National Assembly:   22nd September 2009

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

We are voting to give the Human Rights Commission a not-so-good membership which is much worse than what it could have been had the best candidates been chosen. Yet the IFP is voting in favour of it, because it is much better than what the ANC wanted it to be, and in acknowledgement that substantial give-and-take between the ANC and the non-ANC components of the Committee has indeed occurred. In this respect, we thank Chairman Ramathlodi and the Honourable Holomisa, Jeffrey and Ndabadaba for their leadership.

Our vote in support is also justified on account of Chairman Ramathlodi's initiative, endorsed by the Committee, to harness the skills of all the candidates shortlisted for the Human Rights Commission into an advisory panel to the Justice Committee, in which they will serve on a voluntary basis and without any remuneration or cost to Parliament. Therefore, even though some of the best candidates cannot provide their skills and leadership to the Human Rights Commission, they can none the less contribute them in the overall formula of governance through our Committee.

Our vote of support is also based on the undertaking made during the interviews by all nominees to turn a new page. Until now the Human Rights Commission has been lame, weak and meek.  In the past fifteen years, much more has been achieved in the protection of human rights by NGOs which brought litigation against Government and actual redress of human rights violations than by the Human Rights Commission, in spite of such NGOs having much smaller budgets.  This much now change.

The Asmal Report clearly indicated that Advocate Mushwana misunderstood his role under the Constitution when he was the Public Protector and acted in a subservient and advisory capacity to Government. This has been pointed out to him during the interviews and his inclusion in the Commission is on the basis of his accepting to change his ways. The Commission is not there to advice and counsel Government or exercise oversight on its Departments.  Its primary role is that of being a defender of freedom and liberty and to step up to the task of challenging and redressing any human rights violation in an uncompromising fashion whenever and however it occurs.

We as politicians can dance on eggshells and pussyfoot around controversial human rights issues which are politically sensitive and difficult.  The Human Rights Commission cannot afford such luxury, but at the cost of fundamentally betraying its constitutional mission and the expectations of the people.  The measure of the success of the Commission will be determined by its capacity of being loved by the people and, if need be, being disliked by Government.

We expect of it less public relations and more action.  It should not advertise its presence through workshops and pamphlets but through its deeds, for everyone heard of the TAC on account of a single significant deed.  We count on this new beginning and hope that when new issues like the barring of the Dalai Lama occur, the Human Rights Commission will not relinquish its constitutional role to the remedial action of statesman like Prince Buthelezi or Archbishop Tutu.