When parliament officially opens next month, it will do so against the backdrop of a crisis of perception.

At the time of writing, the Scorpions were about to arrest 40 MPs, 27 of these still active members of the house. After months of stating that arrests were "imminent", there is some movement on the matter. The full import of these arrests will not be known until the legal process is complete and the full body of evidence is laid bare. Until then the tawdry matter will remain in the public consciousness.

The way in which the prosecuting authority will deal with the matter will be crucial. The public will need to be satisfied that justice has been done and that those who are guilty of wrongdoing have received the appropriate sanction - and that plea bargains will not be the order of the day.

Already this option has been mentioned. While it must be acknowledged that plea bargaining is a legitimate and swift way of dispensing with criminal matters, there is a risk that the public will see blanket attempts at plea bargaining as a less than desirable form of holding those with influence or power to account.

Indeed, if the public outcry over the plea bargain with Mark Thatcher is anything to go by, there is bound to be unhappiness if MPs enter into wholesale plea bargains.

At the very least if plea bargains are entered into there should be full disclosure as well an an appropriate, serious sanction levelled against the relevant MPs.

Once MPs are charged the status quo remains. Section 47 of the Constitution is tightly worded and disqualifies someone from being a member of the National Assembly only when that person is convicted of an offence and sentenced to more than 12 months' imprisonment without the option of a fine. No-one may be regarded as having been sentenced until an appeal against the conviction or sentence has been determined, or until the time for an appeal has expired. Parliament therefore has a limited role until the trials (or plea bargaining) of relevant MPs have been finalised.

Until then it will be left to individual political parties to decide whether to suspend MPs who are charged.

A case could be made for suspension once charged. However, the consequences of such suspension would need to be thought through carefully. Members are innocent until proven guilty; what would the consequences be on proportionality within committees, for instance?

However, on the other hand, what will the consequences be for the effective workings of parliament as accused MPs shuttle between parliament, court and meetings with lawyers?

At the moment it appears as if the parties will await the outcome of trials and plea bargaining processes before acting against members.

Conceivably, unless all the elements of Section 47 of the Constitution are met, MPs do not have to lose their jobs should they have entered into plea bargains. It would surely, in the latter case, be incumbent on political parties to take appropriate disciplinary action which could involve MPs losing their seats.

Since several travel agents have been arrested and their companies liquidated, MPs have entered into acknowledgments of debt to repay amounts to parliament. It would be helpful for parliament to explain the contents of such agreements as well as the nature of the liability being extinguished. Such settlements of debt would not preclude criminal prosecution although the fact that individuals have agreed to repay parliament may be taken into account during sentencing should a criminal prosecution be made against an individual.

The National Directorate of Public Prosecutions may, of course, agree not to pursue charges against individuals in exchange for their settlement of the debt. Again, there is no certainty regarding the status and the content of these acknowledgments of debt.

Parliament will need to communicate with the public on this aspect as well as the details of the overhaul of the travel voucher system. How can the public be reassured that such breaches of the system will not occur again?

By clear communication with the public on these issues, parliament can, in part, perhaps regain the trust of citizens and recapture its central role as an agent of delivery.

There are, however, several other issues which are competing for parliament's attention at present. The allegations that the arms deal report was "edited" have again arisen. Will the Public Accounts Committee begin to wrestle with the documents which overlooked tenderer Richard Young has in his possession?

The mandate of parliament in this instance is clear, whether it will act remains within the committee's discretion. If it does not, parliament again risks being caught on the backfoot when Young eventually brings his civil suit for damages, as he no doubt will.

In addition, the cabinet announced late last year that it had signed letters of intent to purchase more aircraft from Airbus. Some are calling this the second arms deal. Whatever it is, the executive should be held to account regarding the details of the proposed purchases.

The public has the right to know what resources are being committed to this deal and on what basis the government proposes to contract. The cross-party parliamentary task team on oversight, which met again on Friday last week, had a crucial task in defining how parliament could beef up its oversight role over the executive. For deli-very over the next five years depends as much on an effective oversight role for parliament as it does on the executive to roll out plans of action.

The people have placed overwhelming trust in our democratic institutions and as such clothed them with legitimacy. Parliament therefore will need to act decisively to use 2005 to send out the correct messages and lead the way in giving content to transparency, openness and accountability.

Failing which, the opening of parliament next month will merely be a showcase of form over substance.

Judith February is head of the Political Information and Monitoring Service (Pims) at Idasa

With acknowledgements to Judith February and The Star.