JUDITH FEBRUARY: Government needs to be held accountable for realisation of human rights

As we reflect on Human Rights Day, with human rights feeling like a luxury in a country with deepening inequality, rising poverty and stubbornly high levels of unemployment, it is crucial that we hold government to account for realising rights and that our democratic institutions are strengthened to do so.

In 2007, South Africa’s Parliament formed a committee to review the country’s ‘Chapter 9’ and associated institutions tasked with supporting human rights, democracy and accountability. The committee’s most controversial recommendation was to amalgamate five institutions into a single human rights body.

The five bodies the 'Asmal report', as it's informally known, targeted for amalgamation were the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC); Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities; Commission for Gender Equality; Pan South African Language Board; and National Youth Commission.

Essentially, the multi-party committee's 'Asmal report' concluded that all the bodies, save for the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC), were largely ineffective.

Many critics also argued that amalgamation may have been a good idea since these bodies were simply ‘cash cows’ for the ruling African National Congress’s patronage.

However, no action whatsoever was taken on the report although it has been discussed by Parliament at various moments over the years.

When it was released in 2007, the Asmal report was described as ‘unflinchingly objective.’ The real purpose of the review was abundantly clear at the time – there were simply too many of these bodies; they had to be rationalised. The only question was how.

The report detailed weaknesses in the accountability of Chapter 9 institutions and associated bodies and recommended how to remedy the situation.

The Constitution says ‘these institutions are accountable to the National Assembly, and must report on their activities and the performance of their functions to the Assembly at least once a year.’ They 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.’

It further found that many of the institutions were marred by internal conflict and uneven performance and that their functions overlapped. The committee knew the recommendation to merge the five bodies would be unpopular given their large budgets and many staff.

The National Youth Commission was among the institutions that resisted amalgamation. It has since been replaced by the National Youth Development Agency (NYDA), but at the time became even more mired in controversy and corruption than its predecessor.

In 2014, opposition parties called for the NYDA to be scrapped as it was unclear how it was spending its budget. Its appointment processes have also been somewhat chaotic and in 2015, the NYDA cut half its senior management staff in what was described as a purge of South African Communist Party-aligned members. Its 2017 budget was more than R400 million. Similar excesses have plagued the Commission for Gender Equality for years.

On 14 May 2017, Parliament seemed to awake from its long slumber. The Speaker’s office asked for submissions on the feasibility of establishing a single human rights body. The closing date was 25 May but after civil society and some opposition parties objected to this deadline, it was extended to 30 June.

It remains unclear why then-Speaker Baleka Mbete was in such a hurry to raise this matter after a hiatus of 10 years in which nothing was done, and Parliament failed even to discuss the report.

It would have been difficult, politically, to amalgamate these bodies in 2007. It will be even more complex to untangle the web now given the current climate.

A concern was, and remains, that a single human rights body would water down the country’s commitment to gender equality, youth, and language.

The reality is that South Africa cannot afford all these bodies; there is too much overlap in administrative resources as well as mandates. Cutting their individual budgets to create a super-organisation and a super-budget may well be the most sensible thing to do. But, what is certain is that there’s little point in creating a single human rights body unless the causes of poor governance, inefficiency and weak leadership that characterise the existing institutions are remedied.

If Parliament wants a proper discussion and thoughtful deliberation of the issues, then scrutinising the Asmal report properly is necessary. MPs also need to do so not from a position of seeking only to preserve what often are channels of patronage but with the view to engaging with the richness of the report, its recommendations and the keen thought behind it.

Human rights can only be real if institutions of democracy support their realisation with integrity and accountability.