The Gender Education and Training Network (GETNET) and Tshwaranang Legal Advocacy Centre take note of the proceedings in the second ANC disciplinary hearing of Mr. Mbulelo Goniwe on the charges of sexual harassment with grave concern.  The complainant, Ms. Nomawele Njongo, collapsed during the hearing last Thursday after being subjected to a humiliating line of questioning from Mr. Goniwe (Sunday Times, July 29, pg. 15).  She subsequently received medical treatment.

The hearing of Mr. Goniwe raises serious concerns about how sexual victimization is dealt with by the ANC:          

1. The ANC does not have a sexual harassment policy.  The ANC Constitution (Rule 26 and the related amendment to the Disciplinary Procedure, February 1998) guides all disciplinary action and the procedure to be followed in disciplinary hearings. Rule 26, while stating that physical or sexual abuse of women is a serious offence warranting disciplinary action, is silent about on how to deal with such offences. The amended disciplinary procedure stipulates that the person facing charges may have representation from an ANC member.  The same right is not extended to the complainant who lays a charge, nor is provision made for psychological support during the hearing.  This means that victims of sexual harassment, who are most likely to be female, will have to face male perpetrators with little, if any support.

2. The ANC disciplinary procedure has failed to take note of the serious and insidious nature of sexual harassment and the power dynamics inherent in the context in which such harassment occurs.  By failing to take specific steps to address sexual harassment, the ANC has inadvertently equated sexual violence with other offences like misappropriation of funds or behaving corruptly and has trivialized the serious nature of this offence.

3. It also appears that the committee appointed by the ANC to hear the enquiry has failed to protect Ms. Njongo’s constitutional rights to dignity, privacy and psychological integrity.  It is reported that she fainted during the hearing, clearly demonstrating that the process compromised her psychological well-being. The committee has a duty to ensure that the rights of both parties are adequately safe-guarded.

4. According to media reports, Ms. Njongo was submitted to a barrage of questions about her sex life by Mr Goniwe. Her attempts to find out the relevance of these questions to the complaint against Mr Goniwe were rejected by the disciplinary committee and she was ordered by the chairperson of the committee, Laloo Chiba, to answer all questions.  Attempts by another member of the committee, Hilda Ndude, to protect Ms Njongo from what appears to be victimizing and intimidating behaviour by Mr. Goniwe, failed.

5. It is unclear why Mr. Chiba allowed Mr. Goniwe to ask questions around Ms. Njongo’s sexual life, the paternity of her child’s father and the name of her current boyfriend. It is possible that the ruling of Judge Willem van der Merwe in the Zuma trial may have been a factor.  For a committee that lacks expertise in dealing with sexual harassment, as this one clearly does, the precedent set by the Judiciary in admitting previous sexual history during the Zuma trial may easily be used as a yardstick for establishing the moral blameworthiness of a complainant.

6. The committee seems unaware of the power relations at play during cases of sexual harassment and the psychological impact on the complainant in both being questioned by her alleged perpetrator and appearing before a committee constituted of amongst others, senior ANC minister Mr. Mosiuoa Lekota and Henry Makgothi.   

7. This matter points to the complexities of addressing sexual harassment.  Among these, the belief that some complainants lay false claims deliberately as a ‘political ploy’ to ‘trap’ individuals who are senior politicians.  These beliefs provide fertile ground for secondary harassment of complainants who do pursue disciplinary procedures.  It is ironic that the ANC as the ruling party has required all employers/institutions to adopt progressive sexual harassment policy, but has not done so itself.

8. We strongly recommend that the ANC disciplinary committee observe basic norms and protocols in dealing with sexual harassment when the hearing resumes on August 7 and obtains the support and assistance of experts in the field. In dealing with a case of sexual harassment, both the complainant and alleged perpetrator’s constitutional rights must be upheld and promoted by a disciplinary process that affirms a rights-based approach while ensuring fairness to both the complainant and perpetrator. 

9. We call upon the ANC National Executive Committee to table the development of sexual harassment policy as an urgent priority during its December national conference.  The NEC and the National Working Committee also have the power to appoint a sub-committee to work on such a policy and we urge them to be proactive and do so.  The development of sexual harassment policy should not be for the attention of the ANC alone, we call on all political parties who may not have sexual harassment policy to do so. In so doing it will contribute to promoting the rights enshrined in our constitution.

For more information or queries please contact:

Kailash Bhana – Director of GETNET on 084 406 5626 or 021 697 5355 (o/h) 

Liesl Gerntholtz – Director of Tshwaranang on 083 600 3592 or  011 403 8230 (o/h)

Organisations in support of this statement:

Nisaa Institute for Women’s Development, Rape Crisis Cape Town, Gender Equity Unit (University of the Western Cape), Women’sNet, Gender Advocacy Project, OUT LGBT Well-being, Saartjie Baartman Centre for Women and Children, Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, Masimanyane Women’s Support Centre