ANC DISCIPLINARY ACTION: HIT-OR-MISS
Introduction
The first ANC Constitution was published in 1919. It was a fairly basic document only really setting out the composition and objectives of the then South African Native National Congress. The 1958 Constitution that followed was far more detailed and for the first time included a section on disciplinary proceedings against ANC members.
This section has been expanded on greatly since then. The ANC Constitution as amended by the party at its 51st National Conference in December 2002 is proof of this as it contains a detailed section on disciplinary proceedings. This constitution clearly stipulates the kind of conduct that would lead to disciplinary proceedings being invoked and instituted against a member or public representative of the party.
Rule 25.5 of this constitution states that the ANC can expel any individual on a number of grounds, including the following: conviction in a court of law and a prison sentence without the option of a fine for a serious non-political offence; behaviour that brings the party into disrepute; sowing racism, sexism, tribal chauvinism, religious and political intolerance, regionalism or any form of discrimination; abuse of elected or employed office in the ANC or state to obtain direct or indirect undue advantage or enrichment, and corruption that stems from seeking or accepting a bribe for performing or not performing any task.
While these disciplinary mechanisms exist, the ANC has appeared to be highly reluctant to use them since 1994.
An article written by Lutho Nduvane (Director: Student Development Governance at Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University) on unity and cohesion within the ANC that appeared in the party’s internal publication Umurabulo in March 2007 highlights this problem:
“The ANC constitution allows for disciplinary committees to be established. There is absolutely no consistency when it comes to disciplining members of the movement. Some members violate the ANC constitution and nothing is done about it. Another members [sic] will commit the same violation and the constitution will be used to discipline and even expel such a member. In a situation where the instruments that are supposed to be used to foster discipline, unity and cohesion are abused and inconsistently applied we are bound to have these divisions, which would ultimately lead to factions within the movement.”
Since 1994, only two ANC members have been expelled from the party namely Bantu Holomisa, after he asked the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to investigate Cabinet Minister Stella Sigcau, for allegedly receiving a bribe during her days as a Transkei Bantustan politician, and the late Sifiso Nkabinde after he was accused of being an apartheid-era spy.
Yet a large number of ANC members have conducted themselves in a manner that should have resulted in disciplinary proceedings being instituted against them by the party. The instances where disciplinary proceedings were in fact instituted also largely resulted in ANC members getting off extremely lightly.
Some examples are given below.
The Criminals
Firstly, the ANC has failed to institute disciplinary proceedings against members who have been convicted of crimes.
Section 25.5 (a) and (b) of the constitution states that disciplinary proceedings will be instituted against members who have been convicted in a court of law for any serious non-political offence irrespective of being sentenced to a term of imprisonment without the option of a fine.
An obvious example that has received widespread attention is the Travelgate saga.
Once of the ANC’s favorite lines is “innocent until proven guilty”, citing that it will not take action against any of its members until they have been found guilty in a court of law.
Twelve ANC members of Parliament found guilty of fraud with regard to parliamentary travel vouchers and who received suspended sentences rang
| Posted on 5/10/2007
 |  | |