Public Enterprises Budget Vote 2019 incident: deliberations on evidence presented

Powers and Privileges of Parliament

04 March 2021
Chairperson: Mr P Mapulane (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Video: Powers and Privileges Committee, 02 March 2021

All Committee Proceedings & Documents

National Assembly Rules
Physical Removal of Member from Chamber on Removal of members from Committee Room E249 during mini-plenary debate on Budget Vote 11: Public Enterprises on 11 July 2019

Hansard: 11 July 2019 & Video
Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliaments and Provincial Legislatures Act 4 of 2004
Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Amendment Act 9 of 2019 

The purpose of this virtual meeting was for the Committee to deliberate on the evidence presented relating to the incident of 11 July 2019 on the Public Enterprises Budget Vote. The incident related to the physical removal of Members of Parliament from the Chamber of the National Assembly during a mini-plenary debate on Budget Vote 11: Public Enterprises.

The Committee has conducted hearings on this incident since 24 November 2020. The Committee remained of the view that the procedure followed in its hearings on this matter is correct in law and in line with the rules of Parliament. The charges against the various implicated EFF Members of Parliament (MPs) were read out. The conduct of the EFF MPs who were found guilty by the Committee prevented the Minister of Public Enterprises from delivering his speech until the MPs were removed by the security services of Parliament.

All the EFF MPs who stormed the stage when the Minister of Public Enterprises, Mr Pravin Gordhan, was delivering a speech on the Budget Vote have been found guilty on several charges of misconduct.

The charges and findings of the Committee were as follows:

  • EFF MP Matiase faced seven charges, including the contravention of law when he wilfully refused and failed to obey the rules of the National Assembly by persisting with a point of order after the presiding officer (whose ruling was final) had ruled that the matter was not a point of order.
  • EFF MPs Ceza, Chabangu, Langa, Madlingozi, Mohlala, Montwedi, Msane, Mthenjani, Paulsen, Shembeni, Siwisa, Sonti, and Tito were found each found guilty on five charges similar to that of which EFF MP Matiase was found to be guilty of.
  • EFF MPs Hlonyana and Komane were found guilty of deliberately engaging in conduct that created serious disruption in the National Assembly when they crossed the floor during the proceedings.

With the exception of the EFF, all Members of the Committee agreed to a finding of guilty against the implicated MPs in the incident from the Budget Vote in July 2019. The implicated MPs will have an opportunity to make representations before the Committee decides on appropriate sanctions.

Meeting report

The Chairperson convened the virtual meeting and welcomed Members and Adv Ncumisa Mayosi, appointed by Parliament as the Initiator for the Committee.

The purpose of this virtual meeting was for the Committee to deliberate on the evidence presented relating the incident of 11 July 2019 on the Public Enterprises Budget Vote. The incident related to the physical removal of a Member of Parliament from the chamber of the National Assembly during a mini-plenary debate on Budget Vote 11: Public Enterprises.

Deliberations on the evidence presented relating to the Budget Vote-incident:

Overview of the incident of 11 July 2019
Adv Mayosi stated that the Committee is mandated, by section 12(1) of the Powers, Privileges, and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act 4 of 2004 (the Powers and Privileges Act), to inquire into and pronouns ‘upon any act or matter declared by or under section 13 to be contempt of Parliament by a Member, and taking the disciplinary action provided therefore’.

With regard to the allegations and charged made against MPs, evidence was led by way of oral and written evidence with reference to the video footage of the incident from which the allegations arose. The Committee has conducted hearings on this incident since 24 November 2020.

Committee deliberations

The Chairperson stated that Members have read the closing arguments as put together by Adv Mayosi, and the Committee proceeded to conduct its deliberations on the incident. As the initiator of the proceedings indicated in a previous meeting, if the Committee finds the charged EFF MPs not guilty then the matter ends here. If the Committee finds the charged MPs guilty, then the next step is to invite them to make a presentation to the Committee. He thanked Adv Mayosi for the closing arguments and stated that she is free to leave the meeting if she wishes to do so.

Ms V Siwela (ANC) supported the recommendations of Adv Mayosi as made in her closing arguments. She stated that Adv Mayosi proposed that the Committee deliberate, and if it finds that the MPs are found guilty as charged, they be invited to make representations regarding appropriate penalty, prior to its imposition.

The Chairperson stated that the Committee must consider each charge against every MP and consider every finding that has been made. It is not a question of whether the Committee agrees with the recommendations made in the closing remarks of Adv Mayosi.

Mr H Hoosen (DA) stated that the Committee should first consider every separate charge, and then conclude on whether there is an agreement with the recommendations made by Adv Mayosi in her closing arguments.

The Chairperson stated that it was not necessary for the Committee to consider every separate charge in detail, as Members were present during the hearings when the charges were read out and the evidence was presented with the implicated MPs in attendance. He stated that the first EFF MP charged was Mr S Matiase (EFF), who faced seven charges relating to the incident of the Budget Vote during July 2019.

Mr Hoosen stated that the comments he wanted to make apply to all MPs who face the same charges. He was satisfied with the Report on the issue. He indicated his support of the recommendations that Mr Matiase is guilty of all seven charges as indicated in Adv Mayosi’s closing arguments.

Ms Siwela concurred with Mr Hoosen, and supported the recommendations made by the initiator. She indicated her support of the recommendations that Mr Matiase is guilty of all seven charges.

Dr M Ndlozi (EFF) reminded the Committee that he has raised questions about the inconsistencies in the evidence presented on these issues throughout the entire process. He stated that there were instances where evidence was entirely absent and unsupportive of the idea that the implicated MPs contravened the rules of Parliament, especially when considering the extensive privileges that MPs enjoy in relation to the rules. There seems to be a consistent tendency to deal with the implicated MPs as a collective. The Report makes no reference to instances where MPs were removed in contravention of the rules of Parliament.

Ms D Peters (ANC) interrupted for clarity on whether Dr Ndlozi referred to the Report currently before the Committee or the Report that was adopted in December 2020 after it was considered by Members.

Dr Ndlozi responded that he was referring to the closing arguments as tabled before the Committee in relation to the events of 11 July 2019. He was not referring to the Report that the Committee adopted in December 2020. He stated that the closing arguments were a very weak interrogation of the evidence presented to Members. There are unaddressed inconsistencies in the evidence before the Committee.

Ms B Maluleke (ANC) raised a point of order. She stated that the way that Dr Ndlozi was presenting himself made it seem as if he is failing to speak to the information contained in the closing arguments. It rather appeared as if he acted as the legal representative for the MPs who have been charged. She reminded Dr Ndlozi that he must act within his capacity as a Member of the Committee tasked with dealing with the information contained in the closing remarks of Adv Mayosi.

Dr Ndlozi interrupted Ms Maluleke by stating that what she was saying was ‘absolute nonsense’. He repeatedly interrupted her to make this statement.

The Chairperson called the meeting into order. He reminded Dr Ndlozi that the rules of Parliament require him to rule on a point of order when it is called. Ms Maluleke raised a point of order, and thus a ruling must be made in that regard. The meeting cannot deteriorate because Members are fighting. He ruled on the point of order raised by Ms Maluleke by responding that Members cannot be prescribed on how they should argue their points. Every Member of the Committee has the right to make their own submissions regarding the issues that are before the Committee. Members are allowed to raise issues that are relevant to the subject of the meeting, even when other Members do not agree with the points raised. Parliament is a democratic institution and the free expression of viewpoints by elected officials must be respected. He requested Dr Ndlozi must withdraw his statements aimed at Ms Maluleke and regarded his conduct as not in keeping with the work ethic and standards of Parliament.

Dr Ndlozi stated that he withdraws his statement that Ms Maluleke was speaking nonsense. He stated that for the sake of progress and smoother proceedings, it is paramount that Members be patient with one another. He concluded by stating that the closing arguments are a serious miscarriage of justice because of its weak interrogation of the evidence. He did not support the recommendations that the implicated MPs must be found guilty of all the charges lodged against them.

Prof C Msimang (IFP) asked for clarity on the legal position regarding the implicated MPs’ objections to the composition of the Committee. The matter has been taken to court. He asked whether the current composition of the Committee is in line with the Constitution or not.

The Chairperson responded that Members would recall that the Committee received correspondence by the legal representatives of the charged MPs which requested that the hearings do not proceed until issues such as the constitutionality of the composition of the Committee was clarified. The legal representatives of the charged MPs from the EFF alleged that the hearings would not be a fair process because of how the Committee is composed with a majority of MPs from the ANC. It was further argued that the ANC would use its majority in this Committee to discipline MPs from the EFF. The legal representatives then requested that an independent panel and Chairperson must be appointed for hearing of the charges against the implicated MPs. However, the Committee has previously resolved to proceed because the Committee is constituted in line with the Powers and Privileges Act and the rules of the National Assembly. This method of approaching the issue will continue until a ruling is made by a court of law indicating otherwise.

Mr Hoosen stated that the Committee must rule on the charges based on a balance of probabilities as the evidentiary standard. He stated that the arguments made by Dr Ndlozi have not altered his view that the recommendations that the implicated MPs must be found guilty are correct. There was sufficient evidence to suggest that the MPs charged are guilty of the offences on a balance of probabilities.

Prof A Lotriet (DA) concurred with Mr Hoosen. She was satisfied that the Committee was following the correct procedure as outlined by The Chairperson. She expressed her support for the recommendations that the implicated MPs be found guilty.

Ms G Tseke (ANC) expressed her support for the recommendations that Mr Matiase be found guilty of all the charges lodged against him. She stated that the Committee must return to the consideration of dealing with the charges lodged against each implicated MP.

Ms D Dlakude (ANC) supported the inputs made by Members expressing the Committee’s support for the recommendations that the implicated MPs be found guilty. It is not the duty of the Committee to challenge the constitutionality or fairness of the process, but simply to follow the law and the rules of Parliament. It is within the rights of the implicated MPs to take the matter to court, but the Committee cannot be halted in its mandate when there is no court ruling directing Parliament to take another approach to these hearings.

The Chairperson concluded on the charges against Mr Matiase by stating that Members were not convinced by the arguments raised by Dr Ndlozi, and the Committee remains of the view that the procedure followed in its hearings on this matter is correct in law and in line with the rules of Parliament. The charges against Mr Matiase were read out the Committee. He stated that EFF MP Matiase faced seven charges, including the contravention of law when he wilfully refused and failed to obey the rules of the National Assembly by persisting with a point of order after the presiding officer (whose ruling was final and binding) had ruled that the matter was not a point of order. The Committee has found him guilty of all seven charges.

The next MPs included EFF MPs Hlonyana and Komane that were charged with the same charges as EFF MP Matiase. It was not necessary to read out the same charges again.

Mr Hoosen stated that he agreed with the recommendation that both EFF MPs Hlonyana and Komane be found guilty as charged in accordance with the charges read out.

Dr Ndlozi registered his objections to finding that both EFF MPs Hlonyana and Komane are guilty of the offences with which they were charged.

Ms Siwela agreed with the recommendation by Adv Mayosi that both EFF MPs Hlonyana and Komane be found guilty and concurred with Mr Hoosen in this regard.

Mr D Stock (ANC) concurred and expressed his support with the recommendation by Adv Mayosi that both EFF MPs Hlonyana and Komane be found guilty of the offences that they are charged with.

The Chairperson stated that the EFF MPs Hlonyana and Komane were found guilty of deliberately engaging in conduct that created serious disorder and disruption in the National Assembly when they crossed the floor during the proceedings. These MPs were found guilty as charged on all seven charges. He noted the objections of Dr Ndlozi regarding the guilty findings of the EFF MPs.

The last group of 13 MPs included EFF MPs Ceza, Chabangu, Langa, Madlingozi, Mohlala, Montwedi, Msane, Mthenjani, Paulsen, Shembeni, Siwisa, Sonti, and Tito who were charged with five similar charges as EFF MP Matiase. It was not necessary to read out the same charges again.

Mr Hoosen stated that it was unfortunate that none of the 13 MPs charged with five charges took up the opportunities presented to them to make representations to the Committee. This meant that the Report was the only information and evidence put before Members to use to rule on. He found no reason that this would contradict his support of the recommendation that all these EFF MPs must be found guilty as charged.

Ms Maluleke agreed that the Committee find these EFF MPs guilty as charged, despite the fact that they have not used the opportunity to appear before the Committee to be heard.

The Chairperson stated that the EFF MPs Ceza, Chabangu, Langa, Madlingozi, Mohlala, Montwedi, Msane, Mthenjani, Paulsen, Shembeni, Siwisa, Sonti, and Tito were found each found guilty on five charges similar to that of which EFF MP Matiase was found to be guilty of. Dr Ndlozi’s objections to these guilty findings were noted by the Committee.

With the exception of the EFF, all Members of the Committee agreed to a finding of guilty against the implicated MPs in the incident from the Budget Vote in July 2019. The implicated MPs will have an opportunity to make representations before the Committee decides on appropriate sanctions. The MPs who have been found guilty will be communicated with in this regard.

The meeting was adjourned. 

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: