S. African MPs begin process of considering controversial bank bill

South African MPs on Wednesday began the process of considering a bank bill which is aimed at fighting financial crimes but is rejected by President Jacob Zuma.

The consideration focused on the provision on searches without warrants in the Financial Intelligence Centre Amendment (FICA) Bill that the president's lawyers found to be unconstitutional.

Last week, Zuma referred the Bill to Parliament, saying certain provisions of the Bill do not pass constitutional muster.

The president specifically raised concern with the provisions of the Bill relating to warrantless searches, which according to him, fell short of the constitutional standard required for the provision not to unjustifiably limit the right to privacy.

Parliament's Standing Committee on Finance said on Wednesday that it has received legal opinion from Parliament's Legal Services Unit on the process to attend to the president's concerns.

The Joint Rules of Parliament require that the Committee confine itself to the president's reservations.

The Committee said in a statement that it cannot initiate a process to reconsider any other provisions of the Bill.

"Although the Committee may receive written representations, it has complied with its constitutional obligation to facilitate public involvement in the process of considering the Bill. Hence it cannot redo this process. Once the Committee has concluded its deliberations, it must report to the National Assembly," the statement said.

The procedure in the Assembly is also restricted to the president's reservations.

The Bill is meant to impose more onerous obligations on banks to know their clients and in particular politically exposed persons such as politicians, government officials and directors of companies contracting with the government.

Zuma has been criticized for stalling the Bill as part of an attempt to "clip the independence and powers" of Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan and the South African Reserve Bank (SARB).

MPs of opposition parties argue that Zuma's failure to sign the bill would frustrate the efforts to fight financial crimes.

According to the Presidency, the president received an objection to the signing of the bill from the Progressive Professionals Forum.

Critics of Zuma's long delay in promulgating the law claim that he is trying to protect those benefiting from corruption, such as the wealthy Indian Gupta family accused of exerting undue influence on Zuma in the appointment of cabinet ministers.

At Wednesday's debate, Committee Chairperson Yunus Carrim said: "We had extensive public hearings in our long processing of the Bill earlier this year. We are now confined to deciding whether the provision for searches without warrants in this Bill is unconstitutional."

This provision was not introduced by the Committee, but by the cabinet, according to Carrim.

"However, if there is significant agreement among the lawyers consulted by Parliament that it's unconstitutional, of course we'll amend it. But if the lawyers are convinced it's constitutional we can't amend it. This is not a policy matter, it's a constitutional matter, and it'll have to be primarily decided by lawyers. If the lawyers Parliament consults can't agree, we can maybe delete the provision. But it's also possible that the Constitutional Court might have to decide on this,"Carrim said.

Carrim said on Tuesday that the Bill is constitutionally sound although Zuma has refused to sign it into law.

The Committee will also have public hearings on the constitutionality of warrantless searches, tentatively set for January 24, 2017. Endit