Parliament of Republic of South Africa vs Hon F Shivambu and 19 others

Meeting report

Mr Randal van Voore, the appointed Initiator, said the witnesses to testify before the Committee were the Head of ICT in Parliament, the Sergeant at Arms, the Deputy Chief Whip of the majority party and the Chief Whip of the Opposition Party — who was attending the funeral of the late MP Mr Watson. Further witnesses to testify were the Minister of State Security and the Minister of telecommunications and Postal Services who were in Luanda and South Korea until the 26 and 28 of October respectively.

First Witness-Head of ICT Parliament of the Republic of South Africa
Mr van Voore said during the questioning of the witness, Mr Masibulele Xaso, Secretary of the House, it was raised that the “the talk button” might not had been working properly on 21 August. One needed to clarify the state of the equipment, if the equipment was checked and whether compliance certificates were issued after checking. It was against this background that Mr Ravi Poliah, the Head of ICT at Parliament, was called.

 The Chairperson said Rule 138(a) requires the presiding officer of an inquiry to inform the witness that:

“Please be informed that by law you are required to answer fully and satisfactorily all questions lawfully put to you, or to produce any document that you are requirement to produce, in connection with the subject matter of the inquiry notwithstanding the fact that answer or the document could incriminate you or expose you to criminal or civil proceedings or damages. You are, however, protected in that evidence given under oath or affirmation before a House or Committee may not be used against you in any court or place outside Parliament, except in criminal proceedings concerning a charge of perjury or a charge relating to the evidence or documents required in these proceedings”.

The Chairperson asked if Mr Poliah had any objection against taking the affirmation/oath.

Before he could take an oath, the speaking equipment in the Committee room became dysfunctional and the Committee was suspended for more than forty minutes for the engineers to attend to the equipment.

On resumption, Mr Ravi Poliah, Chief Information Officer, Parliament, said that he did not have any objection. He said “I swear that the evidence that I am going is the truth and so God help me”

Mr van Voore asked Mr Poliah in which capacity was he employed in Parliament.

Mr Poliah replied he had been the ICT section manager for ten years.

Mr van Voore asked Mr Poliah to explain his duties and responsibilities.

Mr Poliah replied he manages a team of managers and technicians that were responsible for IT systems and audio video equipment in parliament.

Mr van Voore asked how many people worked under Mr Poliah, to which he responded 65.

Mr van Voore asked about the testing of equipment in the National Assembly.

Mr Poliah replied that the National Assembly system had a number of subsystems integrated together into a single chamber system. The audio system allows members to speak, the interpretation system which allows member to be heard in the language of their choice, the voting system and the 'to talk' system, the IT system, the information, the request for services system and the backup system. There were 400 units in the National Assembly excluding the Speaker and staff table

Mr van Voore asked how regularly testing routines were done on the system.

Mr Poliah replied that in the National Assembly, testing was done every week on Monday; a comprehensive test was done on each and every piece of equipment in the House, network, every button, the speakers. Two engineers are in the chamber at every sitting. This was a thorough system check and evaluation. Before every sitting, similar tests were done, not thorough as on Monday. The cameras were tested. When satisfied, a report was produced stating there was no fault.

Mr van Voore asked if the staff were assisted by any staff outside Parliament.

Mr Poliah replied they were assisted by a private contractor who designed the system.

Mr van Voore asked when the system was installed

Mr Poliah replied it was commissioned in February 2014 which meant, in other words, it was brand new.

Mr van Voore asked if Mr Poliah was aware of the standard operating procedure in the National Assembly.

Mr Poliah replied that that was the bible which involved a step by step guide in testing the equipment in the House, if there was any malfunctions, it provides guidelines to rectify them

Mr van Voore asked if the ICT was aware of the bible “the standard operating procedure in the National Assembly”.

Mr Poliah replied the bible provides a step by step guide in testing equipment. If a fault was discovered, the engineers refer to it to rectify the fault.

Mr van Voore asked the time tests were done, if there was a sitting

Mr Poliah replied the National Assembly sitting usually start at 14:00. Tests were done any time before 10am and completed by 12 noon.

Mr van Voore asked where the engineers got their replacement equipment should there be any fault discovered.

Mr Poliah replied it depended on the nature of the fault. The engineers will refer to standard process in the memo which tells exactly how to rectify it and replace it if necessary. Spare parts were kept in the precinct of parliament to ensure that the members’ equipment was functional.

Mr van Voore asked what happens if no fault was reported.

Mr Poliah replied that a report was attached, if there was no fault it will be highlighted as green. If there was a fault it was highlighted as orange or red depending on the severity of the fault and then one makes comments on what the nature of the fault was.

Mr van Voore asked him to explain the National Assembly power check list.

Mr Poliah replied this was a sign off checklist for the chamber by engineers after checking the equipment. On the day of the sitting, the National Assembly was powered to check if it was working well. The equipment operates at a certain temperature and the checking starts with the air conditioners, the request service, the 'to talk' button, then the touch screen of members and the speakers, the Speaker’s table, the sitting software used by table staff, the power computer, the voting system, the printing system, the reporting dash board.

Mr van Voore asked if a check list was done on 19 August.

Mr Poliah replied it was done and no fault was reported. It was a pre-sitting test.

Mr van Voore asked what the green bar signified in the report of 21 August 2014.

Mr Poliah replied it meant no fault was reported. If a fault was detected, there would be a comment section detailing the nature of the fault and what was done to rectify it.

Mr van Voore asked if on 26 August the system was checked.

Mr Poliah replied it was the first pre-sitting after 21 August and no issue were indentified.

Mr van Voore asked what happens should equipment develop a fault during the first hour of 21 August. Was there any report that showed that there was faulty equipment that required attention from the staff?

Mr Poliah replied if an error develops during the sitting, it was logged in. There was change management procedure and the engineers would follow the standard operating procedure to rectify the system.

Mr van Voore asked if he was aware of any fault on the equipment reported on 21 August that required replacement or any other intervention.

Mr Poliah replied he was not aware of any fault.

Mr van Voore asked if similar tests were done for the Speaker's table and the table staff

Mr Poliah replied the integrated nature of the system requires that the team tests both the Members units and the Speaker’s table and the table staff.

Mr van Voore asked Mr Poliah to explain the power-up general system health check procedure.

Mr Poliah replied that the chamber was started in a particular way. Each component was started one at a time. An electronic system starts the chamber. The audio visual was tested, the amplifiers were switched on and other components in the back end of the House were started. The powering up was a methodical process.

Mr van Voore asked for an explanation on what was done to ensure the voting system validation process was working properly.

Mr Poliah replied that once the National Assembly was powered up, one engineer goes to the staff table where there was a system test box, the other engineer goes around the chamber testing each voting system by testing the yes/no buttons. They will note which buttons are not working thereby testing the integrity of the voting system. The engineers go around the Members' desks pushing one button after the other, testing the voting system.

Mr van Voore asked if this was done on Monday and the pre-sitting testing.

Mr Poliah replied that this was done on a Monday and every pre-sitting session.

Mr van Voore asked if similar tests were done on the microphones.

Mr Poliah replied that on Monday a through and detailed testing was done to ensure that the audio in the chamber was operating properly. Tests were done to speakers and the microphone on the Speaker’s table. On a pre-sitting test, the microphones were tested for audio quality and clarity. The audio system was connected to the interpretation system. The system in the chamber operates as a collective.

Mr van Voore asked him to explain the standard operating procedure on replacement of the 'to talk' buttons on Monday and the pre-sitting tests.

Mr Poliah replied that the Monday check looks not only at each individual system, but also at the hardware. A specific process was followed in testing the equipment. When Members press the 'to talk'  system, only ten were displayed on the Speaker’s screen and she had top scroll down to see the others. The engineers tests the 'to talk'  system in groups of twenties until they finish the House.

Mr van Voore asked on which screen those names appear.

Mr Poliah replied that there were two screens in the chamber, one on table staff and the other on the Speaker’s screen. The names appear in the order in which they were pushed.

Mr van Voore asked what happens when the Members dispute that he/she was first to press the button

Mr Poliah replied that the design of the system was that a Member who pushes the button first, his/her name appears first. The electronic equipment operates in micro seconds and the difference between the Members on who pushed the button first was captured in micro seconds. The system records the actual time the Member pushed the button.

Mr van Voore asked if his office received reports that the equipment was malfunctioning on 21 August.

Mr Poliah replied that he was unaware of any report. Of the tests on Monday and the day of the sitting, no errors were reported.

Mr van Voore asked what may happen to the 'to talk'  button if it was not working.

Mr Poliah replied that it may be either that the button was not working or the cable that connects the button to the system. Anything can happen to the equipment.

Mr van Voore asked if the category of 'anything can happen' was captured in the tests.

Mr Poliah replied that it would be picked up and there was a management system that can pick up if the button was faulty or the cable.

Mr van Voore asked who replaces faulty equipment in the chamber.

Mr Poliah replied that it can be an engineer of Parliament or the contractor and the replacement procedure was well documented in the operating annual. Anyone can do the replacement by following procedures. Sufficient spares parts were kept on site

Mr van Voore asked when was the old system in the chamber installed before the new one was installed in February 2014

Mr Poliah replied that it was installed in 2003 and was about 10 to 11 years old.

Mr van Voore asked how the cameras in the House operate.

Mr Poliah replied that there were five cameras in the House operated remotely. In the third floor, there was a control room which control the sharpness and focus.

Mr asked what ENG camera means.

Mr Poliah replied that it stand for electronic news gathering. It means that the camera was operated from the shoulder of a person. It was used from time to time for broadcast and archiving.

There were no further questions from Mr van Voore for the witness.

Discussion
Dr A Lotriet (DA) asked if he had ever tested more than 20 'to talk'  buttons at the same time even, up to 100. She asked who logs a fault and when was it addressed. On 21 August, there were incidents of the 'to talk'  button not working and she asked whether it was reported. She asked who switched off the audio on 21 August. She asked if the Speaker has equipment to disable other Members' equipment.

Mr M Filtane (UDM) said the sign off document indicated 7 hours, but Mr Poliah had indicated that tests were done from 10 00 to 12 00 hours. He asked why there were no reported malfunctions when in reality they existed. He said the sign off document made provision for three signatures, two of them engineers but it was signed by one person. He asked about the rate at which the system sequences names on the Speaker’s table.

Mr Mncwango (IFP) asked who operated the cameras on 21 August and whether they were working properly. He asked why the cameras were fixed in a particular direction to the extent that they do not reflect what was happening in the House as a whole. He asked if there were engineers in the House on the day in question and whether the Speaker’s equipment was working well on the same day. He asked if he was aware that some of the 'requests to speak' buttons were not working.

Mr Poliah replied that that the system was tested and was capable of handling 400 requests. It was tested using all staff from Parliament when it was installed. Two engineers were always on site who simultaneously monitor the proceedings of the House. If there was a faulty, immediately after the meeting, it was attended to. If engineers discover that it was faulty, it was logged. He did not have a record that any equipment was faulty on 21 August. The Hansard section requested to turn off the audio. The Speaker does not have equipment to disable Members' equipment. The standard operating procedure was kept as an electronic version and was used for testing equipment in the House. The number of hours were counted from the time testing was done to the end of the sitting. The sign off document was signed by head of the service desk. Sometimes it was difficult to have them sign after the sitting, but got briefed that everything was in order. He was not given the rate at which the equipment calibrates who spoke in seconds from the contractor because this was information related to intellectual property. The difference in the arrangement of names on the Speaker’s desk was a matter of micro seconds—very minute seconds and the clock speed was measured in gigahertz. The standard operating procedure of the House was kept in electronic format because the engineers like their trees. The cameras were operational. This was the first time the chamber had experienced such an event and the human element of the one operating the camera had to capture the mode. Engineers were always on site - one sits in the Hansard section. The engineer notes if any equipment is faulty. The engineers can only check any reported faulty equipment after the House has adjourned. They were not allowed to walk in when the House was sitting. On the Monday preceding Thursday 21 August, a thorough check was done and no fault was reported, so was the pre-sitting test.

Mr D Twala (EFF) said the camera focused on a group of people and robbed the Committee of the holistic view. He asked if there was any alternative to the video submitted so that the Committee can have a holistic view.

Mr S Esau (DA) said there were emails sent amongst the engineers on 21 August which were not clear. The Secretary of Parliament had admitted before the Committee that some of the equipment was not working but this was not logged in. He asked what happens when all people press and want to speak at the same time.

Dr Lotriet asked why the audio was switched off and who gave such instruction.

Mr Poliah replied that that all the video footage was submitted to the Committee. The Secretary of the House should have informed the engineers. The engineers should have discovered the fault on Monday and before the sitting. The pre testing did not report any fault. The email was an example of a subject line to log a call and the receiver will know what needed to be referred to. The 400 units were once tested simultaneously. The audio was switched off from instruction from the table staff. Up to five people can speak at the same time. Only 10 names of people display on the Speaker’s list. The microphones operated differently from the 'to talk'  system.

Mr Twala said the video evidence robbed the Committee as it did not reflect what happened in the House as a collective.

Mr B Bongo (ANC) said Mr Twala was raising a superfluous point as he was advancing an argument.

Dr Lotriet asked who requested switching off the audio.

Mr Mncwango asked if there were engineers on site on 21 August and whether the Speaker’s equipment was working well. He had a problem with the equipment on his desk.

Mr Bongo said Mr Mncwango was supposed to listen attentively to the witness and he was not reasoning.

The Chairperson ordered Mr Bongo to withdraw—which he did.

Mr Poliah replied that an engineer was on site. The checking test report did not report any fault.

Mr Filtane asked the witness to confirm that he did not have first hand information on what transpired in the House and just had second-hand information of reports from his subordinates.

Mr M Mdakane (ANC) said it was important to reserve other questions for deliberation as politicians, as the witness was not part of the Committee.

Mr Twala said the witness was an expert in his field and he was supposed to move the Committee to an informed decision.

Mr Poliah replied that that the instruction to switch off the audio came from the Hansard section. The Speaker’s equipment was tested and five cameras were operational. Guidelines were given to operators to simply broadcast what happens in the House. He was not in the House on 21 August as it was a delegated function. There were four engineers on site—two from Parliament and two from the contractor.

Mr Twala asked the purpose for compiling footage in the House.

Mr Poliah replied that the broadcast was sent to both domestic and international broadcasters and anyone who requests it. It was also for archiving purposes. It was also posted on Parliament's you tube channel.

Mr Mdakane asked if he was made aware that certain audio equipment was not working because he had a problem with his equipment.

Mr Poliah replied that there was an audio unit manager who reports to him on a daily basis.

Mr Mncwango asked if there was any fault with the 'to talk'  button because his was not working.

Mr Poliah replied that the staff indicated that a Member had said in the House that his equipment was not working.

The Chairperson and Mr van Voore thanked Mr Poliah for appearing before the Committee.

Second witness - Sergeant at Arms
Mr van Voore said the next witness was Ms Regina Mohlomi, the Sergeant at Arms, Parliament of the Republic of South Africa

The Chairperson said Rule 138(a) of the Assembly requires the presiding officer of an inquiry to inform the witness that:
“Please be informed that by law you are required to answer fully and satisfactorily all questions lawfully put to you, or to produce any document that you are requirement to produce, in connection with the subject matter of the inquiry notwithstanding the fact that answer or the document could incriminate you or expose you to criminal or civil proceedings or damages. You are, however, protected in that evidence given under oath or affirmation before a House or Committee may not be used against you in any court or place outside Parliament, except in criminal proceedings concerning a charge of perjury or a charge relating to the evidence or documents required in these proceedings”.

The Chairperson asked Ms Mohlomi if she had any objection take an affirmation or an oath, to which she said no.

Ms Mohlomi said “I confirm that the testimony or evidence that I am going to give is the truth and only truth can bind me on my conscience”.

Mr van Voore asked Ms Mhlomi to confirm that she was employed as Sergeant at Arms at Parliament, which she did.

Mr van Voore asked when she started her job.

Ms Mohlomi replied that she started in 2007 and her job was Undersecretary of the House.

Mr van Voore asked her when she started as Sergeant at Arms.

Ms Mohlomi replied that in 2010 when the previous sergeant went on retirement. In Parliament, Sergeant at Arms was reserved for senior staff at Parliament.

Mr van Voore asked if she was in the chamber on 21 August in the session of questions and answers to the President, and she confirmed.

Mr van Voore asked if she sat at a particular place in the House.

Ms Mohlomi replied that she sits at the bench on the left hand side at the back of the House, opposite the presiding officer who will be in front. It was the back of the House because the Speaker’s table was the front of the House.

The video footage was played.

Mr van Voore asked if she was in the House when the Speaker said she was going to call the Sergeant at Arms to remove members of the EFF and Ms Mohlomi replied that she was.

The video was played and the Speaker could be heard saying she was calling the Sergeant at Arms to remove Members who were not serious.

Mr van Voore asked her what she did when the Speaker said she was calling the Sergeant at Arms.

Ms Mohlomi replied that she moved to where the EFF Members were seated.

Mr van Voore asked her if she had a conversation with Mr Ndlozi.

Mr Mohlomi said she did not have a conversation with him, but told him that the Speaker had spoken—but she did not get any response.

Mr van Voore asked what she told Mr Malema.

Ms Mohlomi replied that she spoke to him in Sepedi that the presiding officer had spoken, please leave the House and he replied that that he was not going to leave. She pleaded with him that she will call security to which Mr Malema replied call them.

Mr van Voore asked her if she persisted with Mr Malema.

Ms Mohlomi replied that she went out to communicate with the head of Parliamentary Security after realising she was unsuccessful.

Mr van Voore asked if she managed to communicate with the section manager for security.

Ms Mohlomi replied that when she went out, she did not see the section manager, but she saw some security officials outside the House. She was anxious not to go very far away from the House and returned immediately.

Mr van Voore asked her who was the Speaker referring to when she said help relieve Members who were not serious

Ms Mohlomi replied that she thought she was referring to Members of the EFF who were disrupting the proceedings of the House. Her concern was not about their seriousness or not, but about obeying the Speaker’s instruction.

Mr van Voore asked if she was in the House during the shorter and longer adjournment.

Ms Mohlomi replied that she was in the House and only left for a few minutes to go to the rest room.

Mr van Voore asked her if she was not involved in calling the police into the House.

Ms Mohlomi said no.

Mr van Voore asked her if part of her work involves interacting with the police.

Ms Mohlomi replied that she works with the police because they were responsible for security on the premises of Parliament. For every sitting, members of the dog unit come to “sweep the House” on the ground floor and gallery. Once that had been done, no one was allowed to enter the chamber. The police were around the chamber all the time. She interacts with them here and there.

Mr van Voore asked her what she was doing with the other Members of the House as was shown in the video footage played.

Ms Mohlomi replied that she was restraining some Members who had said they wanted to get the EFF Members. She told them that the media was recording everything and it was not advisable for them to approach the EFF Members.

Mr van Voore asked her if the EFF Members left the House when the House was suspended.

Ms Mohlomi replied that the EFF as a collective remained in the House during the adjournment.

Mr van Voore had no further questions for the Sergeant at Arms.

Discussion
Mr Esau asked Ms Mohlomi at what stage did Parliamentary Security/ Police come in the chamber as there was a difference between the two, with Parliament being a National Key Point.

Dr Lotriet asked her who had the prerogative to call Parliamentary Security between her and the Speaker.

Mr Filtane asked if she had the authority to remove Members from the House after adjournment.

Mr Twala asked her how many people were standing in the House when she had the interaction with Members of the EFF.

Mr Mncwango asked her why she approached Mr Ndlozi when the Speaker said assist with removing Members who were not serious.

Ms Mohlomi replied that that she cannot say with certainty when the South African Police Service (SAPS) entered the chamber. The Secretary of the House was the one who interacted with the Legal Services of the National Assembly. She saw SAPS members standing in the House. The Sergeant at Arms does not have the authority to remove Members from the House unless instructed by the Speaker. After adjournment, the instruction for Members of the EFF to leave the House was issued before adjournment. She follows instruction from the Speaker. She approached Mr Ndlozi because he is the spokesperson of the EFF and then proceeded to the leader of the EFF, Mr Malema. She does not know how many Members were standing; she approached the EFF because that was where the Speaker was pointing with her finger.

Mr Filtane asked her if she got any further instruction to remove Members after the House was suspended for the first time by the Speaker. He asked if she had authority to remove Members after the House was suspended.

Mr Twala asked her to clarify the name of a senior SAPS official who was in the House when the video was played.

Mr Esau asked if she followed her job description when SAPS members entered the House without the Speaker’s instruction and her instruction too.

Mr M Booi said the way Mr Esau asked the question was inappropriate

Mr Mncwango said when the Sergeant went out to call the security she was followed by officials from SAPS. He asked if this was the security she went to call or the officials were just exploiting her situation.

Ms Mohlomi replied that that she was not sure if the suspension removed her previous instruction to remove the EFF Members from the House. The Speaker said she was suspending the House so that Members can be removed. It was difficult for her to remove them as there were many Members standing screaming and shouting. Previously when the Speaker instructed a Member to leave the House, the Members simply complied. There was a relationship between the security of Parliament and SAPS but she expected Parliament security to enter the House. When she went out of the House, the intention was for the Protection Services to follow her.

Ms Kilian asked if she had ever been called to remove a Member in an event of such grave disorder.

Ms Mohlomi replied that she did not know who the senior SAPS official was as she just knows Captain de Klerk who was the head of police in Parliament. She had never removed Members in an event of such intensity.

Mr Mncwango asked that when the Speaker instructed her to remove Members who were not serious----was she going to remove the whole EFF membership and whether she succeeded or not.

Ms Kilian said the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act states when the police can enter of the House. She asked if that explains her role was just to remove Members from the House and the police could enter at any time in the circumstances described in the Act.

Mr Filtane asked when she feels obligated to call SAPS rather than the Protection Services of Parliament.

Mr M Mdakane asked for her understanding of what happened in the House on 21 August when called by the Speaker to remove Members who were not serious. Parliament was a National Key Point and the police were always around.

Mr Booi asked about her relationships with members of SAPS within the precinct of Parliament.

Ms Mohlomi replied that her understanding was that Members of the EFF were standing up and shouting at different intervals. There were a good number of them standing. It was difficult for her to pinpoint who was supposed to be removed. The role of the Sergeant at Arms at the Parliament was different. Traditionally, the role involved support to the presiding officer, issuing of gallery tickets, managing the group of people responsible for security at Parliament. This changed with the establishment of Parliament Protection Services. The person to call security services was now the role of the section manager of security services. She was obligated to call SAPS when she observes something that needed their intervention even though the first point of call maybe Protection Services.

Mr Twala asked the significance of the mace in Parliament.

Mr Mncwango said he did not observe any role played by Parliamentary Security on the day in question. He asked how secure Parliament as a National Key Point was if such an event could take place with the security not taking any role.

Ms Mohlomi replied that three people from Protection Services were outside the chamber from the start of events but were just awaiting an instruction in terms of their operating procedure. The mace was inherited from the Westminster system showing the authority of the Speaker.

The Chairperson and Mr van Voore thanked the Sergeant at Arms for appearing before the Committee.

Third Witness - Deputy Chief Whip of The Majority Party
The Chairperson said he received an affidavit from the Minister of State Security which read that on 21 August, he was in the chamber during the short adjournment of the House. He and Dr Cwele approached Hon Malema and Hon Shivambu who are the leaders of the EFF. They tried to negotiate with the two to cooperate to avoid any unnecessary scuffle with Parliamentary Protection Services. The two refused their plea vowing that even if the session was to resume, they were going to continue where they had left off. He and Dr Cwele left when it became clear that their plea was not favourably received. The affidavit was signed and stamped at the South African embassy in Luanda.

Mr van Voore said the next witness was Ms Doris Dlakude, the Deputy Chief Whip of the ANC.

The Chairperson said Rule 138 (a) of the Assembly requires the presiding officer of an inquiry to inform the witness that:
“Please be informed that by law you are required to answer fully and satisfactorily all questions lawfully put to you, or to produce any document that you are requirement to produce, in connection with the subject matter of the inquiry notwithstanding the fact that answer or the document could incriminate you or expose you to criminal or civil proceedings or damages. You are, however, protected in that evidence given under oath or affirmation before a House or Committee may not be used against you in any court or place outside Parliament, except in criminal proceedings concerning a charge of perjury or a charge relating to the evidence or documents required in these proceedings”.

The Chairperson asked if she had any objection take an affirmation or an oath.

The Chairperson asked if Ms Dlakude wanted to take an oath or affirmation—and she preferred an oath.

Ms Dlakude said “I swear that the testimony I am going to give is the only truth and only the truth, so help me God”

Mr van Voore asked Ms Dlakude the position she occupies in Parliament.

Ms Dlakude replied she was the Deputy Chief Whip of the majority party.

Mr van Voore asked her if she was in Parliament on 21 August and Ms Dlakude replied that she was.

Mr van Voore asked her to explain her role in Parliament.

Ms Dlakude replied that her responsibility was to ensure there was order in the House and uphold the decorum of the House.

Mr van Voore asked if the Chief Whip was present in the House on 21 August.

Ms Dlakude replied that the Chief Whip of the majority party was on sick leave.

Mr van Voore asked about her role in the meeting of the whips which was held when there was the suspension of the House on 21 August.

Ms Dlakude replied that she convened the meeting of the Chief Whips.

Mr van Voore asked what led her to call that meeting.

Ms Dlakude replied that Chief Whips call each other on matters that concern the House.

Mr van Voore asked her to explain what transpired at the meeting of whips.

Ms Dlakude replied that Chief Whips of parties were concerned of the events that unfolded in the House. They agreed that the House could not be held to ransom by members of the EFF and they agreed to proceed with the business of the House.

Mr van Voore asked her to explain the steps she took after the meeting.

Ms Dlakude replied that she got advice from the staff of Parliament that the security required them to remove their members from the House so that it could remove Members of the EFF from the chamber.

Mr van Voore asked the venue of the meeting.

Ms Dlakude replied that Chief Whips boardroom was Room V16.

Mr van Voore asked the steps she took after the meeting.

Ms Dlakude replied that she went to brief the Speaker.

Ms van Voore asked if she was able to remove members from the chamber.

Ms Dlakude replied that as she walked towards the chamber, members were moving back into the chamber. The Speaker had already resumed her seat and Ms Mohlomi briefed her on the outcome of the meeting. The Speaker told her that she was going to adjourn the House to avoid Members of the EFF from being forcibly removed from the chamber.

Mr van Voore asked if the other whips were easily accessible to go to the meeting

Ms Dlakude replied that as Chief Whips, they met every Wednesday, and consulted each other on business of the week. The venue was always accessible.

Mr van Voore asked the practical steps she took to get the whips together

Ms Dlakude replied that after the Speaker suspended the House for the second time, she informed the Speaker that she was going to call a meeting of the whips in Mr Xaso’s office and all the whips were standing in the corridors.

Mr van Voore asked if there was a meeting of whips on the Wednesday preceding 21 August.

Ms Dlakude replied that all the whips were present in that meeting.

Mr van Voore asked if there was anything that gave a suspicion of something untoward happening on 21 August.

Ms Dlakude replied that there was none.

The video footage was played.

Mr van Voore asked to explain her involvement as was shown in the video.

Ms Dlakude replied that she was engaging the Speaker. The other Members were saying that Members must take their seats.

Mr van Voore asked if anyone suggested in the whips meeting that the Police be called to remove Members of the EFF from the House.

Ms Dlakude replied no. She said the meeting focussed on how to proceed with the business of the House.

Mr van Voore asked if she had given any instruction to SAPS instructing them to remove Members of the EFF.

Ms Dlakude replied no.

Mr van Voore did not have any further questions for Ms Dlakude

Discussion
Dr Lotriet asked Ms Dlakude to confirm that the whips were in agreement to proceed with the session on the day in question.

Ms Dlakude confirmed this. The meeting agreed that it was not going to be held to ransom by Members of the EFF.

Mr Filtane said the whips agreed to continue with the business of the House and the Speaker chose to adjourn the House. He asked her to explain the role of the whips vis-à-vis that of the Speaker.

Ms Dlakude replied that the whips forum does not take decision that binds the Speaker. The whips try to sell whatever they agree on to the Speaker. The Speaker was the presiding officer of the House.

Ms Kilian asked if there was any decision reached at the whips forum meeting for the Speaker to proceed with the House.

Ms Dlakude replied that all the whips were upset about what had happened in the House. Members were expected to behave in a manner that was acceptable in the House; hence the title Honourable. There were rules, conventions and procedures of the House that must be respected. When the Speaker suspended the House, she called security. The whips were of the idea that by the time the whip meeting ends, the security would have removed Members of the EFF from the chamber. The role of Members was to change the lives of people they represent.

Mr Mncwango said the whips were taken aback by the Speaker’s decision to adjourn the House. However, when the Speaker adjourned the House she said that she had been in consultation with other parties to decide on the programme of the day and then she adjourned the House. This ran contrary to the decision of the whips. There was no correlation between the decision of the whips and the Speaker. He asked if the Speaker called Parliamentary Security to remove Members of the EFF, and whether the EFF members were removed from the House, if not why not,

Ms Dlakude replied that the Speaker does not sit in the whips forum and does not take decisions. The Speaker called security as indicated in the Hansard. The Speaker had decided to reconvene the House so as to adjourn it because she did not want Members being forcefully removed from the House.

Mr Mdakane asked how many whips attended the meeting in terms of the parties. He asked her opinion of what happened in the House on 21 August.

Ms Dlakude replied that the whips of all the political parties were there except the EFF whip who was in the House. At the preceding Wednesday meeting, the EFF was represented and its whips always attend the whips forum meetings. During her office in Parliament, she had never seen such a shocking and embarrassing situation as on the day in question.

Mr Filtane said Rule 56 clearly states that in the event of grave disorder, the presiding officer may adjourn the House. He asked why the whips bothered to meet when the decision rested with the Speaker.

Ms Dlakude replied that whips have the responsibility of upholding the decorum of the House and ensuring that its members behave honourably. The whips meeting was convened to share the pain that they were not going to be hold to ransom by the EFF.

Mr Bongo asked if the whips in the meeting of 21 August agreed that the behaviour of the EFF was in contempt of Parliament.

Ms Dlakude replied that the feeling was mutual and the whips spoke with one voice.

Mr Twala asked why the Speaker chose to adjourn the House when the whips were in agreement that it must continue.

Ms Dlakude replied that the whips' decisions were not binding. The Speaker as the presiding officer decides.

Mr Filtane said he understood well the meaningless nature of the whips forum decision about the House. He asked if she was aware of any procedural steps that might have been taken for events similar to what happened on 21 August. He noticed that on 21 August, many people with authority in Parliament did not coordinate to try to calm the situation.

The Chairperson said it was unfair for Members to expect witnesses to teach them on procedure.

Ms Dlakude replied that other than what was prescribed in rules, procedures and conventions, she was not aware of any other procedures

Mr Mdakane said it was important for Mr Filtane to understand the role of the whips. He asked Ms Dlakude to explain what exactly she meant when she said the feeling was mutual, mutual happy, mutual sad, mutual what?

Ms Dlakude replied that the whips were upset in the meeting because they felt their rights to change the lives of people who had deployed them in Parliament, were violated.

Mr Mncwango (IFP) said the IFP Chief Whip said that the responses to the questions put to the President were not treated seriously.

Ms Kilian asked if the above comment was made in the meeting of the whips by the IFP whip.

Ms Dlakude replied that the IFP said none.

The Chairperson said that Members had exhausted all questions. He thanked Ms Dlakude for having travelled from Pretoria to appear before the Committee.

The meeting was adjourned.