Proposals and Special Petitions decided ‘to recommend [to the National Assembly of Parliament] not to proceed[,] as guided by Rule 235A a)’ [on the supposed basis ‘that it went against the spirit, purport and object of the Constitution’.

        Davidson’s related proposal sought to prohibit contracting between an organ of state in the national sphere of government and companies whose directors are party political office bearers or public representatives of political parties. This arose from widespread and sustained public concern that public funds were being expended in terms of public procurement contracts between government departments and public entities, on the one hand, and private companies, on the other, in which political party officials and/or public representatives and/or public servants held a financial interest. Concern had been growing that many of these companies had proven to be unable to deliver the contracted services with the required level of expertise, leading to large scale wastage of public funds. The Auditor-General of South Africa in successive annual reports had repeatedly expressed his concern at the growing scale of wasted public funds for this reason among others. The clear impression had been formed that the repeated contracting of these entities was motivated by personal or partisan interest rather than value for money for the state, which is the required criterion in terms of the Public Finance Management Act, 1999. The concern regarding partisan interest arose from the well-known practice that the ANC is the beneficiary of several such state contracts. Perhaps the most well-known among many such contracts is the contract between the state-owned electricity utility company Eskom and Hitachi Power Africa. The ANC’s fundraising / investment arm, the Chancellor House Trust, was a major shareholder in Hitachi Power Africa.

        No additional information could be found regarding Morgan’s proposal.

        Although not the subject of formal reform proposals, the formula in the Public Funding Act has been bitterly criticized by many smaller parties on the basis that it unduly favours incumbency while failing entirely to encourage systemic renewal by withholding funding for new parties, as well as by some of the larger parties on the basis that it unduly benefits the smaller parties.

        Peer reviewer comment: Agree. A credible reason for none of the mentioned bills receiving consideration by the Committee System of National Parliament has to do with the political party system, and and particular, the numerical dominance of the African National Congress in parliament, and their aversion to any legislation that seeks to regulate private funding to political parties. The Constitution expressly gives individual MPs the power to initiate legislation (sections 73 and 119). However, it has been largely under-utilised and mostly utilised by opposition MPs. In these particular cases, the Private Members Bills were initated by opposition members and would only be successful if the governing party was convinced of their value. Without the support of the majority party in parliament it was highly unlikely that these Private Member's Bills would find traction.

        Scoring Criteria

        Please list and describe all documented instances of: 1) political finance reforms, including bills passed, executive orders signed, court rulings and any other legal act that had a direct effect on existent political finance regulation, and 2) all legal reform attempts presented to the legislature even if they were not approved. Please describe the political context that produced the reforms or reform attempts.

        Sources

        Interview with Mr Lance Greyling MP: Democratic Alliance (DA), 19 Sept 2014.

        Questionnaire completed by Mr Jonathan Moakes, CEO: Democratic Alliance (DA) 9 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Greg Solik (Managing Director and Coordinator, My Vote Counts), 3 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Ebrahim Fakir, senior independent political analyst, 6 Oct 2014.

        Parliamentary Monitoring Group, "Greyling Proposal: Regulate private funding of political parties; Davidson Proposals: Correct anomalies in Executive Members' Ethics Act No & Prohibit contracting between an organ of state and companies whose directors are party political office bearers" http://www.pmg.org.za/report/20110316-deliberations-legislative-proposal-regulate-private-funding-political (accessed 10 Sept 2014)

        Pienaar, G ‘Public servants still profit from state procurement’ Idasa 15 July 2009. http://idasa.wordpress.com/2009/07/20/public-servants-still-profit-from-state-procurement/

        Chancellor House Special Report, Mail and Guardian. Available at http://mg.co.za/report/chancellor-house (accessed 10 Sept 2014).

  • expand button!

    Third Party Actors

    More about category
    composite
    0
    • expand button!
      Applicability of the Law to Third-Party Actors
      More about category
      • expand button!
        34
        Score
        NO
        In law, third-party actors (foundations, think tanks, unions, political action committees, etc.) report itemized contributions received and expenditures to an oversight authority and the information is made publicly available.More about indicator

        No such law exists.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where: 1) third-party actors are required to report to the oversight authority itemized contributions received and expenditures related to their support of electoral campaigns, and 2) the information must be publicly available.

        A MODERATE score is earned where third-party actors are required to report itemized contributions received and expenditures related to their support of electoral campaigns, but the information is not required to be publicly available. A MODERATE score is also earned where regulations exist, but only apply to electoral campaigns of one actor (whether political party or individual candidate).

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Interview with Mr Greg Solik (Managing Director and Coordinator, My Vote Counts), 3 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Ebrahim Fakir, senior independent political analyst, 6 Oct 2014.

      • expand button!
        35
        Score
        0
        In practice, to what extent do third-party actors (foundations, think tanks, unions, political action committees, etc.) report itemized contributions received and expenditures to an oversight authority?More about indicator

        Contributions from and expenditures by third party actors are not reported to the electoral oversight body, the IEC. However, company contributions should be recorded in annual reports and tax returns submitted to the South African Revenue Service (SARS). However, s 68 of the Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011 provides that this information is confidential. In order to retain its registered status as a trade union, labour federation Cosatu is obliged to submit annual reports, which must include detailed financial information and audited financial statements, to the Department of Labour.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where all third-party actors report to an oversight authority both itemized contributions received and itemized expenditures.

        A 50 score is earned where third-party actors report to an oversight authority either itemized contributions received or expenditures, but not both. A 50 score is also earned where the reports refer only to one type of third-party actor, but do not cover others.

        A 0 score is earned where third-party actors rarely or never report itemized contributions received or expenditures.

        Sources

        Interview with Mr Matthew Parks, Deputy Parliamentary Coordinator: Cosatu, 26 September 2014. (The Alliance consists of the ANC, the SACP and Cosatu.)

        Interview with Mr Ebrahim Fakir, senior independent political analyst, 6 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Greg Solik (Managing Director and Coordinator, My Vote Counts), 3 Oct 2014.

      • expand button!
        36
        Score
        0
        In practice, to what extent can journalists and citizens easily access the financial information of third party actors, including the political spending of those actors in support of political parties and individual candidates?More about indicator

        Such information is usually available to the public only through the efforts of investigative journalists, or because of leaks to the media by disaffected factions within political parties involved. Once in the public domain, the information hasn’t been denied, but little additional information is provided by those responsible.

        A notable example has been the efforts in recent years by the Mail & Guardian to reveal the existence and role of the ANC’s investment vehicle, the Chancellor House Trust, and the conflicts of interest arising from its state contracts. Independent Newspapers (among others) played a key role in highlighting the fundraising efforts of the ANC’s Progressive Business Forum, which, for a substantial fee, provides direct access to senior government decision-makers. As private associations, they are not obliged to place any financial information in the public domain. In recent times, however, the PBF has become more open about some of its activities to facilitate international business partnerships. ‘ANC: Statement by the Office of the ANC Progressive Business Forum, delegation visits Russia’ Polity 9 October 2013.

        A Cosatu affiliate, the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (Numsa), is reported to have ‘recently revealed’ that it has donated R63m (approx 5.8M USD) to the ‘alliance partners’ since 2003. The ruling alliance includes Cosatu, the ANC and the South African Communist Party (SACP). ‘NUM & ANC: The price of loyalty’ Financial Mail 3 July 2014.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where: 1) all relevant financial information is freely available online or in hard copy at the cost of photocopying, 2) it can be obtained within two days of requesting it, and 3) it is in a machine readable format (for example in csv or xml format).

        A 50 score is earned where: 1) information is available but in some cases is incomplete or lacking detail, 2) obtaining complete information takes up to a month, or 3) it's not necessarily in machine readable format.

        A 0 score is earned where: 1) the information is not publicly available, or 2) obtaining it takes more than three months, or 3) the cost of obtaining it is prohibitive for the regular citizen.

        Sources

        Interview with senior political correspondent for Independent Newspapers, 22 Sept 2014. (Identity kept confidential at request of interviewee).

        Interview with Ms Jeanne van der Merwe, political journalist for Media24, 23 Sept 2014.

        Interview with Mr Greg Solik (Managing Director and Coordinator, My Vote Counts), 3 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Ebrahim Fakir, senior independent political analyst, 6 Oct 2014.

        ‘ANC: Statement by the Office of the ANC Progressive Business Forum, delegation visits Russia’ Polity 9 October 2013. Available at http://www.polity.org.za/article/anc-statement-by-the-the-office-of-the-anc-progressive-business-forum-delegation-vists-russia-09102013-2013-10-09 (last accessed 1 Sept 2014).

        ‘Spotlight on Hitachi deal’ Corruption Watch, 8 April 2013, available at http://www.corruptionwatch.org.za/content/spotlight-hitachi-deal (accessed 9 April 2013).

        ‘ANC’s Chancellor House in secret R170m Eskom supplier deal’ City Press 26 April 2014 available at http://www.citypress.co.za/news/ancs-chancellor-house-secret-r170m-eskom-supplier-deal/ (last accessed 1 Sept 2014).

        ‘NUM & ANC: The price of loyalty’ Natasha Marrian Financial Mail 3 July 2014. Available at http://www.financialmail.co.za/coverstory/2014/07/03/num-anc-the-price-of-loyalty (accessed 26 Sept 2014).

      • expand button!
        37
        Score
        --
        Open Question: Please describe how third party-actors (even if they are not regulated by your country's laws) obtain contributions and spend in support of political parties and/or individual candidates.More about indicator

        Some examples of known third parties are described here, all of which provide support to the ANC. The DA and other political parties are not known to have similar types of relationships with such entities.

        ANC-allied trade union federation Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu) pays a political levy ahead of each election to the African National Congress. According to the resolutions of Cosatu’s 11th Congress, Cosatu and affiliate members ‘should be members of the [South African Communist Party] and pay [a] levy as prescribed by the latter’. Members of Cosatu are accustomed to being required to pay an additional election levy to the African National Congress as leader of the Tripartite Alliance. The levy is paid in accordance with resolutions taken at three-yearly federal congresses. While only vague reference to the levy is made in the Political Report to Congress, it confirms the reality of the levy.

        The ANC’s Progressive Business Forum, like the party itself, is a private association that provides an ‘informal mechanism for frank and open discussion between the business community and the ANC and it`s government leaders’. It offers ‘opportunities for interaction with ANC policy makers at Ministerial, MEC and Metro Executive levels’, and raises funds by holding fundraising breakfasts or dinners where seats at tables with various public representatives, including the President, Cabinet members and provincial premiers, are sold for prices ranging from R100 000 – R500 000. Funds raised through this mechanism are likely to be substantial, as these dinners have been very well attended.

        The ANC’s investment vehicle, Chancellor House, has been widely criticised for benefiting from deals with state entities, giving rise to conflicts of interest. One critic, Paul Hoffman, head of the Institute for Accountability in Southern Africa, argues that the investment is “illegal” in terms of the Constitution, and that “this [contract] means money received from a state-owned entity will go straight into the coffers of the ANC”, which “… seems to be a brazen repeat of the Hitachi formula, which was unconstitutional, and which undermines the fairness of elections.” Hoffman states that “[n]o other party has the temerity to enter into deals like this, where they are both [player and referee].”

        The Public Investment Corporation (PIC) is mandated to invest public sector employees’ pension funds on behalf of the Government Employees’ Pension Fund (GEPF). However, concern has been expressed that the PIC may be using these funds to make investment decisions that unduly, inappropriately and possible illegally favour the business interests of ruling party leaders, members and supporters, as well as state-owned companies that periodically receive taxpayer-funded bailouts. Those companies or directors of those companies, such as the New Age newspaper, owned by the Gupta family who are friends and allies of President Zuma, then provide funding or in-kind support to the ruling party, as well as to the official opposition DA.

        The Chinese Communist Party government is a loyal ally and financial supporter of the ruling ANC. It provides funding to the ruling party sometimes indirectly, via investments in large corporations owned by ANC leaders, such as the party’s Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa, and sometimes directly for internal party political structures.

        Scoring Criteria

        To answer this question please: 1) list the types of third-party actors that exist in your country and describe how they work to influence campaigns, 2) explain how important such actors are or not in the context of campaigns, including whether their expenditures are substantial in relation to that of political parties and individual candidates, and 3) if documented evidence indicates they circumvent laws intended to regulate political finance, please explain how and include references to the evidence.

        Sources

        Interview with Mr Greg Solik (Managing Director and Coordinator, My Vote Counts), 3 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Ebrahim Fakir, senior independent political analyst, 6 Oct 2014.

        Interview with senior political correspondent for Independent Newspapers, 22 Sept 2014. (Identity kept confidential at request of interviewee).

        Interview with Ms Jeanne van der Merwe, political journalist for Media24, 23 Sept 2014.

        Interview with Matthew Parks, Deputy Parliamentary Coordinator: Cosatu, 26 September 2014. (The ruling alliance consists of the ANC, the SACP and Cosatu.)

        Resolution 1.4 para 10 ‘Providing Material Support as part of Building the SACP’. The resolutions were finalised at the Central Executive Committee of February 2013.

        ‘NUM & ANC: The price of loyalty’ Natasha Marrian Financial Mail 3 July 2014, available at http://www.financialmail.co.za/coverstory/2014/07/03/num-anc-the-price-of-loyalty (accessed 26 Sept 2014).

        ‘Political Report to the COSATU 11th National Congress, 2012’, available at http://www.cosatu.org.za/docs/reports/2012/polrep.pdf (accessed 26 September 2014). See also ‘Cosatu vows to help to fund ANC’s election campaign’ Mail & Guardian 20 Sept 2013, available at http://mg.co.za/article/2013-09-20-00-union-vows-to-help-to-fund-ancs-election-campaign (accessed 26 Sept 2014).

        Progressive Business Forum http://www.pbf.org.za/forms/application.pdf (accessed 10 Sept 2014).

        The Business Case for Party Funding Reform, Money and Politics Project Policy Brief April 2014, p3. Available at http://osf.org.za/now-available-mapp-money-politics-project-2012-briefs/ (accessed 9 Sept 2014)

        ‘Spotlight on Hitachi deal’ Corruption Watch, 8 April 2013, available at http://www.corruptionwatch.org.za/content/spotlight-hitachi-deal (accessed 9 April 2013).

        ‘ANC’s Chancellor House in secret R170m Eskom supplier deal’ City Press 26 April 2014 available at http://www.citypress.co.za/news/ancs-chancellor-house-secret-r170m-eskom-supplier-deal/ (accessed 2 May 2014).

        ‘Editorial: PIC’s first duty is to the public’ Mail & Guardian 14 Feb 2014, available at http://mg.co.za/article/2014-02-13-editorial-pics-first-duty-is-to-the-public (accessed 14 Feb 2014); ‘Medupi the murder and the mega fraud’ Mail & Guardian 2 Aug 2013, available at http://mg.co.za/article/2013-08-02-00-deadly-fraud-forged-in-steel (accessed 2 Aug 2013); ‘Gordhan confirms GEPF investment in Independent Group - Anton Alberts’ PoliticsWeb 19 June 2013, available at http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71651?oid=384619&sn=Detail&pid=71651 (accessed 19 Sept 2014); and ‘Gordhan bill for New Age event is paid by taxpayers’ Independent Online, 1 March 2013, available at http://www.iol.co.za/business/news/gordhan-bill-for-new-age-event-is-paid-by-taxpayers-1.1478961#.VDpFafmSwrU (accessed 19 Sept 2014).

        ‘Gupta executive donated R200,000 to DA: Zille’ Times Live 29 January 2013, available at http://www.timeslive.co.za/politics/2013/01/29/gupta-executive-donated-r200000-to-da-zille (accessed 30 January 2013).

        ‘Ramaphosa withdraws from Shanduka Group’ Mail & Guardian 27 May 2014, available at http://mg.co.za/article/2014-05-27-00-ramaphosa-withdraws-from-shanduka-group (accessed 27 May 2014).

        ‘Chinese may fund ANC’s political school’ City Press 3 Aug 2014, available at http://www.citypress.co.za/politics/chinese-may-fund-ancs-political-school/ (accessed 5 Aug 2014).

  • expand button!

    Monitoring and Enforcement

    More about category
    composite
    82
    • expand button!
      Monitoring Capabilities
      More about category
      • expand button!
        38
        Score
        YES
        In law, political finance information is monitored by an independent oversight authority.More about indicator

        The public funding disbursed to political parties by the IEC in terms of the Public Fund, by the Secretary to Parliament in terms of the Parliamentary Allowances Policy, and by the provincial legislatures in terms of provincial legislation is all subject to oversight, audit and investigation by the IEC, the Secretary to Parliament and, ultimately, the Auditor-General (AG).

        The AG’s constitutional and legislative mandate, powers and responsibilities derive from Chapter 9 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, which establishes the Auditor-General of South Africa as one of the state institutions supporting constitutional democracy. The Constitution recognises the importance and guarantees the independence of the Auditor-General of South Africa (AGSA), providing in s 181 that the AGSA must be impartial and must exercise its powers and perform its functions without fear, favour or prejudice.

        The supreme audit functions of the AGSA are set out in section 188 of the Constitution and further regulated in the Public Audit Act, 2004 (Act No. 25 of 2004) (PAA). Section 4 of the PAA provides for both mandatory and discretionary audits. The AGSA annually produces audit reports on all government departments, public entities, municipalities and public institutions. Over and above these entity-specific reports, the audit outcomes are analysed in general reports that cover both the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) and Municipal Finance Management Act (MFMA) cycles. In addition, reports on discretionary audits, performance audits and other special audits are also produced. The AGSA tables reports in the legislature with a direct interest in the audit, namely Parliament, provincial legislatures or municipal councils. The AG’s further powers and responsibilities in respect of the audit of the Public Fund are set out in s 6 of the Public Funding Act of 1997.

        Like AGSA, the IEC is also established Chapter 9 of the Constitution as an institution supporting democracy. It is mandated by s 190 to manage elections and to ensure that they are free and fair. The IEC is required by s 181 of the Constitution to be impartial and must exercise its powers and perform its functions without fear, favour or prejudice. Section 4 ‘Management and control of Fund’ of the Public Funding Act provides in subsection (1) that ‘[s]ubject to the directions of the Commission, the chief electoral officer acting in the capacity of head of the administration of the Commission is responsible for the management and administration of the Fund, and is the accounting officer and chief executive officer of the Fund’. The Commission is mandated by the provisions of s 6A(8) of the Public Funding Act to commission investigations of a party’s financial statements.

        The IEC has established an audit committee in compliance with its responsibilities arising from Treasury Regulations issued in terms of the Public Finance Management Act of 1999 (PFMA), as amended, and in particular those arising from section 38(1)(a) ‘General responsibilities of accounting officers’ of the PFMA and Treasury Regulations 3.1.13. Essentially, this provides assurance of the effectiveness of internal controls, including by providing advice based on the Auditor-General’s report in its annual audit of the Public Fund, and it reports annually in the Represented Political Parties’ Fund Annual Report. The audit committee can advise the IEC when it believes an investigation is necessary.

        Section 1 of the Financial Management of Parliament Act, 2009 provides that the Secretary is Parliament’s accounting officer, and s 6(2) provides that the Secretary is accountable to Parliament’s Executive Authority, which consists of the Speaker of the National Assembly and Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces acting jointly – s 5(1). In terms of s 5(2), the Speaker and Chairperson are accountable to Parliament’s for its sound financial management. The Secretary’s monitoring and enforcement powers and responsibilities in respect of funding provided to political parties are set out in s 34 of the Act. The Secretary is a political appointment, requiring ratification by the National Assembly. Similar arrangements apply in provincial legislatures.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where: 1) an independent oversight authority is mandated to monitor political finance information, and 2) the authority has investigation and audit powers.

        A MODERATE score is earned where the independent oversight authority is mandated to monitor political finance information, but doesn't have investigation or audit powers.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Constitution of the RSA, 1996. Chapter 9. Available at: http://www.constitutionalcourt.org.za/site/theconstitution/english-2013.pdf (accessed 30 October 2014).

        Public Audit Act 25 of 2004. Available at http://www.agsa.co.za/About/Legislation.aspx (accessed 14 Sept 2014).

        Public Finance Management Act of 1999 (PFMA), as amended, and in particular those arising from section 38(1)(a). http://www.treasury.gov.za/legislation/pfma/

        Financial Management of Parliament Act 2009. Available at http://www.polity.org.za/article/financial-management-of-parliament-act-no-10-of-2009-2009-06-04 (accessed 14 Sept 2014).

        Represented Political Parties’ Fund Annual Report 2012-2013, and 2013-2014. Available at http://www.elections.org.za/content/About-Us/Represented-Political-Parties/ (accessed 14 Sept 2014).

        Interview with Ms Cheryllyn Dudley MP: African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP), 1 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Ebrahim Fakir, senior independent political analyst, 6 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Hlengani Nkuna, Section Manager: Finance Department, Parliament of South Africa, 17 October 2014.

        Questionnaire completed by Ms Ester de Wet, Manager: Budgets, Party Funding and Compliance, Independent Electoral Commission, 13 October 2014.

      • expand button!
        39
        Score
        YES
        In law, high-level appointments to the oversight authority are based on merit.More about indicator

        Section 193 of the Constitution provides that the Auditor-General and the members of the IEC ‘must be a woman or a man who is a South African citizen and a fit and proper person to hold that office’. In addition, ‘[s]pecialised knowledge of, or experience in, auditing, state finances and public administration must be given due regard in appointing the Auditor-General’.

        In addition to the requirements of impartiality of the AG in s 181 of the Constitution, confirmed in s 3 of the Public Audit Act 25 of 2004 (the PAA), s 189 ‘Tenure’ provides for secure tenure of the AG, who ‘must be appointed for a fixed, non-renewable term of between five and ten years’. Section 7 of the PAA provides for a non-renewable terms of seven years, and in s 8 prescribes limited grounds for vacation of office. Section 193 of the Constitution and s 6 of the PAA provide for the process of appointment of the AG. The President, on the recommendation of the National Assembly, must appoint the Auditor-General and the members of the Electoral Commission.

        Section 193(5) requires that the National Assembly must recommend persons ¬- ‘a. nominated by a committee of the Assembly proportionally composed of members of all parties represented in the Assembly; and b. approved by the Assembly by a resolution adopted with a supporting vote ¬ i. of at least 60 per cent of the members of the Assembly, if the recommendation concerns the appointment of the … Auditor-General; or ii. of a majority of the members of the Assembly, if the recommendation concerns the appointment of a member of a Commission.’

        Like the AG, the Electoral Commission is ‘independent, and subject only to the Constitution and the law, and … must be impartial and must exercise [its] powers and perform [its] functions without fear, favour or prejudice’. Section 3 of the Electoral Commission Act, 1995 (ECA), confirms that the Commission (the IEC) is ‘independent and subject only to the Constitution and the law’, and that it ‘must exercise its powers and perform its functions without fear, favour or prejudice’. Section 6(1) provides that the Commission shall consist of five members, one of whom shall be a judge. Commissioners are appointed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 9 of the Constitution, and of s 6 of the Electoral Commission Act, 1996, which prescribes an open process with public nominations and interviews conducted by a panel led by the Chief Justice. This panel includes the heads of other ‘Chapter Nine Institutions’ - the Public Protector, Chairperson of the Human Rights Commission and the Gender Commission. The panel recommends a shortlist to the National Assembly which in turn proposes names for appointment to the President.

        Section 181 of the Constitution, 1996, ‘Establishment and governing principles’ provides that the Auditor-General (AG) is one of the ‘state institutions strengthen constitutional democracy in the Republic’. Subsection (2) provides that the AG, like the other institutions established in terms of Chapter Nine ‘are independent, and subject only to the Constitution and the law, and they must be impartial and must exercise their powers and perform their functions without fear, favour or prejudice’. Subsection (3) imposes the obligation on other organs of state, which includes their representatives and staff, ‘through legislative and other measures’, to ‘assist and protect’ these institutions ‘to ensure [their] independence, impartiality, dignity and effectiveness’. Subsection (4) stipulates that ‘[n]o person or organ of state may interfere with the functioning of these institutions’.


        Peer Reviewer comment: Agree. The Electoral Commission Act 51 of 1996, s. 6 (b) states that the appointment of the IEC's five Commissioners should not 'at that stage have a high party-political profile'. The Chairperson of the Commission is subject to same requirement in that the President designates a chairperson and vice-chairperson from among the members of the Commission (s. 8.1). In addition, the same Act sets out requirements for the Conduct of Commissioners in S. 9 and states that 'every member of the Commission shall (a) serve impartially and independently and perform his or her functions as such in good faith and without fear, favour or prejudice. In addition, no member of the commission shall during his or her term of office be eligible for appointment or nomination to any political office (S.9.2 a) or elected to a legislature (S.9.2.f).

        The administrative head of the IEC, the Chief Electoral Officer, and other senior administrative staff are subject to the Electoral Commission's Regulations on the Conditions of Service, Remuneration, Allowances and other benefits of The Chief Electoral Officer and other Administration Staff (General Notice No. R. 514 Of 19 May 2000 Regulation Gazette, No. 6816). These regulations set out conflict of interest regulations that govern the disclosure of outside private interests (groups or business).

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where: 1) high-level appointments must be based on merit in a public appointment process; and 2) appointees must be free of conflicts of interest due to personal loyalties, family connections, political party affiliations, business partners or other biases.

        A MODERATE score is earned where high-level appointments must be based on merit in a public appointment process, but the regulations don't forbid appointments involving conflicts of interest or other biases.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Constitution of the RSA, 1996. Available at: http://www.constitutionalcourt.org.za/site/theconstitution/english-2013.pdf (accessed 30 October 2014)(last accessed 17 Oct 2014).

        Electoral Commission Act 51 of 1996. Section 6. Available at http://www.elections.org.za/content/Elections/Laws-and-Regulations-Electoral-Commission/ (last accessed 18 Oct 2014).

        Public Audit Act 25 of 2004. Available at http://www.agsa.co.za/About/Legislation.aspx (last accessed 14 Sept 2014).

        ‘South Africa: Independent Electoral Commission’ EISA February 2011. Available at http://www.content.eisa.org.za/old-page/south-africa-independent-electoral-commission (accessed 14 Sept 2014).

        ‘Pansy Tlakula confirmed as IEC chair’ Katharine Child Mail & Guardian 8 Nov 2011. Available at http://mg.co.za/article/2011-11-08-pansy-tlakula-confirmed-as-iec-chair (accessed 14 Sept 2014).

        Interview with Mr Greg Solik (Managing Director and Coordinator, My Vote Counts), 3 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Ebrahim Fakir, senior independent political analyst, 6 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Hlengani Nkuna, Section Manager: Finance Department, Parliament of South Africa, 17 October 2014.

        Questionnaire completed by Ms Ester de Wet, Manager: Budgets, Party Funding and Compliance, Independent Electoral Commission, 13 October 2014.

        Reviewer's sources: Part II, Electoral Commission Act 51 of 1996, http://www.justice.gov.za/alraesa/projects/ElectoralCommissionAct51of1996including_Regulations[1].pdf

        Regulations on the Conditions of Service, Remuneration, Allowances and other benefits of The Chief Electoral Officer and other Administration Staff (General Notice No. R. 514 Of 19 May 2000 Regulation Gazette, No. 6816)

      • expand button!
        40
        Score
        100
        In practice, to what extent are high-level appointments to the oversight authority based on merit?More about indicator

        The IEC’s most recent chairperson (she announced her resignation on 2 September 2014), Advocate Pansy Tlakula, was appointed in accordance with the Constitution and the law. Her political impartiality has not been questioned and she was widely regarded as appropriately qualified and experienced. Adv Tlakula held a Master degree in law from Harvard University, and before she was appointed as Chairperson she had been chief electoral officer for about 10 years.

        More stringent provisions apply to the appointment of the Auditor-General. The Current AG is a qualified and registered chartered accountant. A multiparty Parliamentary ad hoc committee unanimously recommended that deputy Auditor General (AG) Kimi Makwetu take over from his boss Terrence Nombembe.

        Those interviewed supported the widely held assessment that lawful, fair and open processes are followed, and that incumbents have been appointed on merit.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where: 1) there is an advertised competition and public vetting process, 2) candidates with the most merit and without conflicts of interest or other biases are appointed.

        A 50 score is earned where the public competition is usually advertised and the vetting process public, but exceptions exist. A 50 score is also earned where candidates with the most merit and without conflicts of interest or other biases are appointed but exceptions exist.

        A 0 score is earned where there's rarely or never a public competition, or appointees are rarely selected on merit or without conflicts of interest or other biases.

        Sources

        Interview with Mr Greg Solik (Managing Director and Coordinator, My Vote Counts), 3 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Ebrahim Fakir, senior independent political analyst, 6 Oct 2014.

        Questionnaire completed by Ms Ester de Wet, Manager: Budgets, Party Funding and Compliance, Independent Electoral Commission, 13 October 2014.

        Personal profile of Faith Pansy Tlakula. Available at http://whoswho.co.za/faith-tlakula-4375 (accessed 13 Sept 2014)

        Personal history of the Auditor-General. Available at http://www.agsa.co.za/About/TheAuditorGeneral.aspx (accessed 13 Sept 2014)

        ‘Deputy to take over as AG’ News24 11 September 2013. Available at http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Deputy-to-take-over-as-AG-20130911 (accessed 13 Sept 2014) Personal profile of Thembekile ‘Kimi’ Makwetu. Available at http://whoswho.co.za/thembekile-makwetu-942551 (accessed 13 Sept 2014)

      • expand button!
        41
        Score
        YES
        In law, the independence of high-level appointees is guaranteed.More about indicator

        IEC Commissioners are appointed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 9 of the Constitution, and of s 6 of the Electoral Commission Act, 1996 (ECA). This is an open process with public nominations and interviews conducted by a panel led by the Chief Justice. This panel includes the heads of other ‘Chapter Nine Institutions’ - the Public Protector, Chairperson of the Human Rights Commission and the Gender Commission. They recommend a shortlist to the National Assembly which in turn proposes names for appointment to the President.

        Section 194 of the Constitution ‘Removal from office’ provides in subsections (1) and (2) that ‘… the Auditor-General or a member of [the Electoral] Commission … may be removed from office only on ¬ a. the ground of misconduct, incapacity or incompetence; b. a finding to that effect by a committee of the National Assembly; and c. the adoption by the Assembly of a resolution calling for that person's removal from office.

        1. A resolution of the National Assembly concerning the removal from office of ¬ a. … the Auditor-General must be adopted with a supporting vote of at least two thirds of the members of the Assembly; or b. a member of a Commission must be adopted with a supporting vote of a majority of the members of the Assembly.’

        Section 7 of the Electoral Commission Act goes further, and clarifies that:

        1. The term of office of a member of the Commission is seven years unless-- (a) he or she resigns or dies at an earlier date; (b) he or she is removed from office in terms of subsection (3); (c) the President, on the recommendation of the National Assembly, extends the member's term of office for a specified period...

        Subsection 3 states: (3) (3) A commissioner may-- (a) only be removed from office by the President— (i) on the grounds of misconduct, incapacity or incompetence; (ii) after a finding to that effect by a committee of the National Assembly upon the recommendation of the Electoral Court; and (iii) the adoption by a majority of the members of that Assembly of a resolution, calling for that commissioner’s removal from office; (b) be suspended from office by the President at any time after the start of the proceedings of the committee contemplated in paragraph (a) (ii); (c) be reappointed, but only for one further term of office.’

        These safeguards are confirmed in s 8 of the Public Audit Act (PAA).

        In addition to the requirements of impartiality of the Auditor General in s 181 of the Constitution, confirmed in s 3 of the PAA), s 189 ‘Tenure’ provides for secure tenure of the AG, who ‘must be appointed for a fixed, non-renewable term of between five and ten years’. Section 7 of the PAA provides for a non-renewable terms of seven years, and in s 8 prescribes limited grounds for vacation of office. Section 193 of the Constitution and s 6 of the PAA provide for the process of appointment of the AG. The President, on the recommendation of the National Assembly, must appoint the Auditor-General and the members of the Electoral Commission.

        Finally, s 5 of the ECA grants Commissioners the authority to "adjudicate disputes which may arise from the organisation, administration, or conducting of elections and which are of an administrative nature." Such decisions and any cases of electoral disputes may be appealed to or reviewed by the electoral court, which has final jurisdiction (per s 96 of the Electoral Act 73 of 1998).

        In sum, all three grounds in s 7(3)(a) of the ECA must exist before a Commissioner may be removed from office, including the crucial proviso that an independent court must make a finding and recommendation to that effect. Therefore, in law, the independence of Election Commissioners is guaranteed -- they enjoy security of tenure and due process.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where: 1) appointees have the authority or mandate to review cases and issue decisions, 2) the law establishes security of tenure, and 3) removal or disciplinary actions are based on due process conducted by a peer panel or independent oversight body.

        A MODERATE score is earned where appointees have the authority or mandate to review cases and issue decisions, BUT one of the second two conditions mentioned in the YES criteria is not met.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Constitution of the RSA, 1996. Chapter 9. s 189. Available at at: http://www.constitutionalcourt.org.za/site/theconstitution/english-2013.pdf (accessed 30 October 2014) (last accessed 17 Oct 2014).

        Electoral Commission Act 51 of 1996 (ECA). Available at http://www.elections.org.za/content/Elections/Laws-and-Regulations-Electoral-Commission/ (last accessed 18 Oct 2014).

        Public Audit Act 25 of 2004. s 3,6,7,8. Available at http://www.agsa.co.za/About/Legislation.aspx (last accessed 14 Sept 2014).

        ‘Tlakula: Stark truth, stark choice’ Pierre de Vos Constitutionally Speaking 19 June 2014. Available at http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/category/electoral-system/ (accessed 6 Oct 2014).

        ‘Tlakula's ConCourt application dismissed’ Media24 15 August 2014. Available at http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Tlakulas-ConCourt-application-dismissed-20140815 (accessed 14 Sept 2014).

        ‘ANC accepts Tlakula court ruling’ Media24 20 August 2014. Available at http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Politics/ANC-accepts-Tlakula-court-ruling-20140820 (accessed 14 Sept 2014).

        ‘Pansy Tlakula resigns’ Media24 2 Sept 2014. Available at http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/Politics/Pansy-Tlakula-resigns-20140902 (accessed 14 Sept 2014)

        Interview with Mr Greg Solik (Managing Director and Coordinator, My Vote Counts), 3 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Ebrahim Fakir, senior independent political analyst, 6 Oct 2014.

        Questionnaire completed by Ms Ester de Wet, Manager: Budgets, Party Funding and Compliance, Independent Electoral Commission, 13 October 2014.

        Interview with Mr Hlengani Nkuna, Section Manager: Finance Department, Parliament of South Africa, 17 October 2014.

      • expand button!
        42
        Score
        100
        In practice, to what extent is the independence of high-level appointees guaranteed?More about indicator

        The integrity and practical independence of the Auditor-General is widely accepted as beyond question. Successive annual reports on statutory audits have expressed strong and detailed criticism of leadership and controls in a large number of government departments and state entities, without any negative consequences for the incumbent.

        In terms of the provisions of s 12(3) of the Public Audit Act, 2004, the Auditor-General ‘must (a) determine the minimum qualifications, experience and competence for authorised auditors’; and ‘(b) after consulting the oversight mechanism (i.e. Parliament’s Standing Committee on the Auditor-General), issue a code of conduct for authorised auditors, prescribing (i) standards of professional conduct for the performance of an audit or their other functions, taking into consideration the manner in which the accountancy and audit profession is regulated in this regard; and (ii) any disciplinary steps for misconduct; and (iii) any other relevant matter’.

        To this end, the AG’s Integrated Annual Report (IAR) for 2012-2013 states at (p42) that it ‘adopted the ethical values and principles of the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) as the main behavioural drivers at the AGSA’. The Code of Professional Conduct for Chartered Accountants, which is the code of professional conduct of the South African Institute of Chartered Accounts (SAICA) also conforms to the Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants published by the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) in May 2013. The IAR states (at p62) that 100% of the AG’s staff complied with their obligation to manage conflicts of interest by submitting annual declarations of interests. The Code requires ‘avoiding the receipt or provision of gifts and hospitality of a significant value, as it can create a threat to our independence’.

        Electoral Commissioners’ independence is practically guaranteed by their ability to take decisions without reference to the National Executive or Cabinet. The Commission is accountable only to the National Assembly, which is a multiparty forum. The independence of IEC Chairperson Adv Pansy Tlakula was questioned after she was found guilty of unethical conduct due to a conflict of interest arising from her role in the award of a lease to a company in which her partner (an ANC Member of Parliament) had a financial interest. Allegations of the Chairperson’s lack of impartiality and independence were confirmed in investigations by the Public Protector and by PriceWaterhouseCoopers on behalf of National Treasury, and in litigation including before the Electoral Court, the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court. Although the allegations did not involve the conduct or fairness of the May 2014 general election, findings of unethical conduct were sufficient to ensure her resignation. The conflict of interest was a matter of personal integrity that apparently arose from personal rather than partisan interests.

        A recent study has suggested some passivity by the IEC, and possibly an inappropriately narrow interpretation of its mandate, that tends to shield government officials’ and ruling party supporters’ conduct from close scrutiny in the pre-election period. However, actual interference in the work of the IEC has not been suggested.

        Appointees to the IEC are subject to conflict of interest requirements. In addition to the legal requirements explained in #39, the IEC has voluntarily adopted ‘policies’ to manage conflicts of interest, which are applicable to both Commissioners and the Public Fund administration staff.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where all of the following conditions are met: 1) appointees review cases and issue decisions without fear or favor from other branches of government, and 2) appointees are granted security of tenure and 3) no appointees are removed, disciplined or transferred without due process by a peer panel or independent oversight body.

        A 50 score is earned where any of the following conditions apply: 1) appointees generally operate without fear or favor from other branches of government but exceptions exist, or 2) some but not all appointees are granted security of tenure, or 3) appointees are occasionally removed, disciplined or transferred without due process by a peer panel or independent oversight body.

        A 0 score is earned where at least one of the following conditions apply: 1) appointees operate with fear or favor from other branches of government, or 2) are not granted security of tenure, or 3) are usually removed, disciplined or transferred without observing due process by a peer panel or independent oversight body.

        Sources

        Constitution of the RSA, 1996. Available at http://www.gov.za/documents/constitution-republic-south-africa-1996-chapter-9-state-institutions-supporting#181 (last accessed 17 Oct 2014).

        Auditor-General Consolidated general report on the national and provincial audit outcomes in terms of the PFMA 2012-2013. Available at http://www.agsa.co.za/Documents/Auditreports/PFMA20122013.aspx (accessed 9 Sept 2014).

        ‘Tlakula: Stark truth, stark choice’ Constitutionally Speaking 19 June 2014. Available at http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/category/electoral-system/ (accessed 13 Sept 2014).

        United Democratic Movement and Others v Tlakula and Another (EC 05/14) [2014] ZAEC 5 (18 June 2014). Available at http://www.saflii.org/cgi-bin/disp.pl?file=za/cases/ZAEC/2014/5.html&query=%20Tlakula (accessed 13 Sept 2014).

        ‘Court recommends Tlakula's removal’ Media24 18 June 2014. Available at http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Court-recommends-Tlakulas-removal-20140618; ‘Corruption too often not punished – AG’ Media24 10 Feb 2014. Available at http://www.fin24.com/Economy/Corruption-too-often-not-punished-AG-20140210 (accessed 14 Sept 2014).

        ‘Just singing and dancing? Intimidation and the manipulation of voters and the electoral process in the build-up to the 2014 elections’ David Bruce for the Community Agency for Social Enquiry (CASE) April 2014. Available at http://www.nelsonmandela.org/uploads/files/intimidation-in-elections.pdf (accessed 1 November 2014).

        Interview with Mr Greg Solik (Managing Director and Coordinator, My Vote Counts), 3 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Ebrahim Fakir, senior independent political analyst, 6 Oct 2014.

        Questionnaire completed by Ms Ester de Wet, Manager: Budgets, Party Funding and Compliance, Independent Electoral Commission, 13 October 2014.

        Public Audit Act 25 of 2004. Available at http://www.agsa.co.za/About/Legislation.aspx (accessed 14 Sept 2014).

        Auditor-General Integrated Annual Report 2012-2013. Available at http://db3sqepoi5n3s.cloudfront.net/files/131101annrep.pdf (accessed 31 October 2014) ‘Code of Professional Conduct for Chartered Accountants’, Code of Professional Conduct of the South African Institute of Chartered Accounts (SAICA) (Effective 1 January 2014). Available at https://www.saica.co.za/Technical/Ethics/CodeofProfessionalConduct/tabid/2975/language/en-US/Default.aspx and https://www.saica.co.za/Portals/0/Technical/accounting/documents/Code%20of%20Professional%20Conduct.pdf (accessed 31 October 2014)

        Electoral Commission Act 51 of 1996. Available at http://www.elections.org.za/content/Elections/Laws-and-Regulations-Electoral-Commission/ (last accessed 18 Oct 2014).

        Public Protector Act 23 of 1994. Available at http://www.publicprotector.org/legislation/docs/PUBLIC%20PROTECTOR%20ACT%2023%20OF%201994.pdf (accessed 10 Sept 2014).

        Public Protector Investigation Report No. 13 of 2013/2014: ‘Inappropriate Moves’ August 2014. Available at http://www.publicprotector.org/library/investigation_report/2013-14/REPORT%20NO%2013%20of%202013%202014%20(3).pdf (accessed 10 Sept 2014).

        Public Finance Management Act 1 of 1999. Available at http://www.treasury.gov.za/legislation/pfma/act.pdf (accessed 10 Sept 2014).

        Additional information provided by the IEC on 5 November 2014.

      • expand button!
        43
        Score
        --
        Open Question: How does decision-making work in the oversight authority?More about indicator

        The Electoral Commission is comprised of five Commissioners. Decisions are made in terms of the Public Funding Act and in all instances a majority is required. Until recently, no complaints have been made that the IEC’s decision-making processes have been ineffective or politicised.

        However, the Public Protector’s August 2013 report (at p15) on her investigation of the IEC’s handling of the lease agreement for its new head office premises found that related decision-making by several senior officials in the IEC was ‘irregular’.

        The Auditor-General’s staff members who undertake audits are required to be registered professionals registered with the independent statutory professional associations, the South Africa Institute of Chartered Accountants (SAICA) and the South African Institute of Government Auditors (SAIGA). AGSA’s functions and decision-making are based on applicable professional standards.

        According to the Public Fund’s Annual Report 2012-2013, the Fund is not subject to the Public Finance Management Act, 1999 (PFMA) (para 8 on p49). However, the Auditor-General (AG) audits the Fund using the standards set by the PFMA ‘only as a matter of principle’, which the IEC ‘fully supports’. The AG is required to audit the Public Fund in terms of s 8(2) of the Public Funding Act.


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree. While the IEC has been widely credited with the implementation of free and fair elections, it faced a damaging controversy involving its Chief Electoral Officer, Advocate Pansy Tlakula, prior to the 2014 general elections. A 2013 Public Protector report, and subsequent March 2014 National Government Treasury report, found that Treasury regulations were ignored during the process. Further, Tlakula had played a ‘grossly irregular role’ in a procurement deal to lease Pretoria office premise to accommodate the IEC’s Head Office. The allegations included a conflict of interest between Tlakula and her business partner, member of parliament, Thaba Mufamadi, who owns a 20% stake in Abland, the company that won the bid. Tlakula has since resigned after mounting public pressure to do so, and the Electoral Commission is currently in legal bid to set aside the remaining six years of its controversial lease with the property development firm, Abland.

        Scoring Criteria

        Please describe: 1) the composition of the decision-making body within the oversight authority, 2) the type of decisions it's allowed to make and makes in practice, and 3) in which cases majority is required. If there have been well substantiated complaints about the decision-making process being ineffective or politicized please explain.

        Sources

        Interview with Mr Greg Solik (Managing Director and Coordinator, My Vote Counts), 3 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Ebrahim Fakir, senior independent political analyst, 6 Oct 2014.

        Questionnaire completed by Ms Ester de Wet, Manager: Budgets, Party Funding and Compliance, Independent Electoral Commission, 13 October 2014.

        Public Protector Investigation Report No. 13 of 2013/2014: ‘Inappropriate Moves’ August 2014. Available at http://www.publicprotector.org/library/investigation_report/2013-14/REPORT%20NO%2013%20of%202013%202014%20(3).pdf (accessed 10 Sept 2014).

        ‘AGSA Graduate Opportunities’. Available at http://www.agsa.co.za/Careers/Graduateopportunities.aspx (accessed 14 Sept 2014).

        Additional information provided by the IEC on 5 November 2014.

        Reviewer's sources: Inappropriate Moves', Report on an investigation into allegations of maladministration amd corruption in the procurement of the Riverside Office Park to accommodate the Head Offices of the Electoral Commission. Public Protector of South Africa Report No. 13 of 2013/14, August 2013. http://www.pprotect.org/library/investigation_report/2013-14/REPORT%20NO%2013%20of%202013%202014%20(3).pdf

        National Treasury Forensic Investigation: Electoral Commission - Riverside Office Park, Report: 14 December 2013 http://www.elections.org.za/content/Documents/Annual-reports,-reports-and-strategic-documents/Reports/Final-Report--Forensic-investigation-into-Electoral-Commission-procurement-of-Riverside-Office-Park-(PDF)/

        Verashni Pillay, Treasury report slams IEC deal, confirms Madonsela’s findings, Mail & Guardian, 18 March 2014. http://mg.co.za/article/2014-03-18-treasury-report-slams-iec-deal-confirms-madonselas-findings;

        Verashni Pillay, Pansy Tlakula’s IEC lease was irregular, says Madonsela, Mail & Guardian, 26 August 2013. http://mg.co.za/article/2013-08-26-iecs-pansy-tlakula-found-guilty-by-madonsela

      • expand button!
        44
        Score
        100
        In practice, to what extent does the authority have sufficient capacity to monitor political finance regulations?More about indicator

        Formally, the IEC and Parliament have the authority, as well as adequate budget and staff capacity to undertake this type of administration and monitoring, which does entail some degree of verification of financial statements where queries arise from the face of these statements themselves.

        In practice, however, while all reports are obtained and filed, it appears that the IEC and Parliament have only relatively passive monitoring capacity, in that they tend to accept parties’ financial reports submitted, provided that the submissions appear to comply with technical requirements. Generally, the institutions rely on the audited financial statements provided by parties unless a whistle-blower exposes irregularities, or inconsistencies or irregularities are evident on the face of the statements submitted. Rarely are audited financial statements actually reviewed in the sense that a further or forensic audit is undertaken.

        There have been a few instances of irregularities or late lodging, but in the one known instance of the Congress of the People (COPE), details of the irregularities emerged into the public domain only because of infighting within the party over the issue, which then ended up being litigated in open court. Parliament is currently reviewing whether it should enhance its capacity to more thoroughly interrogate financial statements and related information submitted by political parties, for example, in regard to the details of PCOs.


        Peer Reviewer comment: Agree. Political parties are required by the Electoral Act (Section 63, b) to appoint an auditing firm to audit their financial records. Most political parties appoint reputable auditing firms such as Deloitte and Touche. According to Ester de Wet, Head of Budgets, Party Funding & Compliance Verification at the Electoral Commission of South Africa, this gives the IEC confidence that the results of the auditing of political parties' financial statements are of good quality. The IEC then perform a secondary but more rudimentary monitoring of audited records to ensure that certain categories are completed and adhered to, and do request additional auditing information from the relevant auditing firm and political party if there are discrepancies.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where: 1) the authority has sufficient budget to monitor all incoming reports, and 2) it has sufficient staff to review all incoming reports.

        A 50 score is earned where: 1) the authority has insufficient budget to monitor all incoming reports, or 2) its staff can only review half of all incoming reports.

        A 0 score is earned where: 1) the authority can't fulfill most of its essential functions due to budget constraints, or 2) its staff only has the capacity to review 25% or less of all incoming reports.

        Sources

        Interview with senior political correspondent for Independent Newspapers, 22 Sept 2014. (Identity kept confidential at request of interviewee).

        Interview with Mr Greg Solik (Managing Director and Coordinator, My Vote Counts), 3 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Ebrahim Fakir, senior independent political analyst, 6 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Hlengani Nkuna, Section Manager: Finance Department, Parliament of South Africa, 17 October 2014.

        Questionnaire completed by Ms Ester de Wet, Manager: Budgets, Party Funding and Compliance, Independent Electoral Commission, 13 October 2014.

        Questionnaire completed by Mr Jonathan Moakes, CEO: Democratic Alliance (DA) 9 Oct 2014.

        Public Finance Management Act 1 of 1999. Available at http://www.treasury.gov.za/legislation/pfma/act.pdf (accessed 14 Sept 2014).

        Reviewer's sources: Interview with Ester de Wet, Manager of Budgets, Party Funding & Compliance Verification at the Electoral Commission of South Africa, 19 November 2014.

      • expand button!
        45
        Score
        50
        In practice, to what extent does the authority conduct investigations or audits when necessary?More about indicator

        As noted in #44, the routine annual audits are not as rigorous as forensic audits; and there are many allegations and much speculation (without hard evidence) that there is frequent misuse, if not abuse of allocations. Despite these regular allegations, the IEC has not taken the seemingly necessary step of requiring closer or more thorough enquiry.

        None of the political parties, journalists and analysts interviewed was aware of any formal investigations or forensic audits of any party’s financial statements. However, the IEC indicated that it is currently investigating leadership issues which resulted in questionable disbursements to two political parties - Agang SA and the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania (PAC). Parliament’s latest available annual report (for the previous financial year) indicates only that some unnamed political parties failed to submit required audited financial statements by the due date. Parliament's financial department did query some information concerning the audited AFS provided by two political parties, and the requested clarification was provided. However, no formal investigation or forensic audit was undertaken. Generally, the level of detail made publicly available is inadequate in order to enable an assessment of whether investigations of audits are undertaken whenever necessary.


        Peer Reviewer comment: Agree. As noted in #44, the IEC do perform a check of all the audited party statements. If the IEC staff detect any discrepancies they send the query back to the auditing firm who in turn work with their client, the political party, to rectify any errors or further verifications needed. The statements are then resubmitted to the IEC by the auditing firm. However, the IEC could not recall any circumstances since 2013 where they had to conduct investigations due to problematic records.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where the authority conducted at least three investigations or audits during the most recent electoral campaign.

        A 50 score is earned where the authority conducted at least one investigation or audit during the most recent electoral campaign.

        A 0 score is earned where the authority didn't conduct any investigation or audit during the most recent electoral campaign.

        Sources

        Interview with senior political correspondent for Independent Newspapers, 22 Sept 2014. (Identity kept confidential at request of interviewee).

        Interview with Ms Jeanne van der Merwe, political journalist for Media24, 23 Sept 2014.

        Interview with Ms Cheryllyn Dudley MP: African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP), 1 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Greg Solik (Managing Director and Coordinator, My Vote Counts), 3 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Ebrahim Fakir, senior independent political analyst, 6 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Hlengani Nkuna, Section Manager: Finance Department, Parliament of South Africa, 17 October 2014.

        Questionnaire completed by Ms Ester de Wet, Manager: Budgets, Party Funding and Compliance, Independent Electoral Commission, 13 October 2014.

        Questionnaire completed by Mr Jonathan Moakes, CEO: Democratic Alliance (DA) 9 Oct 2014.

        The names of anonymous sources are known to Global Integrity and Global Integrity has agreed not to disclose them.

        Reviewer's sources: Interview with Ester de Wet, Manager of Budgets, Party Funding & Compliance Verification at the Electoral Commission of South Africa, 19 November 2014.

      • expand button!
        46
        Score
        0
        In practice, to what extent does the authority publish the results of investigations or audits?More about indicator

        In principle, the information should be made public and should, at least, be contained in the annual report of the relevant institution. The IEC states that it publishes the ‘results’ of ‘audits’ in the Public Fund annual report, but is unclear whether its response refers to the mandatory requirement that financial statements submitted by political parties are audited, or whether some further investigation or audit has been undertaken by or at the instance of the IEC.

        The Public Fund Annual Report 2012/2013 contains merely a note (at p49) by the Auditor-General to the effect that two political parties ‘did not submit their audited financial statements for the financial year ending 31 March 2013 in time’ as required by section 6(5) of the Public Funding of Represented Political Parties Act (PFRPP Act). Despite this finding on ‘material non-compliance with specific matters in key applicable laws and regulations’, the AG concluded that the Public Fund ‘has complied with applicable laws and regulations regarding financial matters, financial management and other related matters’.

        Parliament does not publish details of its queries or investigations. Parliament’s Annual Report for 2012/2013 provides equally limited information. Parliament does not publish details of its queries or investigations. Parliament’s Annual Report for 2012/2013 provides equally limited information. It provides only a brief summary of significant developments (at p41) -

        'Support and advice was provided to political parties. Audited financial statements were considered before payment of the defined allowances. Funding was made available in accordance with policy to enable parties to participate effectively in Parliament. All parties submitted audited financial statements with the following outcomes: • Three political parties received a qualification on the Constituency Allowances • Two political parties received a disclaimer on the Constituency Allowances • One political party received a qualification on the Party Support • Two political parties received a disclaimer on the Party Support

        Administration engaged parties with qualifications and disclaimers to provide assistance and financial management advice to rectify the situation. The parties also submitted their plans to rectify the situation. One political party which received disclaimers on both allowances for two consecutive years was requested to submit financial records to Parliament quarterly for scrutiny before the next quarter’s transfer is made.'


        Peer reviewer comment: Agree. Ester de Wet, Manager of Budgets, Party Funding & Compliance Verification at the Electoral Commission of South Africa confirmed that when the IEC is confronted with a situation where the auditing firm appointed by a political party cannot verify missing expenditure the IEC will the regard that spent funds as 'irregular expenditure'. As a penalty the IEC will withhold the same amount in the next tranche to the political party until accurate financial source documents are submitted. If they are not submitted the IEC works to recover the funds regarded as irregular expenditure. The IEC mentioned that it has implemented this penalty (or at least, the threat of the penalty) in the past with succcess but could not (or were reluctant to) qualify the number of instances in the interview. The IEC also mentioned that the collective funds of all political parties, as managed by the IEC, and then audited in their totality as IEC funds by the Auditor-General of South Africa has received unqualified clean audits for the past two financial years.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where the authority publishes reports of all its investigations or audits a month or less after their conclusion.

        A 50 score is earned where reports are available to the public more than a month after the conclusion of the investigation or audit.

        A 0 score is earned where reports are not available to the public or they become available after six months or more after conclusion of the investigation or audit. A 0 score is also earned where only summaries of the reports are publicly available.

        Sources

        Interview with senior political correspondent for Independent Newspapers, 22 Sept 2014. (Identity kept confidential at request of interviewee).

        Interview with Ms Jeanne van der Merwe, political journalist for Media24, 23 Sept 2014.

        Interview with Ms Cheryllyn Dudley MP: African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP), 1 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Greg Solik (Managing Director and Coordinator, My Vote Counts), 3 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Ebrahim Fakir, senior independent political analyst, 6 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Hlengani Nkuna, Section Manager: Finance Department, Parliament of South Africa, 17 October 2014.

        Questionnaire completed by Ms Ester de Wet, Manager: Budgets, Party Funding and Compliance, Independent Electoral Commission, 13 October 2014.

        Questionnaire completed by Mr Jonathan Moakes, CEO: Democratic Alliance (DA) 9 Oct 2014.

        Annual Report of Parliament 2012-2013. Available at http://www.parliament.gov.za/content/WEB_AP.pdf (accessed 8 Sept 2014).

        Annual Report of Parliament 2013-2014. Available at http://www.parliament.gov.za/content/WEB_AP.pdf (accessed 18 Oct 2014).

    • expand button!
      Enforcement Capabilities
      More about category
      • expand button!
        47
        Score
        YES
        In law, there are sanctions in response to political finance violations.More about indicator

        Section 6 of the Public Funding Act provides for the suspension of payments by the IEC until parties comply with their reporting requirements, and s 7 provides for the recovery of irregularly spent funds. Section 9A provides that failure to comply with s 6 constitutes an offence and, on conviction, a person may be liable to a fine or imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years.

        Parliamentary funds can be withheld in the event of non-compliance by a party. Section 8.15.2 of the Parliamentary Allowances Policy provides that the Secretary to Parliament ‘must either in full or in part accept or reject audited financial statements submitted by a party in terms of the Policy’. Section 8.15.3 then provides that ‘[i]f the Secretary to Parliament rejects certain items included in audited financial statements submitted by a party, he or she must withhold an amount equal to the amount(s) queried until such time as he or she has received satisfactory responses to the queries.’ Parliament’s authority in this regard is in accordance with the enabling provisions of s 34 of the Financial Management of Parliament Act 10 of 2009.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where: 1) the law clearly defines violations of political finance laws, and 2) there are clearly defined sanctions for specific violations.

        A MODERATE score is earned where violations are clearly defined but sanctions for specific violations are not.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Public Funding of Represented Political Parties Act 103 of 1997 (Public Funding Act), s 6, s 7, s 9, available at: http://www.elections.org.za/content/Parties/Party-funding/; and http://www.justice.gov.za/alraesa/projects/PublicFundingofRepresentedPoliticalPartiesAct103of1997.pdf (accessed 2 September 2014)

        Financial Management of Parliament Act 10 of 2009. Available at http://www.polity.org.za/article/financial-management-of-parliament-act-no-10-of-2009-2009-06-04 (accessed 14 Sept 2014).

        Public Finance Management Act 1 of 1999. Available at http://www.treasury.gov.za/legislation/pfma/act.pdf (accessed 14 Sept 2014).

        Parliament’s Policy on Political Parties Allowances, 2005 (the ‘Parliamentary Allowances Policy’, adopted on 20 July 2005), available at: http://www.parliament.gov.za/content/POLICY%20on%20political%20parties%20allowances~2.pdf (accessed 7 Sept 2014).

        Interview with senior political correspondent for Independent Newspapers, 22 Sept 2014. (Identity kept confidential at request of interviewee).

        Interview with Ms Jeanne van der Merwe, political journalist for Media24, 23 Sept 2014.

        Interview with Ms Cheryllyn Dudley MP: African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP), 1 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Greg Solik (Managing Director and Coordinator, My Vote Counts), 3 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Ebrahim Fakir, senior independent political analyst, 6 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Hlengani Nkuna, Section Manager: Finance Department, Parliament of South Africa, 17 October 2014.

        Questionnaire completed by Ms Ester de Wet, Manager: Budgets, Party Funding and Compliance, Independent Electoral Commission, 13 October 2014.

        Questionnaire completed by Mr Jonathan Moakes, CEO: Democratic Alliance (DA) 9 Oct 2014.

      • expand button!
        48
        Score
        YES
        In law, the oversight authority has the power to impose sanctions.More about indicator

        The Auditor-General is not specifically authorised by the Public Audit Act to impose sanctions on political parties. That power is, in effect, delegated to the IEC and to Parliament.

        In addition to the authority in terms of s 6A of the Public Fund Act to suspend payments, the IEC, represented by the ‘chief executive officer’ of the Public Fund, is empowered by s 7 to (a) set off amounts spent irregularly against future payments; (b) institute civil action to recover amounts spent irregularly. In this vein, then, the IEC is legally empowered to impose financial sanctions without recourse to any other authority.

        Further, in terms of s 34 of the Financial Management of Parliament Act, the Secretary to Parliament is authorised by para 10 of the Parliamentary Allowances Policy to suspend payments pending compliance with the Policy’s reporting requirements.

        The IEC may not itself pursue a criminal prosecution, but it may file a complaint of criminal misconduct with the police. The police are then legally required to investigate such complaints, and after gathering evidence, may then forward the case to the NPA for prosecution.

        Scoring Criteria

        A YES score is earned where: 1) the oversight authority has the power to impose sanctions, and 2) it can directly prosecute violators before the courts or is independent to send cases to public prosecution.

        A MODERATE score is earned where the oversight authority has the power to impose sanctions, but it can't directly prosecute violators before the courts or is not independent to send cases to public prosecution.

        A NO score is earned where no such law exists.

        Sources

        Public Funding of Represented Political Parties Act 103 of 1997 (Public Funding Act), available at: http://www.elections.org.za/content/Parties/Party-funding/; and http://www.justice.gov.za/alraesa/projects/PublicFundingofRepresentedPoliticalPartiesAct103of1997.pdf (accessed 2 September 2014)

        Financial Management of Parliament Act 10 of 2009. Available at http://www.polity.org.za/article/financial-management-of-parliament-act-no-10-of-2009-2009-06-04 (accessed 14 Sept 2014).

        Parliament’s Policy on Political Parties Allowances, 2005 (the ‘Parliamentary Allowances Policy’, adopted on 20 July 2005), available at: http://www.parliament.gov.za/content/POLICY%20on%20political%20parties%20allowances~2.pdf (accessed 7 Sept 2014).

        Interview with senior political correspondent for Independent Newspapers, 22 Sept 2014. (Identity kept confidential at request of interviewee).

        Interview with Ms Jeanne van der Merwe, political journalist for Media24, 23 Sept 2014.

        Interview with Ms Cheryllyn Dudley MP: African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP), 1 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Greg Solik (Managing Director and Coordinator, My Vote Counts), 3 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Ebrahim Fakir, senior independent political analyst, 6 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Hlengani Nkuna, Section Manager: Finance Department, Parliament of South Africa, 17 October 2014.

        Questionnaire completed by Ms Ester de Wet, Manager: Budgets, Party Funding and Compliance, Independent Electoral Commission, 13 October 2014.

        Questionnaire completed by Mr Jonathan Moakes, CEO: Democratic Alliance (DA) 9 Oct 2014.

      • expand button!
        49
        Score
        50
        In practice, to what extent do offenders comply with sanctions imposed?More about indicator

        The IEC, Parliament and all parties interviewed indicated that the threat of withholding the next and further tranches of public funding is an effective administrative tool to ensure proactive and preventative compliance. The only period during which it was difficult for the IEC to recover funds irregularly spent was during the period when ‘floor-crossing’ was permitted (no longer in place). During this period the law allowed MPs to retain their seats although they changed allegiance away from the party on whose ticket they were elected to Parliament. Some small represented parties received funds for a short period of time and then disappeared from Parliament, having merged with other parties.

        While COPE’s funding was frozen by Parliament, this was reportedly at the request of the party, which had commissioned an internal investigation and forensic audit into alleged maladministration of Parliamentary funds. A criminal trial arising from that investigation is ongoing.

        One political party reported that it is unaware of ‘any sanction ever imposed’ because of proven transgressions. It appears that this perception is probably a result of a lack of publicity and transparency concerning enforcement. Another political party indicated that several smaller political parties have experienced ongoing compliance difficulties. Parliament’s Annual Report for 2012/2013 indicates on p41 that one political party ‘received a disclaimer for two consecutive years’.

        Note: Some of the most contentious legislation that existed in South Africa from 2002 until 2008 was the legal framework permitting the defection of elected representatives of political parties. The law allowed members of parliament, of provincial legislatures and municipal councils to switch parties without forfeiting their seats, subject to certain conditions including thresholds. For example, the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Fourth Amendment Bill, 2002, passed into law in February 2003, permitted members of the National Assembly and the provincial legislatures to switch their allegiance from one party to another, irrespective of the fact that the members had been elected based on their inclusion in other political parties’ electoral lists. Floor-crossing had ‘subverted internal party democracy, with the floor-crossers often being rewarded with rapid rises through the party hierarchy. Following the ANC's 2007 Polokwane conference resolving to end floor-crossing, floor-crossing was abolished in January 2009 by means of the Constitution Fourteenth Amendment Act of 2008 and the Constitution Fifteenth Amendment Act of 2008, both of which were gazetted on 9 January 2009’.


        Peer Reviewer comment: Agree. Ester de Wet, Manager of Budgets, Party Funding & Compliance Verification at the Electoral Commission of South Africa confirmed that when the IEC is confronted with a situation where the auditing firm apointed by a political party cannot verify missing expenditure the IEC will the regard that spent funds as 'irregular expenditure'. As a penalty the IEC will withhold the same amount in the next tranche to the political party until accurate financial source documents are submitted. If they are not submitted the IEC works to recover the funds regarded as irregular expenditure. The IEC mentioned that it has implemented this penalty (or at least, the threat of the penalty) in the past with succcess but could not (or were reluctant to) qualify the number of instances in the interview. The IEC also mentioned that the collective funds of all political parties, as managed by the IEC, and then audited in their totality as IEC funds by the Auditor-General of South Africa has received unqualified clean audits for the past two financial years.

        Scoring Criteria

        A 100 score is earned where: 1) offenders comply with the sanctions imposed without exception, and 2) they are not repeat offenders.

        A 50 score is earned where: 1) offenders usually comply with the sanctions imposed but exceptions exist, or 2) most are not repeat offenders but some exceptions exist.

        A 0 score is earned where: 1) offenders rarely comply with the sanctions imposed, or 2) most are repeat offenders.

        Sources

        Interview with senior political correspondent for Independent Newspapers, 22 Sept 2014. (Identity kept confidential at request of interviewee).

        Interview with Ms Jeanne van der Merwe, political journalist for Media24, 23 Sept 2014.

        Interview with Ms Cheryllyn Dudley MP: African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP), 1 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Greg Solik (Managing Director and Coordinator, My Vote Counts), 3 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Ebrahim Fakir, senior independent political analyst, 6 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Ms Sybil Seaton ex-MP: Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP), 6 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Hlengani Nkuna, Section Manager: Finance Department, Parliament of South Africa, 17 October 2014.

        Questionnaire completed by Ms Ester de Wet, Manager: Budgets, Party Funding and Compliance, Independent Electoral Commission, 13 October 2014.

        Questionnaire completed by Mr Jonathan Moakes, CEO: Democratic Alliance (DA) 9 Oct 2014.

        ‘Parliament confirms COPE funding frozen’ Business Day Live 6 August 2012, available at http://www.bdlive.co.za/articles/2010/06/24/parliament-confirms-cope-funding-frozen (accessed 17 Sept 2014); ‘Former Cope national treasurer in court’ Mail & Guardian 3 December 2013, available at http://mg.co.za/article/2013-12-03-former-cope-national-treasurer-hilda-ndude-in-court (accessed 17 Sept 2014); and ‘Cope ex-treasurer’s fraud case delayed’ Independent Online 17 September 2014, available at http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/cope-ex-treasurer-s-fraud-case-delayed-1.1752607#.VDohG_mSwrU (accessed 17 Sep 2014).

        ‘South Africa: Floor-crossing 2002-2009’ Electoral Institute for Sustainable Democracy in Southern Africa. Extracted from: Susan Booysen & Grant Masterson 2009 "Chapter 11: South Africa" IN Denis Kadima and Susan Booysen (eds) Compendium of Elections in Southern Africa 1989-2009: 20 Years of Multiparty Democracy, EISA, Johannesburg, 402-403. Available at http://www.content.eisa.org.za/old-page/south-africa-floor-crossing-2002-2009 (accessed 31 October 2014)

        Reviewer's sources: Interview with Ester de Wet, Manager of Budgets, Party Funding & Compliance Verification at the Electoral Commission of South Africa, 19 November 2014.

      • expand button!
        50
        Score
        --
        Open Question: How strong is enforcement, and what impedes more effective enforcement?More about indicator

        Enforcement of the Parliamentary Allowances Policy is constrained by what Parliament’s finance department is able to discern from the information provided by political parties in their audited annual financial statements. The department doesn’t seek to verify information provided by parties in their audited financial statements. It makes enquiries only when the content of the financial statements submitted appears not to comply with reporting requirements. One example is that political parties regularly fail to provide Parliament’s finance department with their lists of the location and contact details of Parliamentary constituency offices (PCOs). In addition, Parliament does not require political parties to provide copies of lease agreements for PCOs. Parliament is therefore unable to independently verify whether or not PCOs actually exist, or therefore whether funds are legitimately spent on running them. Civil society and members of the public have long experienced great difficulty in identifying a local PCO in order to seek assistance.

        Enforcement in terms of the Public Funding Act is strong and effective. The IEC reports that the Public Fund has received ‘clean’ or unqualified audits for a considerable period of time.

        Political parties require funding for legitimate political activities, but given the complete lack of transparency of the funding of political parties, no one knows how much is reasonably necessary, or how much they raise and from whom, and how efficiently those funds are spent. Judith February has observed, moreover, that the absence of ‘regulation of private funding to political parties … represents a major gap in South Africa’s anti-corruption framework.’ South Africa has no legislation regulating private and foreign donations to political parties. As a result, private individuals and companies, as well as foreign governments, are ‘able to donate as much as they wish in secret, leaving the door wide open for corruption and the buying of influence. In a country already divided by high levels of inequality, wealthy individuals are able to influence policy in myriad ways, thus "drowning out" the voices of the already poor and marginalised. Yet legislation cannot be the panacea for all ills and will not solve the complex ways in which the influence of money on the body politic manifests itself. It is also crucial that political parties are able to raise money for much-needed activities, from building research capacity to electioneering. The missing link in the present laissez-faire situation is transparency.’

        Scoring Criteria

        Please provide a general explanation of the effectiveness of enforcement, describing: 1) any conditions that may prevent effective enforcement, and 2) explain what are the most urgent areas of reform in the country's political finance system.

        Sources

        Interview with Mr Greg Solik (Managing Director and Coordinator, My Vote Counts), 3 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Ebrahim Fakir, senior independent political analyst, 6 Oct 2014.

        Interview with Mr Hlengani Nkuna, Section Manager: Finance Department, Parliament of South Africa, 17 October 2014.

        Questionnaire completed by Ms Ester de Wet, Manager: Budgets, Party Funding and Compliance, Independent Electoral Commission, 13 October 2014.

        IEC annual reports on its administration of the Represented Political Parties Fund (the Public Fund).

        Available at http://www.elections.org.za/content/Parties/Party-funding/ (accessed 7 Sept 2014).

        Annual Report of Parliament 2012-2013. Available at http://www.parliament.gov.za/content/WEB_AP.pdf (accessed 8 Sept 2014).

        Annual Report of Parliament 2013-2014. Available at http://www.parliament.gov.za/content/WEB_AP.pdf (accessed 18 Oct 2014).

        Judith February ‘Money, politics: a toxic mix that needs to be diluted in South Africa’ South African Broadcasting Corporation 23 April 2014. Available at http://www.sabc.co.za/news/a/eac96c0043bd7dd19939db239b19c088/Money-and-politics:-a-toxic-mix-that-needs-to-be-diluted-in-South-Africa-20142304 (accessed 31 October 2014)

        Judith February ‘Democracy fund will foster political donation transparency’ 20 March 2014. Available at http://mg.co.za/article/2014-03-19-democracy-fund-will-foster-political-donation-transparency (last accessed 30 October 2014)

        Thalia Holmes, ‘Disclosure of party funding is the way to go, say experts’ Mail & Guardian 31 January 2013. Available at http://mg.co.za/article/2013-01-31-new-age-zille-regulate-private-funding-for-parties-da (accessed 31 October 2014)

South Africa's has a pure closed party list proportional representation (PR) electoral system with no explicit threshold of votes for political parties to be elected (although it as an implicit threshold of approximately 0.25%). Voters don’t vote for individuals, but for a political party, which decides on members to fill the seats it has won. The PR system was chosen after 1994 because it allows for maximum representivity and diversity of political views in legislatures, which was deemed essential for a divided society such as South Africa. National and provincial elections are held every five years. Voters cast two ballots: One for national parliament and one for their respective provincial legislature. South Africa’s most recent elections were its fifth elections held on 7 May 2014 where the governing African National Congress was returned to power with 62% of the national vote and continued as majority party in eight of the country’s nine provinces.

The National Parliament is bicameral. The National Assembly has 400 members and the number of seats that a party has is in proportion to the number of votes cast for it in the national election. The second chamber, the National Council of Provinces (NCOP), is constitutionally mandated to ensure that provincial interests are taken into account in the legislative process and consists of 90 provincial delegates (10 delegates for each of the nine provinces). A provincial delegation consists of six permanent delegates and four special delegates. Seats for the nine provincial legislatures vary according to the size of the population of respective provinces at the time of an election. In the most recent election of 2014 there were a total of 430 seats across all provincial legislatures. Delegates in the National Council of Provinces are nominated in part based on results for parties appearing on parties’ provincial election lists, and in part by the Premiers of those provinces.

Political parties nominate members for the national and provincial elections on two separate lists, which must be registered with and published by the Electoral Commission (IEC) before an election. Political parties that secure representation in the national and provincial legislatures receive public funding. In the 2014 elections 13 political parties won sufficient votes to secure seats in the National Assembly. There is no separate election for the president, who is elected by the National Assembly after the general election. Section 83 of the Constitution, 1996, provides that the president is head of state and the head of the national executive. Section 86 of the Constitution provides that at its first sitting after its election, and whenever necessary to fill a vacancy, the National Assembly of Parliament must elect a woman or a man from among its members to be the President. The president is elected by a majority of members elected to Parliament. The Chief Justice must preside over the election of the President, or designate another judge to do so.

For more information, see: http://www.southafrica.info/about/democracy/iec.htm#.VE4CcfnLfz0#ixzz3HKrLmLyT and http://www.elections.org.za/content/Elections/Election-types/. See also http://www.gov.za/documents/constitution-republic-south-africa-1996-chapter-5-president-and-national-executive#83