HENNI BRITZ | The public gets a pen to rewrite parliament’s ethics rulebook

In the coming days, the Joint Committee on Ethics and Members’ Interests will publish a public notice inviting political parties, MPs, academia, the legal profession, civil society organisations, journalists and citizens alike to submit proposals to amend Parliament’s Code of Ethical Conduct and Disclosure of Members’ Interests.

The closing date for submissions is March 25.

This is not a routine administrative exercise. It is a rare and important democratic moment.

A parliamentary ethics code is not window dressing. It is a cornerstone of public trust and participation in a constitutional democracy. It governs how elected representatives manage their private interests, disclose financial and other benefits, avoid conflicts and conduct themselves in office.

Crucially, this does not stop at the doors of parliament. It regulates members’ conduct both inside and outside parliament, because public trust is not a part-time obligation. Within a democracy, it is a full-time duty.

When the code is clear, modern and enforceable, it protects both the public and the integrity of the institution. When it is outdated, uncertain or secretive, public confidence erodes and suspicion fills the gap.

In recent years, criticism from the courts, academia, investigative journalists and civil society has sharpened around three recurring concerns: transparency, enforceability and consequences.

It has been argued that some disclosure categories are too narrow for modern financial arrangements, that certain sanctions may not be sufficiently deterrent and that delays and limited accessibility of information weaken meaningful public oversight. These critiques should not be feared or dismissed. They should be engaged seriously and constructively.

Parliament’s accountability framework rests on three distinct, but equally complementary instruments, each with different purposes and outcomes. The Code of Ethical Conduct and Disclosure of Members’ Interests regulates conflicts between members’ private interests and their official duties, and sets standards of behaviour (including conduct beyond parliamentary proceedings, even in public and digital spaces) with outcomes such as reprimands, fines or suspension.

The Powers and Privileges framework protects parliament’s institutional functioning, including freedom of speech and protection against intimidation, and can lead to contempt findings or even criminal consequences.

The Rules of the National Assembly and the NCOP govern procedure and order in daily parliamentary work, producing procedural rulings and disciplinary outcomes within the two chambers and parliament’s various committees. Amending the ethics code, therefore, strengthens the only instrument that directly governs members’ ethical behaviour across the full scope of their public role, not only their conduct in debate.

The ethics code asks a simple but powerful question of every member: what private interests, benefits, relationships, or obligations do you hold that the public has a right to know about, and could any of them improperly influence your public duties?

It establishes a disclosure register, reporting duties and a sanctions framework. Yet financial instruments have evolved, business relationships have grown more complex, and indirect benefit structures have become more sophisticated. A modern ethics code must keep pace with present realities, particularly how influence and benefit can arise outside formal parliamentary settings and beyond immediate public scrutiny.

Behavioural accountability beyond the parliamentary chambers is equally important. Members do not cease to be public representatives when a sitting adjourns. Interactions with donors, business partners, lobbyists, public bodies, communities and constituents all fall within the ethical risk environment.

The code is therefore not merely about speeches and votes; it is about integrity in the full exercise of public office of an MP.

At the same time, fairness, openness and due process must remain central. Enforcement must be rigorous, but also procedurally just. Investigations must be credible, timely and transparent, while respecting due process and the rules of natural justice. Sanctions must be consistent and proportionate.

The joint committee is acutely aware that ethics processes must never become political weapons, nor descend into symbolic rituals without consequence. Striking this balance is precisely why broad public participation is so valuable.

The question is not whether parliament should have ethical rules. That is settled by the fact of the existing code. The question is how those rules can be made clearer, stronger, fairer and more effective across the full scope of a member’s public conduct.

There is also a deeper principle at stake. Ethical governance is not achieved only through sanctions after misconduct. It is strengthened by prevention, clarity and institutional culture. Clear rules, well explained, encourage voluntary compliance. Accessible digital disclosure systems enable informed scrutiny. Plain-language guidance helps members avoid breaches before they occur and are most effective when they are both enforceable and understandable.

Public participation will improve the code in at least three ways.

First, it will expose blind spots. Practitioners, scholars and watchdog organisations often detect patterns and risks that institutions may overlook. Their technical and comparative insights can help refine definitions, thresholds and reporting mechanisms.

Second, it will test practicality. Rules that appear strong on paper must also function in daily parliamentary life and in members’ real-world engagements outside parliament. Submissions can help distinguish between what is desirable and what is workable.

Third, it will strengthen legitimacy. A code shaped through open consultation carries greater authority than one drafted behind closed doors. Compliance improves when rules are seen as fair, rational and publicly justified.

This call for proposals is therefore an invitation to constructive participation. The question is not whether parliament should have ethical rules. That is settled by the fact of the existing code. The question is how those rules can be made clearer, stronger, fairer and more effective across the full scope of a member’s public conduct.

Democracy does not maintain itself automatically. It requires the periodic renewal of its safeguards. Updating parliament’s ethics code is one such renewal, and an important step towards narrowing the trust gap between the people they serve and their representatives.

If you have expertise, research, practical experience, or a considered view, you are encouraged to submit it. Help us close loopholes, clarify obligations, strengthen sanctions where necessary, and refine processes where fairness requires it.

Ethics in public office is not a private matter. It is a public one. Now is the time to help shape it.