Should accountability exempt the first citizen in a democratic constitutional order?

The dispute regarding the role of the SA Parliament in holding President Ramaphosa to account for his knowledge and involvement in the Phala Phala dispute is not limited to him but exposes a deeper African conundrum of first African citizens’ default position that they are immune from being held accountable for their conduct as public office bearers.

Even the SA Speaker of Parliament has been compelled to respect, uphold, obey and defend the constitution as the supreme law and the imperative of respecting the doctrine of the separation of powers as a fundamental tenet of the rule of law by acceeding to the demand that President Ramaphosa using Parliament as a vehicle to download what he knows about the cash and subsequent events.

There are far too many Africans who would soon refuse to submit themselves to public institutions to protect, promote and uphold the rule of law.

The future greatness and viability of Africa as a vehicle to reduce the frontiers of poverty, unemployment and inequality lies in its fidelity to the rule of law premised on a strict adherence to the prescripts of the constitution.

Public power is a derivative of public trust and such this power represents at the core, public property that must be subject to public scrutiny that is driven by active citizenship and not fatalism.