The parliamentary ethics committee's credibility may have been affected by the manner in which it dealt with the Minister of Defence Mosiua Lekota.

May 21 was the day on which the punishment was handed out to him following newspaper revelations of his undeclared business interests.

The ethics committee is, lest we forget, not the only body whose credibility and worth is under the microscope.

The supreme governing body of world political affairs, the United Nations (UN), is still dusting itself off following the humiliating knockdown it received courtesy of the U.S.'s George Bush and Britain's Tony Blair.

All this talk of the UN emerging stronger after the Iraq invasion is undergoing a litmus test. The test comes in the form of developments in the Great Lakes region where ethnic-driven conflict continues.

The test has arisen because, firstly, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is in Africa but is mineral rich.

Secondly, a plea was made by President Thabo Mbeki for the intervention of the UN in the DRC to deal with a situation that was quickly getting out of hand.

This ensures that the UN has no lame excuse, as was the case with the 1994 genocide in Rwanda.

Warning signs are supposed to alert one to impending doom if preventive action is not taken.

Regulatory governing bodies are supposed to observe and guide the conduct of individuals and the institutions that fall within their jurisdiction.

Three critical areas need to be considered when questioning the validity of such bodies.

Firstly, it is how swiftly they swing into action when such a call is made.

Secondly, what kind of action or measures do they apply in each case.

And, lastly, how do they measure the seriousness of the case, in the light of the evidence presented.

Consider the following:

When five athletes make it to the national team, they are expected to perform to the best of their abilities.

To do this they have to keep fit through training and they sometimes take supplements.

Some of these supplements can enhance their performance, giving them an unfair advantage over the other athletes.

Hence these substances have been banned and athletes must undergo random doping tests, and declare any substances they may be taking for legitimate reasons. This is the norm in athletics at the highest level.

When an athlete, in this group of five, fails a doping test, which they could have avoided had the supplements taken been declared beforehand to be part of a valid medical condition, eyebrows are raised and there is a sense of "perhaps s/he did not know".

When the second one fails and a third one goes under as well, what kind of reasoning can be forwarded by the fourth one when s/he is found to have taken undeclared supplements.

What defence is used?

Oversight, amnesia or mere ignorance?

Is there a need to hire a neurologist or psychologist to help with the memory of our public representatives?

There are those who will feel that there is a need for these regulatory bodies to show more teeth and be unbiased if they are to retain their credibility in the eyes of those they serve.

Hopefully, no one will suggest that such important structures are mere rubber-stamping authorities for the ruling class. Sceptics will maintain that politics is a game. A game of hide and seek -hide as much as you can.

With acknowledgements to Sibusiso Mboto and The Natal Witness.