Mr Speaker, in my 13 years in public life, I have had four occasions which required of me to apologise. I remember each one clearly. The first was just before Christmas 1994 when a computer malfunction resulted in over 100 000 pensioners almost not receiving their pensions by Christmas. The second was a painful one, when Thobeka Madayi, a resident of Khayelitsha, died in a wheelbarrow outside a health facility that didn't open its doors to her. The third was when, on behalf of the ANC I apologized to Dr Neil Barnard for defamation issues and the fourth occasion was when, as Chairperson of the ANC, I referred to my political opponents as coconuts. On all these occasions I struggled with my conscience between the temptation of justifying my actions or taking responsibility. I took responsibility on all four occasions and apologized.
Today represents another such moment. The question I am grappling with is whether my response to the Ad Hoc Committee's report falls in the same category as the three occasions I described where my apologizing was not only appropriate, but absolutely necessary.
Since I have read the Report, seen its popular interpretation in the media and heard the undiluted joy in the comments of the opposition, I have had to weigh up whether my response was to be a legal one to be fought out in the courts by lawyers, or whether my response must be a political one where the Premier speaks to the Legislature and puts his fate in the hands of his peers.
This has been a difficult episode to live through from the time this House unanimously accepted the resolution to establish the Ad Hoc Committee, through every step in the unfolding processes of the work of the Ad Hoc Committee, including the difficult decision about whether to go to court and to challenge the composition of the Ad Hoc Committee, right up to the conclusion of the Committee's Report that I knowingly made 3 incorrect statements. More difficult than all of that was the fact that last Friday, for the first time in my public life, I actively hid a newspaper from my family so that, in their estimation, one malicious cartoon does not undo the other work that I believe we do to the best of our ability.
At such moments the confident voices of one's legal team is a very seductive option: 'Go to court to clear your name'. And, indeed, I believe that their arguments have enormous merit:
- Why did the Ad Hoc Committee choose to judge this matter on the Balance of Probabilities and not rather apply the higher test that the matter should be proved beyond reasonable doubt?
- Why did the Ad Hoc Committee not actively pursue who else could have misled this House despite amending the resolution to investigate broader than just the Premier?
- Was the evidence presented by the Premier and his witnesses given the due recognition and treatment it deserved to ascertain what was in the mind of the Premier, and
- Were the conclusions of the Report consistent with both the mandate of the Committee and all the evidence in front of the Committee?
But today the overriding concern I must have as Premier, and not as Ebrahim Rasool, is about how long the Province can still bear the tension between its Premier, its Legislature and its Auditor General?
The concern I must have is about getting past a matter that distracts from our central mission to build a better life for all our people.
In order to answer these questions, and to subject the personal pride of Ebrahim Rasool to the political responsibility of the Premier, I have discussed this matter within the African National Congress. Out of these consultations I have no doubt that I must be central to resolving the institutional tension between the Office of the Premier, the Legislature and the Auditor General. I have no doubt that I must be central to refocus our undivided attention in the rest of this term to continued and accelerated delivery to our people. I have no doubt that I must play my role in getting the ANC ready for 2009.
This political resolution is a difficult one when you cannot completely accept every detail and implication of the Ad Hoc Committee's conclusion. But my role today is limited:
- I can regret that the Ad Hoc Committee did not adequately investigate whether Mr Carlisle misled the House, but I can only leave that matter to Mr Carlisle's own conscience.
- I can regret that even though Cabinet, the Department's management and I heard "irregular" and not "unauthorized" and we heard "condonation" this committee found otherwise.
- I can regret that this Committee judged the AG on the theoretical work that AG's do and not on specific exchanges made, but I must live with the fact that this matter has been determined on the Balance of Probabilities.
- I can regret that the Committee did not probe my mind to determine whether I made an honest mistake in interpreting what the AG said, but I must live with the finding that it was deemed "incorrect".
- Ultimately, I can have many reservations about the Report and its conclusions, especially those that say I knowingly made incorrect statements. However, I have great peace in my heart, that I did not compromise my integrity and that I did not lie to this House.
Be that as it may, at the end of the day, I might have contributed to all the misunderstandings that led to this Report. This has indeed been an episode filled with misunderstandings, filled with the imprecise use of words like "assurance" and "recommend", "irregular" and "unauthorized" - and it has been an episode that also had its inconsistencies in what was said in what forum.
I appreciate that the Ad Hoc Committee did not conclude that I misled the House. I must resolve to do my part to rebuild trust and respect for, and among, the Institutions of the Legislature, the Auditor-General and the Executive.
The question I ask myself is whether this is similar to the occasions where I needed to apologise for pensioners not getting their pensions, for Thobeka Madayi dying in a wheelbarrow, or for being drawn into a racial paradigm with the invocation of the the word 'coconut'? I don't think it is the same in its detail, but I was a participant in a series of misunderstandings that led to institutional tension and mistrust.
I cannot speak for others, only myself, and, therefore, Honourable Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee, in response to your advice, and in bringing finality and closure to an unfortunate episode, I apologise for anything I said that led to the conclusions of the Ad Hoc Committee and for resultant tensions in key institutions that make up our Constitutional State. At the end of the day, those issues are bigger than the pride and the ego of a Premier.
Mr Speaker, thank you very much.Ebrahim Rasool
Premier Of The Western Cape
