Amid concern about the involvement of the twin sister of Paul Mashatile’s wife in the largesse available to the winning bidder of the competition to run the national lottery, it is perhaps timely to reflect on the provisions of section 96(2)(b) and (c) of the constitution.

Deputy president Mashatile may not expose himself “to any situation involving the risk of a conflict” between his official responsibilities and private interests; or use his position “to enrich … or improperly benefit any other person”.

Obviously, there is a “risk of a conflict” and also impropriety in the roles being played. The risk need not materialise for the deputy president to be in breach of his constitutional obligations. The mere existence of the risk suffices, as Jacob Zuma learnt to his cost when he tangled with the EFF, DA and the public protector concerning the goings-on at Nkandla.

The Constitutional Court put the point elegantly: “To find oneself on the wrong side of section 96 all that needs to be proven is a risk. It does not even have to materialise.”

The policing of executive ethics is the business of the public protector acting on complaints from political parties represented in parliament.

Not only is Mashatile number two in the national cabinet hierarchy, he is also a front-runner in the competition to succeed the president as the latter nears the end of his second and final term as president.

On every succession occasion in the past, excluding the brief term of Kgalema Motlanthe, the president has been succeeded by his deputy since the birth of the new order in SA.

Paul Hoffman
Director, Accountability Now