In the context created by Peter Bruce’s insightful Thick End of the Wedge column, concerning the machinations of Chancellor House, the investment arm of the African National Congress (ANC), Paul Hoffman has written an interesting article for Business Day.

Article from Business Day – The case against Chancellor House

In the context created by Peter Bruce’s insightful Thick End of the Wedge column (November 15), concerning the machinations of Chancellor House, the investment arm of the African National Congress (ANC), opposition political parties and all those who respect the rule of law should consider the following:

- Section 1 of the constitution says that our sovereign democratic state is founded on universal adult suffrage in a multiparty system of democratic government to ensure accountability, responsiveness and openness;

- Section 19 of the bill of rights guarantees to every citizen the right to form a political party and the right to free and fair elections;

- Section 7(2) requires the state to respect, protect, promote and fulfil this right and all other rights in the bill of rights;

- Section 38 gives citizens and political parties who consider that their right to free and fair elections has been infringed or threatened the right to sue for appropriate relief;

- Section 344 of the Companies Act allows our courts to wind up companies when it is just and equitable to do so; and

- Section 165 of the constitution prescribes that the courts apply the constitution and the law impartially and without fear, favour or prejudice.

If, as seems to be the case, Chancellor House is being used as a vehicle for collusion, corruption, conflicts of interest and other illegal activities, there is a case to be made that it should be liquidated and its assets forfeited to the state. Certainly, while Chancellor House operates, the infringement of the right to free and fair elections will continue, to the prejudice of democracy in SA. This is because impoverished opposition parties are not privy to the “business opportunities” which Chancellor House has via the network of deployed cadres loyal to the ANC in government departments, parastatals, tender boards and regulatory authorities.

This hegemony affords an impermissible form of connectivity which creates the breeding ground for the murky type of dealings to which your editor refers. Instead of issuing limp and lame press releases, the opposition should consider standing up against being made to compete with the ANC on an unconscionably less-than-level playing field in successive elections.

Those with the necessary locus standi should consider litigation against Chancellor House and the ANC, and complaints to the Independent Electoral Commission and to the office of the public protector. If a just and equitable winding up is unattainable for any reason connected with the conflation of company and constitutional law, the prospects of winning useful declarations of rights and interdicts, including an interdict preventing the ANC from benefiting from the corrupt dealings of Chancellor House, are highly arguable. The survival of constitutional democracy may well depend upon it.

Paul Hoffman SC

Director, Institute for Accountability in Southern Africa

 Print This Post