Arguably, South Africa has a sophisticated framework of laws and codes of conduct to guide the behaviour and activities of public officials. Their defining character is the requirement that public officials disclose their financial interests.

The South African ethics regime seeks to cover all elected representatives and members of the public service. Importantly, it seeks to give content to the constitutional imperative of transparent, open and accountable governance.

The parliamentary code requires members of parliament to disclose their private financial interests to the registrar of members' interests annually. Members of cabinet and MECs are required by the Executive Members' Ethics Act of 1998 and the code of ethics of 2000 to disclose to the designated official in the office of the president or of the premier, whichever the case may be.

Chapter three of the public service code of conduct requires members of the senior management service to annually disclose their private financial interest to the office of the public service commission. In addition, provincial legislatures have also formulated codes of conduct that require members to disclose to either the secretary of the legislature or an appointed commissioner.

The framework for a good ethics regime is in place, but it seems that, as with many pieces of legislation in South Africa, there are hitches in implementation. The recent high-profile cases of elected representatives either failing to disclose or admitting that they had misled parliament serve to highlight some problems.

Currently, the debate has focused on Defence Minister Mosiuoa Lekota's failure to disclose his interests in oil and wine companies that allegedly have dealings with government. Such a failure breaches the inherent trust between an elected representative and the people.

Any failure to disclose inevitably creates the perception, rightly or wrongly, that there has been corruption. The very purpose of disclosure is to prevent a conflict of interest.

The public need to be able to trust that public officials and institutions objectively, ethically and without bias discharge their responsibilities and that any policy is made purely in the public interest. The Lekota case highlights the serious problems of monitoring and reviewing disclosures.

Parliamentary disclosures and the code adopted in essence take a preventative rather than a punitive approach. Disclosures are made to prevent conflicts of interests rather than serving as a "witch-hunt".

The codes are not particularly strong in terms of penalising non-compliance. This seems to follow international trends.

It is clear that parliament itself does not have the resources or the capacity to ascertain whether the disclosures made are accurate or not. It is imperative, therefore, that a vibrant civil society and institutions such as the media monitor and continue to ask questions about disclosure.

The ethics committee's role in ensuring proper implementation of the parliamentary code is crucial.

Certainly, the Winnie Madikizela-Mandela and Tony Yengeni matters have bruised the committee and at times left it divided. The committee now has to decide whether it will call Lekota to account and request that he appear before it in person.

In all likelihood the minister will be fined and chastised by the committee. The accountability imperative may be served better should the meeting be open to the public. In terms of the parliamentary joint rules, when the committee sits to consider a case, the meeting is closed to the public.

While the minister has the right to put his case before the committee, the public also have the right to know first-hand what he has said in defence. In addition, this may serve to deter others from non-disclosure. If the aim is to restore public trust, opening up the meeting as far as possible could certainly serve to foster a sense of transparency and openness.

Of course, the matter may not end with the parliamentary committee investigation. The minister is also obliged to disclose interests in terms of the Executive Members' Ethics Act. The act states clearly that on receipt of a complaint by the president, a minister or member of the national assembly, or a member of the public, the public protector may investigate a possible breach of the act's provisions.

Implementation of the act has never been tested, however. It is difficult to speculate whether the public protector will be called upon to investigate this matter. Apart from the disclosure that must now happen, the public also need to know what material effect the conflicts of interest had. This could require calling on the public protector's intervention.

In order to deal with a growing public perception of an increase in corruption, implementation of the ethics laws and codes of conduct need to be taken seriously by the implementing agencies. Failure to do so has adverse implications not only for public trust in their elected representatives, but also for democracy itself.

With acknowledgements to Lorato Banda and the Cape Times.