Ethics Bill must prevent officials escaping probes, says Outa - IOL

The Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (Outa) is calling for the Executive Members’ Ethics Amendment Bill 2026 to ensure that ethical investigations into public office bearers continue, even if they switch ministries or leave public office entirely.

Public office bearers must remain subject to ethical scrutiny, regardless of changes to their employment status or ministerial assignments. 

This is according to Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse’s (Outa) submission on the Executive Members’ Ethics Amendment Bill 2026, calling for an explicit provision allowing investigations into conduct while in office to continue after an executive member leaves or is appointed in another public office. 

The proposed bill comes at a critical time as South Africa faces immense strain on public trust in government institutions and legal gaps in enforcing executive accountability. 

This aims to amend the Executive Members’ Ethics Act of 1998 to strengthen ethical standards, accountability, and the enforcement of the executive ethics code for national and provincial leaders. 

The current oversight struggles with ambiguity around whether investigations end when an official leaves office or is reshuffled.

The amendment bill was published for public comment on August 31, 2026, and the closing date for submissions is October 2 (today).

In its submission, Outa said resignation, dismissal, or reshuffle must not end an investigation into alleged ethics breaches committed while in office. 

The organisation said ministers and MECs must not be able to escape ethics investigations by resigning, being dismissed or moving to another portfolio. 

“The public should not have to guess whether an ethics complaint was investigated, what the finding was or whether anyone faced consequences. Leaving office must not make those questions disappear,” said Dr Rachel Fischer, Outa’s Parliamentary Engagement and Research Manager. 

The trend of public officials resigning or being reshuffled in the midst of active or looming investigations has sparked frequent debate over accountability.

While political leaders rarely explicitly state that they are stepping down “to escape investigation”, a notable timeline of ministers, deputy ministers, and MECs have resigned, been dismissed or were reshuffled while facing serious legal, forensic, or parliamentary probes. 

This includes former Social Development minister Sisisi Tolashe, former Sports, Arts and Culture minister Zizi Kodwa, former Health minister Zweli Mkhize, former Finance minister Nhlanhla Nene, former Home Affairs minister Malusi Gigaba, and former deputy minister of Higher Education, Mduduzi Manana. 

Former Eastern Cape Health MEC Sindiswa Gomba was also dismissed in 2021 after she was criminally charged with fraud and corruption relating to the R10 million Nelson Mandela funeral procurement scandal.

Former Western Cape Community Safety MEC Albert Fritz was fired after an independent forensic investigation validated serious allegations of sexual misconduct and abuse of office involving young interns. 

Outa said the ongoing controversy involving suspended Police Minister Senzo Mchunu also highlights the need for fair, timely answers when serious allegations arise against executive members.

Mchunu has been on special leave since July 2025 following allegations of political interference in policing and links to criminal networks, which he denies. 

However, a written parliamentary reply submitted by Acting Police Minister Firoz Cachalia confirmed that taxpayers have paid Mchunu more than R3m. 

Fischer said that while the payments do not establish wrongdoing, the public deserves a clear explanation of why the arrangement remains necessary and how it is being reviewed.

“Placing a minister on leave does not resolve allegations. Those implicated must have a proper opportunity to respond, but the public also deserves answers within accountable timeframes,” Fischer said. 

The amendment bill outlines explicit procedures for reporting ethics breaches directly to the Public Protector, clarifies how the office investigates and reports on those breaches, and sets rules for tabling these investigative findings before Parliament and provincial legislatures.

It also codifies concrete sanctions and permissible legal consequences when an executive official is found in breach of the code of ethics.

This also tightens the framework for financial declarations to ensure Ministers, Deputy Ministers, and MECs do not use their public offices for personal enrichment or to improperly benefit others.

However, Outa said the bill should be strengthened by enforcing clear investigation deadlines, ensuring visible and binding consequences, continuing accountability after an official's departure, and mandating verified financial disclosures.

Political analyst Professor Theo Neethling said Outa’s call for a review of the Executive Members’ Ethics Act deserves serious attention, adding that the broader principle is that holding public office should not exempt an individual from proper scrutiny regarding possible unethical conduct. 

“Accountability should be linked to the conduct itself, rather than merely to the person’s continued tenure in a specific office,” he said. 

Political analyst and governance expert Sandile Swana said the law should trigger immediate penalties upon adverse findings, thereby requiring the implicated official, regardless of their current employment status, to formally challenge the evidence and sanctions.