National Assembly 9 and 10 June 2022 incidents: hearing

Powers and Privileges of Parliament

15 January 2024
Chairperson: Ms V Siwela (ANC); Dr M Tlhape (ANC) (Acting)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Video

NA: Unrevised hansard - 9 June 2022

NA: Unrevised hansard - 10 June 2022

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 Powers and Privileges and Committee began its hearing on the disruption of President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Presidency Budget Vote speech in the National Assembly on 9 and 10 June 2022 by ten members of the Economic Freedom Fighters, namely: Mr Anthony Matumba, Mr Mothusi Montwedi, Mr Tseko Mafanya, Ms Babalwa Mathulelwa, Mr Sinawo Tambo, Ms Constance Mkhonto, Ms Natasha Ntlangwini, Ms Paulnita Marais, Ms Naledi Chirwa and Ms Yoliswa Yako. All ten of the affected Members pleaded not guilty to the charges of disruptive behaviour and failing to obey the Speaker’s orders during the proceedings.

The Committee was taken through video footage of the events that took place on both days by the Initiator, Adv Tanya Golden SC. Secretary to the National Assembly, Mr Masibulele Xaso took the stand as the Witness. Confirming the scenes shown on the footage to the Committee, he testified that the affected EFF members were seen to have repeatedly raised points of orders in the House due to the presence of the President, whom they accused of being a criminal and money launderer.

After making numerous requests for the EFF MPs to stop disrupting the proceedings and abide by the National Assembly rules, the Speaker requested that they be physically removed by the Parliamentary Protection Services from the House Chamber. The EFF members forcibly resisted their removal, resulting in further chaos.

The leader of the affected Members legal team, Adv Mfesane Ka-Siboto, called for a postponement of the hearing until the court rules on whether or not the Speaker should appear before the Committee. Her presence at the hearing was necessary, he argued, as she essentially is the accuser in the matter. His request, however, was refused by the Acting Committee Chairperson, Dr Manketsi Tlhape.

Meeting report

Chairperson Siwela: Good morning everyone. Hon Members and our officers, and our legal teams, both from the affected Members and from Parliament, as you will recall the hearing that was to be held from the 8th to the 16th of January was postponed due to my ill health. I am still in this position and therefore I am unable to perform the function of Chairperson. The Committee must, therefore, elect one of its members as the Acting Chairperson for today and tomorrow in terms of National Assembly Rule 159 (1). Let me take this opportunity to welcome Members of the Committee, the affected Members, the Initiator and her team, and the legal team of the affected Members. The procedure to elect an Acting Chairperson will be as follows: I will call for a nomination and for that nomination to be seconded. If there is only one nomination, voting will not take place, and the nominated Member will be declared the Acting Chairperson. If there is more than one nomination the names of the nominees will be put on to a vote by way of a roll-call. By a roll-call we mean the Secretary will call, by name, Members of the Committee who are present to indicate their vote. He will start with the members of the ANC, followed by the DA, the EFF, the IFP and the ATM. At the end of the vote the Member with the majority of votes will be declared the Acting Chairperson. The nomination process will now commence. Are there any nominations, Members, for the Acting Chairperson position? Officials, you will assist me by identifying hands. I am inviting nominations, Hon Members of the Committee.

Committee Secretary: Ms Tseke’s hand is up, Chairperson.

Chairperson Siwela: Hon Tseke, you are identified. Can you nominate, please.

Ms G Tseke (ANC): Thank you very much, Chairperson. Thank you very much, Chair. Good morning to everyone who is connected and compliments of the New Year. I nominate Dr Hon Manketsi Tlhape to be the Acting Chair of this Committee. Thanks.

Chairperson Siwela: Thank you, Hon Tseke. Is there any seconder for the nomination of Dr Tlhape?

Committee Secretary: Mr Mlenzana’s hand is up.

Chairperson Siwela: Hon Mlenzana, the stage is yours.

Mr Z Mlenzana (ANC): Greetings, Chairperson. Wishing you well in your health. Greetings to all Members equally in the platform. Compliments of the season – before I forget, it is still early in the year. I raise my hand to second the name of Dr Tlhape. Thank you so much.

Chairperson Siwela: Thank you, Hon Mlenzana. Hon Dr Tlhape, do you accept the nomination?

Dr M Tlhape (ANC): Good morning, Chair. Yes, I accept. Thank you.

Chairperson Siwela: Dr Tlhape has been duly nominated by Hon Tseke and seconded by Hon Mlenzana. Are there any further nominations, Hon Members? Three, two, one… no further nominations. Dr Tlhape has been duly elected as the Acting Chairperson of the Committee. Please, Dr Tlhape, take your seat as the Acting Chairperson. Thank you, Hon Members.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Chair. Greetings to your good self and Hon Members present on this platform. Chair, we wish you the soonest recovery. Hon Members, let me take the opportunity to welcome you to today’s hearing. Members of this Committee you are most welcome; the affected Members, the Initiator and your team, as well as the legal team of the affected Members. Hon Members, as indicated, we are going to, from today and tomorrow, deal with the hearing of the incident of the 9th and 10th June 2022 when the National Assembly held its plenary to consider [the] Presidency Budget Vote. The incident involved [the] physical removal of Members from the Chamber, and it has since been referred to this Committee by the Speaker for an investigation and report. Having said that, Members, I declare this hearing open. I will now ask the Initiator to introduce herself and her team and inform this Committee of the purpose of the hearings. Adv Golden?

Adv Tanya Golden Senior Counsel (Initiator of the proceedings): Thank you, Chair. Good morning to you and the Committee and to everyone present in the Committee room. Chair, just to confirm, again, just for the record, I am Tanya Golden SC. I have been appointed as the Initiator in this hearing relative to the proceedings in the National Assembly on 9 and 10 June 2022. And I am, again, assisted by Adv [Penelope] Magona-Dano. Thank you, Chair.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Adv Golden. I will now, Hon Members, recognise the legal team of the affected Members. I give you an opportunity to introduce yourselves, but before introducing yourselves I would like also for the legal to confirm the presence of the affected Members.

Adv Mfesane Ka-Siboto (Leader of the affected Members legal team): Good morning, Chair. Good morning to the Members of this Committee. A further good morning to the Initiator and her legal team. Good morning to the staff members of Parliament and the Committee present. I do confirm, Chairperson, that all the charged Members we represent are present before this Committee. My name is Mfesane Ka-Siboto, who is counsel at Thulamela Chambers Johannesburg Bar Sandton. I appear in front of this Committee with my instructing attorney, Janyde Cupido, who is assisted by her candidate attorney Matilda Mahlaba. Observing and directly behind me is Adv Tongayi Masvikwa, who is just observing. Thank you, Chairperson.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you Adv Ka-Siboto. Hon Members, allow me to switch off my video because there is an echo as I speak. I do not know if it is from my side or what. Now, having confirmed the presence of the affected Members – and the legal team of the affected Members has introduced themselves, Hon Members – I will now call upon the Initiator to put the charges to the affected Members.

Adv Golden: Thank you, Chair. Chair, the charges will, I suppose, as an appropriate starting point the Members who are being charged in this hearing are the following: it is Ms E.N Ntlangwini, Mr Anthony Matumba, Ms W.T.I Mafanya, Ms [Babalwa] Mathulelwa, Ms [Paulnita] Marais, Ms Chirwa, Mr Tambo, Mr Montwedi, Ms Yako, and Ms Mkhonto. The four Members who are being charged for the 9th of June 2022 is Ntlangwini, Matumba, Mafanya and then Ms Mathulelwa. And I will start with them. They are also charged in relation to the events on the 10th of June, so I will read the charges in respect of both the 9th and the 10th. I will start with Ms Ntlangwini. Her charge sheet or notice you will find at page 1 of the bundle. I will not read the notice – I will go straight to annexure A, which commences on page 4. The preamble to the charges: the President of South Africa, Mr Cyril Ramaphosa, appeared before the National Assembly on 9 and 10 June 2022, at Parliament in Cape Town. President Ramaphosa appeared to present his Budget Vote to the National Assembly on 9 June 2022, and appeared, again, on 10 June 2022 to respond to the Budget Vote. During the proceedings on 9 and 10 June 2022, a few Members of the Economic Freedom Fighters, or as we call it the EFF, disrupted the proceedings and caused chaos in the House. You participated in the disruption and the chaos. Chair, I will not, when I read the charges in relation to the other Members, repeat the preamble as it is the exactly the same for all the Members. In relation to Ms Ntlangwini, the events on 9 June 2022, charge 1 is the following: It is alleged that you are guilty of conduct constituting contempt of Parliament in terms of Section 13 (c) and 13 (d)(1) of the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act, in that as a Member of Parliament and during the sitting of the National Assembly convened on 9 June 2022 for the purposes of the President, Mr Cyril Ramaphosa, to address the National Assembly on his Budget Vote, you contravened Section 7 (a) of the Act when during the proceedings you willfully refused and or failed to obey Rule 69 (d) of the rules of the National Assembly when you called the President a money launderer and accused him of criminal conduct. Your conduct disrupted the proceedings of the National Assembly and improperly interfered with the performance by the House of its authority and functions. Charge 2 – I will skip the introduction to that charge, Chair, and I will go straight to the alleged contravention. You contravened Section 7 (a) of the Act in that you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69 (c) when you repeatedly undermined the authority of the presiding officer or repeatedly refused to obey rulings of the presiding officer. You disrespected her and interrupted her when she requested you to withdraw the improper statements you made about the President. Charge 3: you contravened Section 7 (a) of the Act in that you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 73 (1) when you refused to leave the Chamber when ordered to do so by the presiding officer. You created serious disorder and disruption in the House, in contravention of Rule 70 and/or Rule 69 (a). Then charge 4: you contravened Section 7 (a) of the Act in that you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69 (f) when you acted in a manner seriously detrimental to the dignity, decorum and orderly procedure of the House. Charge 5: you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 70 and Rule 73 (1) and (2) when you failed to respect the authority of the presiding officer when she ordered that you leave the Chamber. You refused to leave the Chamber after the Sergeant-at-Arms requested your removal. Chair, in relation to the events on 10 June, these are the charges. In relation to charge 1 you contravened Section 7 (a) of the Act when during the proceedings…

Acting Chairperson: We have lost you, advocate.

Adv Golden: Chair, my apologies. Do you want me to repeat charge 1 under 10 June?

Acting Chairperson: Yes, please.

Adv Golden: I will. You contravened Section 7(a) of the Act in that you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69 (a) when you deliberately created serious disorder and/or disruption in the House. Then in relation to charge 2, under the events of 10 June 2022, you contravened Section 7 (a) of the Act in that you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69 (c) when you repeatedly undermined the authority of the presiding officer and/or repeatedly refused to obey the rulings of the presiding officer or repeatedly disrespected and interrupted the presiding officer while the latter addressed the House. Charge 3: you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69 (f) when you acted in a manner that was seriously detrimental to the dignity, decorum, and orderly procedure of the House. Charge 4: you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 70 (1) and (2) when you disrespected the authority of the presiding officer when she asked you to leave the House and when you refused to do so. Charge 5: you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 73 (1) and (2) when you refused to leave the House when the Sergeant-at-Arms requested you to leave. Chair, those are the charges for both days in relation to Ms Ntlangwini. Chair, before I go to Mr Anthony Matumba, I have a note that says that Ms Mkhonto is not on the platform. Could I ask that this be checked, Chair?

Acting Chairperson: Let us verify [that]. Thanks, advocate, for bringing that up. Adv Ka-Siboto, is Hon Mkhonto on the platform?

Adv Ka-Siboto: Thank you, Chairperson. My instruction is that all my clients are present. It could well be that we have the same technical issues we had the last time – in some instances there were issues with connectivity. What I will do, if that is your directive, Chairperson, is to perhaps adjourn – if you so wish – that we may call the client and just confirm as to what the issue is. But as I understand it they should be on the platform unless there are connectivity issues. So we can adjourn for five minutes if you so direct, Chair.

Acting Chairperson: Hon Members, let us accord the Committee that five minutes and locate Hon Mkhonto.

Mr Mlenzana: Chair, as you propose I support that. Thank you.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you. We will resume at thirty-nine minutes past ten.

The Committee adjourned for a five minute break.

Acting Chairperson: Hon Members, we are at the end of our five minutes. Is there feedback? Is there feedback on the whereabouts of Hon Mkhonto? Is she on the platform now?

Committee Secretary: She is not on the platform, Chair. I believe they are sending her the zoom link for the meeting. She will be joining us soon.

Acting Chairperson: Okay.

Adv Golden: Chair, the legal team for the EFF Members are not in the Committee room, they are outside. I assume they are trying to contact her.

Acting Chairperson: Okay, please alert us when they are back.

Mr Mlenzana: Chairperson?

Acting Chairperson: Yes, Mr Mlenzana?

Mr Mlenzana: No, I am just checking, Chairperson, [if] this is the correct posture or leniency in terms of you saying we will be notified when they are back? What if that delays? Can there not be an effort to request them to come in and further ask that, allowing us to continue. They can leave one person to deal with that. I am thinking aloud, Chair.

Acting Chairperson: This is the last time I do that. I think we agreed that there is no quorum. If they come in we will stress that we will need to look at the time, all of us, and be mindful.

Committee Secretary: Chair?

Acting Chairperson: Are they back?

Committee Secretary: Yes, they have been back, Chair.

Acting Chairperson: Okay. Advocate, is there a feedback? Hon Mkhonto is still not on the platform.

Adv Ka-Siboto: Thank you, Chairperson. It is Ka-Siboto again. We were on a call with the client. She seems to have difficulty with connectivity where she is. What I am advised is that she is sorting that out and she should join us again shortly. I have been advised by the member of this Committee – a staff member of this Committee – that I should suggest to you [that] we proceed and come the time when the charges are put to that specific Member, we then, again, check for her presence, and at that point charter a way forward. If you are so inclined, Chairperson, then that would be my suggestion. Thanks, Chair.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Advocate. Hon Members, let us also be mindful that we [are] all experiencing load shedding at one point or the other. And the advice is right that we are able to proceed, even in the absence of the Member. We will then check as and when we put the charges to her. But I would not repeat this in the absence of any Member, Hon Members. Be mindful that we will be proceeding, and as and when we come to the Member, if she is not in the platform we will do what is required. Can we then get back on the platform, Adv Golden?

Adv Golden: Thank you, Chair. I will then continue with the charges – reading out the charges – in relation to Mr Matumba. Events on 09 June 2022: it is alleged that you are guilty… I think I will skip that [as] it is not necessary for me to repeat that. You willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69 (a) of the rules of the National Assembly when you deliberately created serious disorder or disruption in the House. Charge 2: you contravened Section 7 (a) when you deliberately breached Rule 69 (c) when you repeatedly undermined and disregarded the authority of the presiding officer and repeatedly refused to obey rulings of the presiding officer and/or you repeatedly disrespected her and interrupted her whilst the latter was addressing the House. Charge 3: you contravened Section 7 (a) in that you further contravened Rule 69 (f), where you behaved in a manner which was detrimental to the dignity, decorum and orderly procedure of the House. I will then move onto charges under the events of 10 June 2022. Charge 1: you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 92 (6), (8) and (9) when you refused to accept the ruling of the presiding officer that no points of order may be raised and you deliberately continued to disrupt the proceedings of the House by raising points of order that not comply with the rules. Your conduct disrupted the proceedings of the National Assembly. Charge 2: you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69 (a) when you deliberately created serious disorder and disruption of the House when you refused to obey and respect the authority of the chair. Charge 3: you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69 (b) when you physically intervened and physically prevented and/or obstructed and/or hindered your removal from the House after the presiding officer ruled that you leave the House. You physically pushed the Sergeant-at-Arms away when he approached you to leave the House. Charge 4: you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69 (c) when you repeatedly undermined the authority of the presiding officer and/or repeatedly refused to obey the rulings of the presiding officer, and you repeatedly disrespected and/or interrupted her while the latter was addressing the House. Charge 5: you contravened and failed to obey Rule 69 (f) when you behaved in a manner which was seriously detrimental to the dignity, decorum and orderly procedure of the House. I now move on to Ms Mafanya in relation to 09 June 2022. You willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 92 (8) and 9 of the Rules of the National Assembly when you continuously proceeded to raise a point of order when the presiding officer had ruled that no Member may raise a point of order again until the President had believed his budget speech. Charge 2: you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69 (a) when you deliberately created serious disorder and disruption in the House, when you refused to obey the authority of the presiding officer when she ruled on the points of order. Charge 3: you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69 (c) when you repeatedly undermined the authority of the presiding officer and/or repeatedly refused to obey her rulings, and you disrespected and continuously interrupted the presiding officer while she addressed the House. Charge 4: you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69 (f) when you behaved in a manner which was seriously detrimental of the dignity, decorum and orderly procedure of the House. I now move onto Ms Babalwa Mathulelwa in relation to 09 June 2022. [Charge 1]: you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 92 (8) and (9) when you continued to raise a point of order despite the fact that the presiding officer had ruled that no points of order would be allowed until the President delivered his budget speech. Charge 2: you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69 (d) when you made serious allegations against the President by calling him a criminal without adequate substantiation or following the correct procedure. Charge 3: you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69 (c) when you repeatedly undermined the authority of the presiding officer and you repeatedly refused to obey the ruling of the presiding officer when she instructed you to withdraw the statement that the President was a criminal. Charge 4: you contravened Section 7 (a) in that you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69 (a) when you deliberately created serious disorder and disruption in the House. Charge 5: you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69 (f) when you acted in a manner which was seriously detrimental of the dignity, decorum and orderly procedure of the House. Charge 6: you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 70 (1), read with Rule 72, when the presiding officer ordered you to leave the Chamber immediately and you refused to do so. You, again, refused to leave the Chamber after the Sergeant-at-Arms requested you to do so. You were then removed by the Parliamentary Protection Services (the PPS) after they were instructed to remove you by the presiding officer. Charge 7: you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 73 (4) and (5) when you refused to leave the Chamber when requested to do so by the Sergeant-at-Arms and when you physically resisted and physically fought with members of the PPS when they tried to remove you from the Chamber. Now, the charges relating to the events on the 10th of June. Charge 1: you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69 (a) when you deliberately created serious disorder and/or disruption in the House. Charge 2: you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69 (b) when you physically intervened, and prevented, and/or obstructed, and/or hindered the removal of EFF members, Ms Chirwa and Mr Tambo, by the PPS. Charge 3: you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69 (e) when you used violence against the PPS who were called in to remove you from the Chamber. You physically fought with the PPS and pushed them out of the way to stop them from removing you from the Chamber. Charge 4: you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69 (a) when you deliberately created serious disorder and disruption in the House. Charge 5: you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69 (c) when you repeatedly undermined the authority of the presiding officer and refused to obey the rulings of the presiding officer and/or you disrespected and interrupted the presiding officer while she addressed the House. Charge 6: you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69 (f) when you acted in a manner which was seriously detrimental to the dignity, decorum and orderly procedure of the House. Charge 7: you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 64 (d) when you crossed the floor of the House in front of the benches and when the mess was still in the House. Your conduct improperly interfered with or impeded the exercise or performance by the House of its authority and functions. Chair, I now will deal with the charges relating to Ms Marais. She is only charged in relation to the events on 10 June 2022. Just give me one moment, please. You willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69 (a) when you created serious disruption and disorder in the House when you continued to shout at the presiding officer. Charge 2: you contravened Section 7 (a) in that you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69 (c) when you repeatedly undermined the authority of the presiding officer and/or repeatedly refused to obey rulings of the presiding officer. You repeatedly disrespected and interrupted the presiding officer while she addressed the House. And then charge 3: you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69 (f) when you acted in a manner which was seriously detrimental to the dignity, decorum and orderly procedure of the House. Charge 4: you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 73 (1), (2), (4) and (5) in that you refused the instruction of the presiding officer to leave the House. You continued to refuse to leave the House when the Sergeant-at-Arms requested you to do so. You continued to shout and disrupt the proceedings even when the PPS were called in to remove you from the chamber. I now move to Ms Chirwa, who is also only charged in relation to the events on 10 June. Charge 1: you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69 (a) when you deliberately created serious disorder and/or disruption in the House. Charge 2: you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69 (c) when you repeatedly undermined the authority of the presiding officer and/or repeatedly refused to obey rulings of the presiding officer, and you disrespected and continuously interrupted the presiding officer when she addressed the House. You continued to shout at the presiding officer even though she ordered you to leave the House, which you refused to do. Charge 3: you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69 (f) when you acted in a manner seriously detrimental to the dignity, decorum and orderly procedure of the House. Charge 4: you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69 (e) when you used violence against the PPS when they attempted to remove you from the Chamber. You physically fought with the PPS to prevent your removal from the House. You also contravened Rule 73 (4) and (5) when you refused to leave the Chamber when requested to do so by the Sergeant-at-Arms and the PPS. I now read the charges related to Mr Tambo – it also for the 10th of June. Charge 1: you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69 (a) when you deliberately created serious disorder and interruption in the House. You contravened Section 7 (a) in that you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69 (d) when you made serious allegations against the President, that he was a criminal, without adequate substantiation or following the correct procedure. You also continued to disregard the authority and the instruction of the presiding officer when she warned you of the relevant rule which you had breached by calling the President a criminal. Charge 3: you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69 (c) when you undermined the authority of the presiding officer and/or repeatedly refused to obey her rulings as the presiding officer. You repeatedly disrespected and interrupted her while she addressed the House. Charge 4: you willfully refused or failed to obey Rule 69 (a) and (c) when you refused to take your seat after the Speaker repeatedly told you to sit down. Charge 5: you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69 (f) when you behaved in a manner which was seriously detrimental to the dignity, decorum and orderly procedure of the House. Charge 6: you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 73 (5) when you physically blocked the Sergeant-at-Arms from approaching Member Ms Naledi Chirwa, who was also asked by the presiding officer to leave the House. By doing so, you physically intervened and prevented and/or obstructed and/or hindered the removal of Ms Chirwa from the Chamber. Charge 7: you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69 (e) when you physically fought and/or physically resisted your removal from the Chamber by the PPS, pursuant an instruction from the presiding officer that you be so removed. You also contravened Rule 73 (1), (2) and (5). In relation to Mr Montwedi it is also just relating to 10 June 2022. Charge 1: you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69 (a) when, through your conduct, deliberately created serious disorder and/or disruption in the House. Charge 2: you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69 (c) when you repeatedly undermined the authority of the presiding officer, and/pr repeatedly refused to obey rulings of the presiding officer, and you continuously interrupted the presiding officer when she addressed the House. Charge 3: you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69 (f) when you acted in a manner seriously detrimental to the dignity, the quorum and orderly procedure of the House. Charge 4: you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69 (e) when you fought with the Parliamentary Protection Services when they attempted to remove you from the Chamber. You also contravened Rule 92 (8) when you refuse to leave the Chamber when requested to do so by the Sergeant-at-Arms. Chair, I now move to the charges relating to Ms Yoliswa Yako, also just in relation to 10 June. Charge 1: you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69 (a) when you deliberately created serious disorder and/or disruption in the House. Charge 2: you willfully refused and will fail to obey Rule 69 (c) when you repeatedly undermined the authority of the presiding officer and repeatedly refused to obey her rulings. You repeatedly disrespected and interrupted the presiding officer. Charge 3: you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69 (f) when you behaved in a manner which was seriously detrimental of the dignity, decorum and orderly procedure of the House. And the last charge sheet, Madam Chair, is for Ms Constance Mkhonto. I am still instructed that she is still not… okay. My apologies, Chair, Ms Mkhonto has now joined. The charges relating to her for 10 June. Charge 1: you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69 (c) when you repeatedly undermined the authority of the presiding officer and repeatedly refused to obey rulings of the presiding officer, and/or you disrespected and interrupted the presiding officer while she addressed the House. Charge 2: you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69 (f) when you acted in a manner which was seriously detrimental of the dignity, decorum and orderly procedure of the House. Charge 3: you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 73 (1) when you refused to leave the Chamber when ordered to do so by the presiding officer in terms of Rule 70 and/pr Rule 71. You continued to refuse to leave when the Sergeant-at-Arms requested you to leave. The Presiding officer then instructed the PPS to remove you from the Chamber. Charge 4: you willfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69 when you acted in a manner seriously detrimental to the dignity, decorum and orderly procedure of the House. Madam Chair, these are the charges in relation to 09 and 10 June 2022.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Adv Golden. Hon Members, I will now recognise each Member and request the Member to plead to the charges. I will allow for up to three minutes – three minutes – for the Members wishing to give a plea explanation and opportunity to do so. Hon Members, if a Member pleads guilty to the charges I will ascertain from the Member whether the Member admits guilt to the charges as put to him by the Initiator. If a Member refuses to enter a plea I must enter a plea of not guilty in respect of that Member. I will now start with Hon Ntlangwini, how do you plead to the charges.

Adv Ka-Siboto: Chairperson? Chairperson?

Mr Mlenzana: Chairperson, you have got a terrible echo, man. Sorry, Chair, [a] point of order. You have got a terrible echo.

Acting Chairperson: Let me switch off the video again. Probably when I switch my video on…

Committee Secretary: Chairperson?

Acting Chairperson: Was I audible on the explanation that I gave?

Committee Secretary: Chairperson, I think you were heard, although there was an echo.

Acting Chairperson: Okay.

Committee Secretary: Chairperson, Adv Ka-Siboto would like to be given an opportunity to say something. Thanks.

Acting Chairperson: Adv Ka-Siboto, I am on the Members. I am listening to the affected Members.

Adv Ka-Siboto: Thank you very much for the indulgence, Chairperson. To the best of my recollection, Chairperson, you would have been present as an ordinary Member of the Committee in the sittings we had in December, in relation to charges not related to some of the EFF members. The first proceedings were represented or Adv Tembeka Ngcuikatobi represented the Members then. And in the proceedings that followed after I represented the Members. And in both those occasions, we raised points in limine that we invited the then Chairperson, to convene the Committee to deliberate on those points in limine. We intend to do the same now. And we do not do so frivolously because, as you would know, we have every intention of bringing litigation to challenge the processes here. And we have debated and ventilated those issues in those proceedings. But unfortunately, how the law works is if I do not raise them, again, here, in these proceedings, which are different from those ones, and I cannot rely on those bases in court if I do not ask that this Committee deliberate. And as a secondary issue to that premise is this: we have had engagements, extensive engagements, with Mr Xaso, who then led evidence on behalf of Parliament, where we feel that concessions were made and properly so, so much so that this Committee decided to withdraw the charges against at least one of the Members, which was Veronica Mente MP. And we suggest on the basis of that concession and the basis of this Committee withdrawing those charges, there is something to be said about the process. And the very challenge we had with Mente MP, which led to this Committee exonerating her, appears in these proceedings. Just by way of illustration, the Chairperson has charged – not the Chairperson. One of my Members has been charged with physically stopping PPS from affecting their duties from crossing the floor when she was not even present in the building. How can she conceivably be guilty of that charge when she was not even present at the National Assembly? And these are the flaws that we keep talking about. And we are suggesting to this Committee, as we did the first time, did the second time, we are doing it for the third time: there must be an independent fact-finding inquiry before you charge Members, or at least someone to decide on the facts. What we will deal with now here is evidence that is baseless. You will not be shown my Member being present in the National Assembly, but yet (she) was found guilty of obstructing the PPS when she was not present. So with your indulgence, Chairperson, I ask, yet again, that these proceedings – in fact, before I make the submissions because you have not granted me that indulgence, I am proposing this, that before the charges are put to my Members that I make these plenary submissions to you. We adjourn. You make a ruling on my preliminary submissions. If you reject my suggestion, you then put the charges to my Member to which they can plead. Thank you for the indulgence, Chair.

Acting Chairperson: Thanks, Adv Ka-Siboto. You have indicated here that you would want to put points that you put the last time when we were dealing with other cases or hearings. Now, I would not be able to adjourn for now so that you do that. I would rather give you that space, that you do that for record purposes for the reasons you have indicated of litigation, so that this can be on record, before I put the charges to the Members.

Committee Secretary: Hi, Chairperson.

Acting Chairperson: So that we have it on record that you put those points to us.

Committee Secretary: Chairperson? Chair?

Acting Chairperson: Yes, Sir?

Committee Secretary: I am sorry, you were not audible at some places. If you could repeat? And also, Chair, maybe you could give the Initiator the opportunity to reply before the Committee considers the application.

Acting Chairperson: Okay, I do not know why I was not audible. Let me then give Adv Golden.

Adv Golden: Thank you, Chair. Chair, just on a point of clarity. I would just like to clarify what exactly my learned friend is requesting of the Committee. What is the ruling that the Committee is supposed to consider? That is my point of clarity. And then point number 2 is that I have read out the charges, I have put the charges to the affected Members. And they must now for good order and also in terms of the rules, they must now plead to the charges. So whether they agree with the charges or not, whether there is merit in the charges or not, that will follow. But for now, if they disagree, they must plead not guilty. Thank you, Chair.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Adv Golden. I hope I am audible. Adv Ka-Siboto, adv Golden has outlined the process that we are at the Members pleading. I have listened to you saying you would want to put some points that you raised in the previous hearing for record purposes. I would want us to agree that we put these Members… the charges to the Members, and we will come back to give you that space to raise issues that we want to raise for record purposes because we indicate that this also is part of the litigation hearings that we would want to take.

Adv Ka-Siboto: Thank you, Chairperson. And I am not certain that the Chairperson is now retracting her initial ruling pursuant to the engagement by the Initiator with the Chairperson. I would want [a] directive in that respect. As I understand it, Chairperson, my suggestion was quite an elementary one really. It is simply this. We have points in limine, which by definition, means they must be raised before the substantive aspects are dealt with. I mean, it is just a basic principle, really, and I cannot and I cannot believe we are here. All we are simply saying is there are issues, procedural issues, we want to raise. It cannot be that simply because they raised them in unrelated matters previously, it must be taken that we have raised them here, because we have not. If the ruling of the Chairperson is that ‘We know what you are going to say. We are not interested in what you have to say, as a preliminary or point in limine issue’, then say so. Then I would not be bothered to make those representations. But if you allow me to make those representations, then I will do so now. And then this Committee will convene and decide on the preliminary issues as we have in the previous hearings. And if I am banned, as far as you are concerned on those points, then, of course, then we can continue with my Members pleading to the charges, which is the second leg of these proceedings, which are substantive in nature. That is all I am simply asking for. And then the Initiator then asks me to respond specifically what it is that I am asking for – it is that, that this Committee hears me on the preliminary issues. And once you have and you take the view that we must proceed to the substance, only then will the charges be put to my Members. And only then will they proceed to give their evidence or at least hear from Mr Xaso. And I am asking for your ruling in that respect, Chairperson. Thank you.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Adv Ka-Siboto. I will give it to Hon Members. Hon Members?

Committee Secretary: Chair?

Acting Chairperson: Yes?

Committee Secretary: If you recall, Adv Golden had asked for clarity and then she was given the clarity and she would like to respond. And then you can open it up, Chairperson. Thank you.

Acting Chairperson: Okay, let us hear your response, Adv Golden.

Adv Golden: Thank you, Madam Chair. I now understand what my learned friend would like to do. He wants to raise in limine points. It was not very clear at the beginning and nor was it raised right upfront before the charges were put to the Members. It ought to have been raised appropriately at that juncture. But that [is] at this point in time neither here nor there. I have no difficulty, Chair, if my colleague wants to address certain in limine points to the Committee at this juncture. I do not have an objection. And if it pleases the Committee, we can adopt that approach. Thank you.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, advocate. Hon Members, there is a request to take the points in limine from Adv Ka-Siboto before we put charges to the affected Members. This is your hearing. Committee Members?

Dr M Ndlozi (EFF) Yes, Chair, I have got my hand up.

Acting Chairperson: Hon Ndlozi and then Hon Mlenzana.

Dr Ndlozi: Can I proceed, Chairperson?

Acting Chairperson: Yes, Hon Member.

Dr Ndlozi: Thanks very much and good day to all of you. I think it is indeed fair to procedurally allow points in limine to be raised at this stage and then we can then, as advised, deliberate on them and then proceed with the hearing, if that is what we decide. So I am in agreement that let us allow the representative of the affected Members to raise the points in limine.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Ndlozi. Hon Mlenzana?

Mr Mlenzana: Thanks, Chairperson, to raise the principle. Thank you. I also am tempted to agree, save this latter part raised by Hon Dr Ndlozi of deliberation. That one, now, would be subject to what would have been presented. That is my view. But then allowing the situation where there would be a flow of the presentation avoiding also this hip-hopping and these usual stopovers which are just usually created. Let us allow the presentation as advised by the Initiator. We will take it from there. We will be advised. Thanks, Chair.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Mlenzana. Hon Members, we will then allow Adv Ka-Siboto. Advocate, can I give you 10 minutes to deal with those points in limine?

Adv Ka-Siboto: Thank you, Chairperson. Sorry, I just could not hear you, Chairperson. How many minutes did you offer me?

Acting Chairperson: 10 minutes. I am looking at my time.

Adv Ka-Siboto: Thank you very much, Chairperson. I am, indeed, indebted to you. What I intend to do is to go through briefly the substantive submissions that we rely upon as to why this Committee should not sit, at least not today; not indefinitely, at least not today. We intend to provide you with the written submissions that I will make reference to now. We are of course here seized with charges against my clients who are present before you, and charged, as read out by the Initiator in relation to the proceedings of the 9th and 10th of the plenary of this House. And we have brought an application, at different times, which are due to be heard this year, which challenge the Constitution and the processes of this Committee. What Adv Ngcukaitobi had done, which was quite efficient, – which I repeated the last time I was here and I am repeating now – what we are suggesting is that there are challenges with the processes of this Committee. And just by way of illustration, let me make this point from the start. We have always maintained that there is no reason why the dramatis personae, i.e. the main person in these proceedings, is not availed to my clients for cross-examination. And we made that point in principle the first time. What strengthens our argument is what happened the last time I was here, where there was a whole debate as to what the Speaker meant when she said ‘You people are disruptive.’ And the difficulty we had there is Mr Xaso, who led evidence on behalf of Parliament, had said, ‘Well, we do not know what the Speaker meant.’ And I had suggested that she clearly meant EFF members. And then Dlakude MP suggested I was speculating – and I said of course, I am speculating but it is a reasonable expectation in the context of the discussion at the time. And the reason the concession was not made, that she was referring to the EFF members when she clearly was, is because I had made the point that there is case law that says the Speaker is not entitled to deal with Members of Parliament as a group or as a collective. They represent themselves individually; so you cannot have collective punishment. I went first, and I made the submission that Ceza, MP, for example, had raised a point of order; he had not [for] the entirety of those proceedings raised a point of order that was recognised by the Speaker. And then the Speaker in response to him raising a point of order for the very first time says ’I will not allow it because you people are being disruptive.’ And there is no concession coming from Mr Xaso – and I say in bad faith – because he knew the implications of making that suggestion, which would be not parallel to the case law that he is there as an individual, not as a member of the EFF. It, therefore, is unfair to pre-empt what his submission or what his point of order would be on the basis of he sits on the EFF benches. For that reason, then we had said that is why the Speaker has to be here, so that none of us has to speculate what she meant by those words. The Speaker was not availed to us. We insist that the Speaker must be here again: why? Because the Speaker has charged one of the Members saying she was guilty of interrupting PPS from executing its duties. That Member was not in the House. Conceptually, how could she then have been guilty of that charge? Only the Speaker can answer that question. I am going to put that question to Mr Xaso in due course. He is going to speculate as to what the Speaker had in mind when she kicked out that particular Member. He will not give us a definitive answer, and that is the problem with not having the Speaker. We, of course, understand the politics of it all. I mean, we are all sound people, we understand what is happening here. And I am saying to you, I will not force this Committee to give me the Speaker if you do not want to give me the Speaker. The alternative to that, which is a fair compromise, I would submit, is that let us then let Part B run first and then the court itself must decide whether the Speaker must be here or not. What we have been told in the past is that there was an urgent application in December, where the Court said these proceedings may continue. It does not say the points in law we raised are bad. It did not deal with that question. It simply said we will hear you in January. At no point did it say we are wrong by saying the Speaker should be here – and we have proven why the Speaker needs to be here. Firstly in relation to Mr Ceza, and secondly in respect of her kicking out a Member and charging her despite her not even being in the House. We say it cannot, therefore, be rational to have the accuser not present. It is the same thing in criminal law. When someone accuses you of theft, it is incumbent on them to avail themselves to give their version and answer to it, and not hide behind paper, and legal jargon and seasoned counsel. She must come answer. And if she does not want to answer, then let us let Part B decide in a court of law whether she should be here or not. That is the first reason. The second reason is what we have as paragraph seven of our submissions, which we will give to you, it says ‘The Powers and Privileges Committee is a standing committee of Parliament. At present, it is constituted of thirteen Members of Parliament, seven of whom are members of the ANC, two Democratic Alliance, and one who is an EFF member.’ Now, let us digest what that means in practice. The fact of the matter, which you cannot deny, is that the EFF is a political opponent of the ANC: that is just a fact. It is the 3rd biggest political party. You cannot, as a matter of principle, have political opponents deciding the fate of their political opponents, just as a matter of law. This is precisely why you have this concept of recusal of judges, because if you have got an interest in an outcome, particularly a punitive one, and we see how liberal this Committee is, in terms of punishing people – draconian, if you ask me. Simply because you failed to leave the House you are sanctioned for an entire month not to represent you constituents. In some instances, your salaries are docked. In some instances, you are asked to embarrass yourself by addressing an entire Parliament, apologising to a nation. That is quite extensive. And I am saying if those are the measures that you are prepared to mete out – in some instances, not in isolation, but as a combination of various punishments – that extensive punishment surely cannot be at the discretion of political opponents of the EFF, or the DA or the IFP for that matter. It is just a matter of principle. And I am not asking you to even make a determination as to whether I am right or wrong, because in fairness to you, these are issues that are to be ventilated in a court of law by properly qualified persons i.e. judges. We say there is simply no prejudice to this Committee, particularly in light of the fact that we have now agreed that we will not finish tomorrow. We will still come back, perhaps, in February, March, April, who knows? And we are saying if these matters are to be heard now in January or early February, then what is the harm in allowing that process to run, and then come back at a later stage if we lose at Part B? What is the conceptual difficulty for the Committee to suspend these proceedings so that the court can fully ventilate on the issues I raise? And that will happen before we even sit for the upcoming session, the second session whose dates have not even been agreed to date. So, again, I ask rhetorically, I must be frank, what is the conceptual difficulty with postponing these hearings?

Acting Chairperson: You have a minute, advocate, to wrap up.

Adv Ka-Siboto: Thank you, Chairperson. I had intended to raise more points, but I will abide at the risk of being sanctioned with the ruling of the speaker that I only have a minute left. I suppose I will reserve, if we proceed with these or the rest of my submissions when I deal with Mr Xaso in cross- examination, if we get to that. With that being said, Chairperson, I think that is the totality, at least for now, as to why we are suggesting that these hearings must be pended. And I am subjected to the ruling of this Committee. And I presume you will take an adjournment to consider them. Thank you, Chairperson.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Advocate. Hon Members, I am giving you an opportunity to deal with the points that has been raised as points in limine by Adv Ka-Siboto.

Committee Secretary: Chair?

Acting Chairperson: Hon Mlenzana?

Committee Secretary: Sorry, Chair?

Acting Chairperson: Yes, Sir?

Committee Secretary: Adv Golden would like to respond.

Acting Chairperson: Okay.

Committee Secretary: Thank you.

Acting Chairperson: Let us give her a chance.

Adv Golden: Thank you, Chair. Just before the Committee deliberates on its ruling, I just have the following three short points to make. So I hear that Adv Ka-Siboto has prepared written submissions in relation to his in limine points, which he has just addressed to the Committee. I was not aware, nor was I informed that the EFF’s legal team were going to take legal points in limine in nature today; and nor was I given a copy of the written submissions to which Adv Ka-Siboto, has now referred. I place on record that it would be appropriate and, indeed, proper to forewarn me of this, and then also to send me ahead of the hearing, so as not to take me by surprise of the written substance. That is point number one. Point number two, and it is really just a couple of points in relation to the merits of the in limine points, which my learned friend has just raised. Chair and Committee, you will recall that, indeed, several of these points, or submissions were made, when we dealt with the hearing related to 30 August 2022. That hearing was finalised on the 14th of December of last year. Now, the issue of the Speaker, Madam Chair, is this. I have made it very clear, right up front – it has also been referred to in the various correspondence that we have written to the attorney of the EFF – that we do not intend to call the Speaker to prove the charges or allegations against the relevant EFF members. And the reason for that is quite simple. In my view, we do not need the evidence of the Speaker to prove the charges against the Members. We will almost exclusively rely – well, not exclusively – but largely rely on the video recording evidence of the 9th and the 10th of June 2020, the proceedings in the National Assembly. I will lead the evidence of Mr Xaso, who is our only witness at this stage. I will also at the appropriate time place on the record the affidavits of the other Members or other witnesses, which we do not intend to call to lead viva voce evidence. So the short of it is that I do not need the evidence of the Speaker to prove the charges against the relevant members. And as I have made the point in the hearing in December, I make it again; I must fall and stand by the evidence that I lead in this hearing. And that is a very basic principle, one which my learned friend understands. Now, in relation to the request that the Committee postpone the hearing, in order to allow for the Part B application, which the relevant EFF members have launched in the Western Cape High Court – if I am not mistaken, it was in December of last year – for that process and that matter to run its course. Part B, I assume – I am not counselling that matter, but if my memory serves me right, Part B – is the review application and the constitutional challenge, which Adv Ka-Siboto has referred to. Now, the urgent application was dismissed. This is now in relation to the relevant EFF Members and the application where they wanted to interdict the continuation of the hearings. That application, Chair and Committee, was dismissed by the Western Cape High Court. And the learned judge in that matter ordered that these hearings may proceed. I also mentioned and, again, I rely completely on memory, that the issue of the calling of the Speaker as a witness was a central feature in that application as it is in the review application. So this was an issue that was considered by the judge who heard the interdict application. And, again, that application was dismissed, which cleared the way for these hearings to continue. So my submission is that there is absolutely no basis in law or for any other reason for the Committee to suspend this hearing, and to postpone this hearing, in order to allow for the Part B review application to proceed in the High Court. Just a word of caution to you Chair and the Committee, practically speaking, if that were to be allowed, and if the Committee were to postpone and suspend these proceedings, that would mean that the Part B application would run at its own pace, and on its own time. We have no idea of when that application will be finally determined. It will, needless to state, and again, I speak of experience, it could take more than a year to be finally determined, if not two. So my final submissions are that there is absolutely no basis for the in limine points. There certainly is no basis to suspend these proceedings, to allow the High Court litigation to run its course. And I ask that the in limine objections be dismissed, and that the hearing continue on the merits. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Committee.

Committee Secretary: Chair? I am sorry for coming [but] Adv Ka-Siboto would like to come in, I think, to respond to what Adv Golden has said. Thanks.

Adv Ka-Siboto: I promise I will be brief, Chair. It is just in response to what has been raised and it is to give you answers that presumably do not exist. I promise I will not take two minutes of your time, if you will allow me. It is just to assist the Committee.

Acting Chairperson: You have a minute, Adv Ka-Siboto because I want to give Hon Members of this Committee.

Adv Ka-Siboto: Thank you, Chairperson. This is just to assist the Committee. So the issue being raised is that we do not know when this matter will be heard in court. These issues I am raising will be heard on Thursday, this Thursday, in the Western Cape High Court, so it is not an indeterminate period of time. We are saying the court will decide these issues we are raising; we are being heard on Thursday in the Western Cape High Court. That is the first issue. So there will not be undue delay or uncertainty as to when we will get answers. Secondly, there is no response to what you are suggesting, that there has been no finding by any court. In fact, even in that urgent application, there were no reasons given, just an order, which says nothing about the merits of what we are saying; and that will be heard on Thursday. Lastly, Chairperson, and I can assure you now, these proceedings will not get anywhere because unlike the last instance, we accepted the Hansard as presented; we will not accept it this time. Why? Because there is a difference this time. The last time the Hansard was a proper reflection of what happened on the videos. We watched the video and read the Hansard. There are many, many instances, and if you take us there we will take you there, where we show you that the Hansard does not reflect some of the statements in the House, for example, the speech by the Deputy President – it is not there. And there were interruptions and interjections during that speech. That is just one example of many. Where in some instances members of the ANC raised points of order without being acknowledged by the Speaker, they are not reflected in the Hansard. So I am saying in short…

Acting Chairperson: Thank you. Thank you, Advocate. We take it at that point. We take it at that point.

Adv Ka-Siboto: I will leave it at that. Thank you, Chairperson.

Acting Chairperson: Yes. Hon Members, it is your time. Hon Mlenzana, your hand is up?

Mr Mlenzana: Yes, thanks, Chairperson.

Committee Secretary: Hello, Chair?

Acting Chairperson: Yes? You have the platform.

Mr Mlenzana: Is that an order now?

Acting Chairperson: No, Mr Mlenzana, you can speak.

Mr Mlenzana: Okay, thanks, thanks, Chairperson. Thanks for allowing… Thanks, Chairperson, for allowing us to come in. If you would have noticed, Chairperson, when I actually allowed the learned person from the side of the affected Members to come in I deliberately had a choice of words, particularly when it came to the word ‘deliberation’. I was careful to say let us allow the presentation, save the deliberation, which I now come in to actually caution this session that let us avoid falling into a trap of seeing ourselves now going back to what we had dealt with in December. There is an echo, Chairperson, I do not know from which side, but I will continue. My view, Chairperson and the session, is that this is not worth deliberation. We had allowed the ten minute presentation, of course, as a way of procedural fairness, however, the contents and/or facts, as correctly put by the Initiator, were perfectly rebutted and now we cannot, and we should not, open the same, here and now. That is my take, Chair, that let us take that as noted but not as a way of hip-hopping or stopping us from continuing with these hearings. That is my suggestion, Chair, that let us continue. Of course, we have noted that but not for this hearing. Let us continue: that is my view, Chairperson.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Mlenzana. Hon Members, if it is possible, can we switch off the mic[rophone] in the room because it is making an echo? Hon Ndlozi?

Committee Secretary: Sorry, Chair? I am sorry for interrupting [but] Adv Golden wanted to say something to assist the process.

Acting Chairperson: Okay.

Adv Golden: Thank you, chair. Just very briefly; just a matter of procedure. Is the Committee now deliberating the in limine points? If that is the case, can I then ask, and I am sure my learned friend will not object, so that the proceedings then stand down to allow the Committee to deliberate to come back with a ruling?

Acting Chairperson: Okay, thanks for the assistance Hon…

Mr Mlenzana: Chairperson, can I raise an order? Can I raise an order, Chairperson, if you allow me? [It is] Hon Mlenzana.

Acting Chairperson: Yes, Hon Mlenzana?

Mr Mlenzana: Thanks for that. I am now coming with a point of order. Chairperson, there is nowhere where as the Committee we have opened space for deliberations. That is the order, thanks.

Acting Chairperson: Alright. Thanks, Hon Mlenzana. Order sustained. Can we then request Hon Ndlozi?

Dr Ndlozi: Thanks, Chairperson. Chairperson, I do think it is procedurally fair. We must stand down and then excuse everyone else, so that the Committee applies itself to the arguments that have been put forward, takes a decision, comes back to communicate it. It is only fair. I am not sure why we would procedurally not do that. We have done it before, and it is only fair. So before I make my stake, I think we should proceed in that manner. And I am not sure but maybe you can address me on this point. Thanks very much.

Acting Chairperson: Thanks, Hon Ndlozi. Hon Members, this matter has been raised before and I do not know if there is any adverse issues that we would want to raise in the absence of the both legal teams or what impact it will have on the procedures; hence, I am saying you are here, you can deliberate, so that we deal with this matter, here and now.

Mr N Xaba (ANC): Chair, our hands are raised?

Acting Chairperson: Yes, Hon Nhlanhla?

Mr Xaba: Thank you, Chair. Chair, I am raising my hand to support Hon Mlenzana. Like, as the Initiator had already alluded to the responses, which our learned friend spoke of, that, Chair, we allow the proceedings to proceed – the hearing to proceed. Also, Chair, we must also raise that our learned was already engaging on the matters as though already responding to them. However, he wanted to insist that we have this hearing postponed as we await the court, which is not helpful. So, Chair, I am raising my hand to support Hon Mlenzana that this hearing must proceed.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Nhlanhla. I will go back to Hon Ndlozi. If you still want to make your points, Hon Ndlozi?

Dr Ndlozi: No, thanks very much, Chairperson. No, no, I agree with the submission of the affected Members. As a matter of fact, the central natural justice concern here is why would we not allow the Speaker to come and give testimony to the decisions that she made? Both as a person that was there but also essential as a person that led the charges. So my submission is that we must allow that, firstly. And I think that in relation to the affected Hon Members, I agree fundamentally that the procedural concerns that have been raised must result in the immediate dismissal of the charges. So on those two scores, I am in full agreement. Thanks.

Acting Chairperson: Thanks, Hon Ndlozi. Hon Dlakude? Hon Dlakude, I am giving you the…

Ms D Dlakude (ANC): Thank you, thank you very much, Hon Chair. Thank you very much. Hon Chairperson, as we are already, I was hoping that maybe we will adjourn for a minute so that the Committee can discuss on its own. But seeing that we are discussing now, let me get straight to the point. As we are sitting here, Hon Chair, as a Committee, there is no court interdict before us, so there is no need for the postponement until Thursday because there is a court judgment that is coming. That is my first point, of which I fully agree with what the Initiator said. Secondly, Hon Chair, this is a Parliamentary process and not a judicial process, and we do not need an independent facilitator. I do have trust in the capabilities of this Committee to execute its duties, fairly so. In the 2020 SONA matters, as we all know, against some EFF members, the very same Committee which is accused of being biased, unanimously agreed to drop all the charges because of [a] lack of evidence. So I am saying this because we are accused of being in our numbers as the ANC in this Committee, while we are representing Parliament, of which the Committee is the multi-party Committee represented by parties of Parliament. So I just want to bring that before us so that we remember… We are reminded that this Committee applies its mind when it do[es] its work. So, that is two. The other issue, Hon Chairperson. In our previous hearings last year, yes, we could not find any evidence against Hon Mente; hence, she was not given any sanction. She went scot-free because we could not find any evidence with regard to her case. So Hon Chair, this thing of not being fair in this Committee because this Committee numerically has many ANC Members is neither here nor there. Hon Chair, we apply our minds, we deal with the facts that are before us. And the issue of calling the Speaker to appear before this Committee; we said it previously, and we are still saying it, we have enough evidence before us to deal with these matters. So I submit, Hon Chair. Thank you.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Dlakude. Hon Members, as you have deliberated, we will proceed with the agenda before us. We were at the stage where the Acting Chair has to put the charges for Members to plead. I have indicated, Hon Members, that I will recognise each Member and request the Member to plead to the charges. I will allow for up to three minutes for Members wishing to give a plea explanation. I will give them an opportunity to do so. If a Member pleads guilty to the charges, I will ascertain from the Member whether the Member admits guilt to the charges as put to him by the Initiator. If a Member refuses to enter a plea I must enter a plea of not guilty, in respect of that Member. I will start, Hon Members, with Hon Ntlangwini. Hon Ntlangwini, how do you plead to the charges?

Ms N Ntlangwini (EFF): Thank you very much, House Chair. Chair, I plead not guilty to these concocted charges by the ANC government. I do not wish to make any explanation now, at this point. I do reserve my right to do it at a later stage. Thank you.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Ntlangwini. Hon Matumba, how do you plead to the charges?

Mr A Matumba (EFF): Thank you, Chair. Not guilty.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Matumba. Hon Mafanya, how do you plead to the charges? Is Hon Mafanya on the platform? Oh, yes. Hon Mafanya? You are not audible, Mr Mafanya. Hon Members, we just see on the screen Hon Mafanya’s gadget is failing him. He is making gestures there. Not guilty? He is showing gestures of down. Hon Mafanya, I take that you plead not guilty to these charges? He is agreeing. Thank you, Hon Mafanya. Hon Mathulelwa, how do you plead to the charges?

Ms B Mathulelwa (EFF): I plead not guilty. And I wish to give an explanation at this point and I reserve my right to do so at a later stage.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Mathulelwa. Hon Marais, how do you plead guilty to the charges?

Ms P Marais (EFF): Not guilty, Chairperson. Chairperson, can you hear me?

Acting Chairperson: Yes, Ma’am. Yes, I can hear you, Hon Member.

Ms Marais: Okay, I am pleading not guilty, Chairperson. And I will reserve my right to keep this for a later stage. I will [not] give an explanation at this point, and I reserve my right to do it at a later stage. Thank you, Chairperson.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Marais. Hon Chirwa, how do you plead guilty to the… how do you plead to the charges? Sorry.

Ms N Chirwa (EFF): Thank you, Chairperson. I plead not guilty. I do not wish to give an explanation at this point and I reserve my right to do so at a later stage.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Chirwa. Hon Tambo, how do you plead to the charges? Hon Tambo? Your mic is open but there is no sound.

Committee Secretary: Chair, can I suggest Members who have difficulty they can also write on the chat and we can communicate that.

Acting Chairperson: Okay, I will go back to Hon Tambo. Let me take Hon Montwedi. Hon Montwedi, how do you plead to the charges?

Mr Mothusi Montwedi (EFF): Thank you very much, Chairperson. I plead not guilty. I do not wish to give an explanation at this point, and reserve my right to do so at a later stage. Thank you very much, Acting Chairperson.

Mr S Tambo (EFF): Acting Chair, am I audible?

Acting Chairperson: Yes, you are now, Mr Tambo.

Mr Tambo: Yes, I plead not guilty. I do not wish to give an explanation at this point, and reserve my right to do so at a later stage.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Tambo. Hon Yako, how do you plead to the charges?

Ms Y Yako (EFF): Thank you, Chairperson. I plead not guilty, and I reserve my right to explain at a later stage. Thank you very much.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Yako. Hon Mkhonto, how do you plead to the charges?

Ms K Mkhonto (EFF): Greetings, Chair, Members of the Committee, and Hon Members. Chair, I plead not guilty. I reserve my right to give an explanation at a later stage. Thank you.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Mkhonto. Hon Members, are there any Members present who have not been asked to plead to the charges? Have I called out every Member? I do not see any hands. It means all the affected Members have pleaded to the charges. Hon Members, at this point, can I request that we take a comfort break. We were supposed to have that tea at half past eleven for fifteen minutes. We are now at four minutes to twelve. We will be back in fifteen minutes.

[Break]

Acting Chairperson: Are we back, Hon Members?

Mr Xaba: Yes, we are here, Chair. Thank you.

Acting Chairperson: Is everybody back? Fifteen minutes [are] gone.

Adv Golden: Chair, not everybody is back. I am just waiting for them to come in.

Acting Chairperson: Okay. Are we all back, Hon Members, and the legal teams on both sides?

Adv Ka-Siboto: Chairperson, if you could just grant the indulgence to the member of the Initiator’s team who is still outside. If you could just grant us an indulgence, Chairperson. But the EFF legal team is all present.

Acting Chairperson: Please indicate when you are here because I hear your gadget saying ‘recording started’ and I do not see from here to that side, so that we can start.

Adv Golden: We can start. Thank you, Chair.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Members, both legal teams, affected Members. We are now going to the witnesses. Let me indicate, Hon Members, that Rule 168 requires that before a witness gives evidence before a House or Committee, the chairperson must, in accordance with Section 16 of the Powers Act, inform the witnesses as follows: they must be informed that by law you are required to fully answer all the questions put to you… Notwithstanding that the 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 a committee may not be used against you in any court or place outside of Parliament, except in criminal proceedings concerning a charge of perjury or a charge relating to the evidence or documents required in these proceedings. Now, is the Witness there with you, Initiator?

Adv Golden: Thank you, Chair. We will lead our Witness, who is Mr Xaso. He is ready to take the oath.

Acting Chairperson: Okay. Mr Xaso, do you have an objection of taking an oath or making an affirmation?

Mr Masibulele Xaso (Secretary to National Assembly): Chairperson, I have no objection to taking [an] affirmation. Thank you.

Acting Chairperson: Okay, then you have to repeat this after me. I confirm that the testimony or evidence I am going to give is the truth.

Mr Xaso: I confirm that the testimony I am going to give is the truth.

Acting Chairperson: And only the truth and binding on my conscience.

Mr Xaso: And only the truth and binding on my conscience.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Mr Xaso. Hon Members, I now recognise the Initiator, Adv Golden, who will present the evidence regarding the allegations. Adv Golden, you have the platform.

Adv Golden: Thank you, Chair. Mr Xaso, we will go through certain introductory questions before we proceed to deal with the video evidence, which you will take us through, and I will guide you through that. For good order, many of us, we know you, the Committee knows you, but for record purposes what is your position and what are your main responsibilities?

Mr Xaso: Chairperson, my responsibility is that of Secretary to the National Assembly. I advise the House on matters of parliamentary procedure and practice, and primarily the Speaker and then the Members of the National Assembly, and, of course, the House as a whole, on matters of procedure and practice in terms of the rules and applicable law.

Adv Golden: Yes, and who do you report to?

Mr Xaso: I report to the Secretary to Parliament. And in terms of House duties and procedural matters in the House I work with the Speaker directly.

Adv Golden: Okay. And what is the procedure, if you could just briefly explain, when a Member is removed from the Chamber? If you could answer with reference to the Rules of the National Assembly, if there are any relevant rules.

Mr Xaso: Chairperson, the procedure will be found mainly from Rule 70, where a Member refuses to abide by a directive of the presiding officer or the Member is acting in a disorderly manner, the presiding officer may ask a Member to leave the House. That is Rule 70. If the presiding officer is of the opinion that a Member is deliberately contravening a provision of these rules or that a Member is disregarding the authority of the chair, or that a Member’s misconduct is grossly disorderly, he or she may order the Member to leave the Chamber immediately for the remainder of the sitting. So direct contravention of the rules, disregard of the authority of the chair, and [a] Member acting disorderly. And then the next step if a Member refuses will then be to invite the Sergeant-at-Arms – that is in terms of Rule 73 – to assist the Member to leave the House. Sub[section] 1 of that rule says: ‘If a Member refuses to leave the Chamber when ordered to do so by the presiding officer, in terms of Rule 70 and 71, the presiding officer must instruct the Sergeant-at-Arms to remove the Member from the Chamber and the precincts of Parliament, forthwith. Should the Sergeant-at-Arms not succeed in removing the Member, the next step is for the Speaker to invite the Parliamentary Protection Services to remove the Member from the Chamber.’ And, of course, there are expectations that Members would not interfere in the removal of themselves and their colleagues from the Chamber. And the rules indicate that in the event of such interference then the Speaker may order the Members to be removed, who are involved in that, from the Chamber and precincts of Parliament, forthwith. And, of course, once the removal has taken place the circumstances of that removal must then be discussed by the subcommittee on the Physical Removal of Members, which is a subcommittee of the Rules Committee. And, of course, the Rules Committee will deliberate on the matter and decide what to do with the matter; whether the matter ends there or the matter is referred to another structure to process it.

Adv Golden: Okay, so if you could just can pause there. Just with reference to page 653 of your bundle…

Mr Xaso: 653?

Adv Golden: Yes, it follows immediately, if I am not mistaken, from the unrevised Hansard transcription. 653 of the bundle, that is the report of the subcommittee.

Mr Xaso: Alright.

Adv Golden: I will refer you to the very last paragraph on that page. What happened on the 23rd of June 2022? Page 653.

Mr Xaso: Let me just check, Chair.

Adv Golden: Do you have that?

Mr Xaso: Yes, I have, Chair. In the meeting of the subcommittee?

Adv Golden: The very last paragraph it refers to a meeting on 23 June 2022.

Mr Xaso: I am just trying to fix my file because I removed… Just a moment, I will be with you now. My apologies for that. 653, you said?

Adv Golden: 653, it is the report of the subcommittee on the physical removal of Members.

Mr Xaso: Yes, I am there, Chairperson.

Adv Golden: The last paragraph on that page.

Mr Xaso: ‘At its meeting on 23 June the subcommittee received a briefing from the Secretary to the National Assembly, Mr Xaso, on the applicable rules related to the incidents and an overview of the Speaker’s reports. Having reviewed the Speaker’s reports on the removal of Members on 09 and 10 June and having at its disposal the minutes of proceedings.’

Adv Golden: Okay, if you could just go to page 658. If you could, just for the record, identify what this is?

Mr Xaso: 658 is a report of the Speaker of the National Assembly on the removal of Members from the House in terms of Rule 73 of the National Assembly.

Adv Golden: And that is what happened on the 9th of June?

Mr Xaso: Yes.

Adv Golden: And if we could go to page 663.

Mr Xaso: Yes, I am there, Chairperson.

Adv Golden: Yes, this is the report of the Speaker of the events which occurred on the 10th of June. And the Members will be removed, is that correct?

Mr Xaso: That is correct.

Adv Golden: And just to confirm, you were relevant at the subcommittee meeting in order to brief the Committee.

Mr Xaso: Yes, Chairperson, I was there to brief.

Adv Golden: And then also just to confirm the procedure, that from the subcommittee on the physical removal of Members, the matter is then referred to the rules committee. Is that correct?

Mr Xaso: That is correct, Chairperson.

Adv Golden: Yes. Just to clarify, what will the rules committee then do?

Mr Xaso: The rules committee would consider the report of the subcommittee. There are various options. One of the options would be that they are satisfied with the report received and the matter ends there – there is no further action required. In other instances, the rules committee, depending on the recommendations of the subcommittee, would then decide for the matter to be taken to another level. If it is a matter that concerns issues of contempt, it would obviously refer to the powers and privileges committee, that the matter be referred to the powers and privileges committee. Of course, if it is matters of ethics and other matters, it would go to the Joint Committee on Ethics and Members' Interest. So it really depends on the nature of the recommendation of the subcommittee.

Adv Golden: Yes. Also just to confirm that the Hansard, the unrevised Hansard, as we call it, because there are various iterations of the Hansard, has been included in the bundle for the proceedings of 09 and 10 June 2022?

Mr Xaso: Yes, it has been included.

Adv Golden: Yes. In order to deal with one issue that which has now arose today only for the first time – it has never been conveyed to me before. You have heard what Mr Ka-Siboto said when he addressed the Chairperson and Committee on his in limine points. One of the points that he raised was that for this hearing they will not agree to the submission of the unrevised Hansard. Do you remember that?

Mr Xaso: Yes, I do.

Adv Golden: And I am sure that must come as a surprise to you as it did to me?

Mr Xaso: Well, I do not know what is going to be raised, so anything that is raised here which I was not aware of would naturally be a surprise.

Adv Golden: So Mr Ka-Siboto, if you recall, [and] if I hear him correctly – I am sure that he will deal with it in cross-examination – that they will not agree to the unrevised Hansard to be placed on the record because it seems to be inaccurate. And he referred to certain comments or statements that were made by the Deputy President. Do you recall that?

Mr Xaso: I recall that remark, yes.

Adv Golden: Yes, so what is the procedure of the Hansard transcriptions? We all know that it is the audio recordings, the transcription of only the audio, not audio visual, just the audio, is that correct?

Mr Xaso: Chairperson, I think I do need to state this before I answer this: I am not an expert on Hansard matters. I am Secretary to the National Assembly, and there are Hansard practitioners. But Hansard, of course, is a record of the transcript of what happens in the House. And there is [a] unrevised Hansard that is published. And Members…

Adv Golden: Mr Xaso, where is the unrevised or the first draft of the Hansard transcription published?

Mr Xaso: I think it would be on the parliamentary website. But as I say, there would be people in Hansard who would confirm those issues. It is not my area. But Hansard is generally available to Members and Members are always at liberty to correct or to query, that is why it is called [the] unrevised Hansard, so that the final Hansard is then properly made. But, Chair, I want to emphasise I do not speak on authority on Hansard, it is not my area.

Adv Golden: Yes. No, certainly. As far as your concerned and whether this is within your personal knowledge, do you recall that any of the EFF members, the affected Members in this hearing, whether they objected to the unrevised Hansard that we have now included in the bundle?

Mr Xaso: Well, I have not been made aware if that would have happened. It may not have come to me because I do not deal with Hansard directly, but it has not come to my attention.

Adv Golden: And have you been asked for the revised copy of the Hansard transcription?

Mr Xaso: No, not that I am aware of. It has not reached me personally, no.

Adv Golden: Yes, thank you. So then let us return to the proceedings in the National Assembly on 09 and 10 June 2022. You were present on both days, that is correct?

Mr Xaso: Chairperson, yes, I was present on both days.

Adv Golden: Yes, so at the risk of stating the obvious, you personally observed the proceedings on both days when the Speaker of the National Assembly presided?

Mr Xaso: Yes, I did, Chairperson.

Adv Golden: And what was the format of the National Assembly sitting on 09 and 10 June, was it hybrid, in-person, online? If you could just, again, for good order, place that on the record.

Mr Xaso: Chairperson, the sittings of the 9th and 10 June had to do with Budget Vote number one. This is the budget vote on the Presidency. And the programme of the House is agreed by the programme committee beforehand, before matters happen in the House. This item would have been on the programme, discussed at the level of the Whippery, and discussed at the level of the Programme Committee, which is chaired by the Speaker of the National Assembly. This was a debate; it was not a question and answer session in the typical sense. So it was a debate where you would have the sponsor of the budget present the budget and you have Members deliberate on the budget. And because it is the Presidency budget vote and it is usually a long debate, then the reply by the President would generally be on the following day. That was the case even in this instance. So you had a debate on the first day, and then you had a Reply by the President the next day.

Adv Golden: Yes, and in terms of the format, was it a hybrid meeting?

Mr Xaso: Yes, it was a hybrid [meeting].

Adv Golden: Yes.

Mr Xaso: A portion of Members in the Chamber, physically, and other Members on the virtual platform.

Adv Golden: Okay. Just before we go to the video recording evidence on the 9th. Just to confirm that the order of proceedings was decided on beforehand by the programming committee?

Mr Xaso: Yes, it is a standard thing in Parliament, certainly in the National Assembly, that there are structures that deal with different issues, in which instance the business of the House is within the scope of the Programme Committee. So it would have decided the nature of that session, yes.

Adv Golden: Thank you. And if we can now turn to the video recording on the 9th of June. Chairperson and Committee, I will now ask the technicians to play the 9th of June 2022. We will play the first of the proceedings – the video recording – and I will ask the technician to stop at various stages to pause to ask Mr Xaso some questions. Thank you.

The Committee was taken through the video recording of 09 June 2022.

Adv Golden: If you could just pause there for one second. Thank you. Mr Xaso, if you could just identify the Member.

Mr Xaso: That is Hon Matumba.

Adv Golden: Matumba?

Mr Xaso: Yes.

Adv Golden: Thank you, we can go ahead.

The Committee resumed watching the video recording of 09 June 2022.

Adv Golden: Can we just pause there for a second, please. Mr Xaso, if you could just maybe explain – I mean, it is obvious, but I think for good order – what is the Speaker compelled to do? What is she doing now?

Mr Xaso: The Speaker is really trying to maintain order in the House, and even reminding Members of the procedure in terms of raising points of order – so she is presiding, in simple terms, and doing what the rules expect of her to do when she is in the chair to preside. Obviously, and if this is not what you are asking you can let me know, the Member who had taken the floor, initially recognised but later on not recognised, Hon Matumba, had made certain remarks which are in breach of the rules – Rule 84 in particular, among others – about making abusive remarks about the President.

Adv Golden: Yes. Were those the remarks we heard about the money under the mattress?

Mr Xaso: The money under the mattress but also the issue of – I am trying to look for the exact words that he used – ‘acquired intellectual’ something…

Adv Golden: Yes, there was that comment. Yes.

Mr Xaso: Yes, that is an insult and that is abuse. And a Member affecting others. So the issue of the money under the mattress, those would be covered under Rule 85 in terms of unsubstantiated reflections on another Member where you need a substantive motion.

Adv Golden: Yes.

Mr Xaso: So there was a breach of the rules already.

Adv Golden: Yes.

Mr Xaso: And the Speaker was trying to bring the House to order at that point.

Adv Golden: Yes. And we also heard, and I would like for you to confirm that, that the Speaker asked Mr Matumba to sit?

Mr Xaso: Yes.

Adv Golden: Yes. Thank you. We can continue.

The Committee resumed watching the video recording.

Adv Golden: If we could just pause there, please. Mr Xaso, if you can just identify the Member.

Mr Xaso: Chairperson, that is Hon Ntlangwini.

Adv Golden: Ms Ntlangwini?

Mr Xaso: Yes.

Adv Golden: Thank you. We can go ahead.

The Committee resumed watching the video recording.

Adv Golden: If you could just stop there, please. Chair, sorry, just before I go ahead. The recording is really bad. We can hardly hear what the Members are saying, so I am afraid we will have to take it as slow as we can. I am told that it has to do with your parliamentary network system. But the speech of the recording is broken in certain places, but we will try and follow as best as we can. Mr Xaso, you have seen the interaction now between the Speaker and Ms Ntangwini. She has warned Ms Ntlangwini. What did she warn of and what did she ask her to withdraw?

Mr Xaso: She asked Hon Ntlangwini to withdraw the unparliamentary remarks that she had made in relation to the President, "money launderer"… I will just read them from the Hansard, Chairperson, if you allow me? I just want to be accurate in terms of what I give. ‘We cannot be addressed by a money launderer and a criminal’ is what the Hon Member said.

Adv Golden: Yes, you will also find that, if I am not mistaken, at page 261 of the unrevised Hansard.

Mr Xaso: That is where I am reading from. 262 speaks of "the President is accused of serious crimes'. We cannot be addressed by a person like this with such huge accusations." Yes, that continues.

Adv Golden: Thank you, Mr Xaso. Those are the remarks that the Speaker is now asking Ms Ntlangwini to withdraw?

Mr Xaso: That is right.

Adv Golden: Yes, we can go ahead. Thank you.

The Committee resumed watching the video recording.

Adv Golden: If we can stop there, please. Mr Xaso, we now also have the other Member who is seated at the back of Ms Ntlangwini. He also rose to his feet. That was Mr…?

Mr Xaso: Mr Matumba.

Adv Golden: Matumba?

Mr Xaso: Yes.

Adv Golden: So also just to confirm what is already there, Mr Matumba supports Ms Ntlangwini’s comments that the President is a criminal?

Mr Xaso: Yes, he does. He says it is a political statement. And he supports… Of course, he was not recognised when he spoke.

Adv Golden: I was just going to ask, it appears that he rose up without being recognised.

Mr Xaso: He spoke when the Speaker was busy addressing the House. The Speaker should have been heard in silence. So that is what happened there.

Adv Golden: Thank you. We can continue.

The Committee resumed watching the video recording.

Adv Golden: If we can pause there, please. Thank you. At the risk of stating the obvious, Mr Xaso. There appears to be chaos on both the online platform and in the House, is that correct?

Mr Xaso: Yes, largely the online platform, but certainly in the House as well there was disorderliness.

Adv Golden: Yes, and the Speaker then asks… who does she then ask to leave the Chamber?

Mr Xaso: She initially asked Ms Ntlangwini.

Adv Golden: Yes.

Mr Xaso: And the next interaction was Mr Matumba as well.

Adv Golden: As well, yes. Thank you, we may proceed. Mr Xaso, with reference to page 268 of the unrevised Hansard – that is where we are right now – just to confirm, again, that the Speaker has requested their removal?

Mr Xaso: Yes, the Speaker requests their removal ‘Sergeant-at-Arms, please remove the Members’. At that point the Speaker is referring to the Hon Member Ntlangwini and Hon Matumba to leave the House and they are refusing.

Adv Golden: Yes.

Mr Xaso: ‘Remove them’...

Adv Golden: My apologies. Please, go ahead.

Mr Xaso: And then says ‘Remove them from the House.’ Yes.

Adv Golden: And also, again, at the risk of stating the obvious, or asking the obvious, rather, why did she ask them? Why was she compelled on the objective video evidence to ask them to leave?

Mr Xaso: Because they were in breach of Rule 70, among others, and Rule 69, obviously. And then she asked them to leave the House, and the Hon Members refused to leave the House. And, therefore, the next step had to be calling of the Sergeant-at-Arms to assist the Members to leave the House. And, of course, as we know, the Members did not even leave the House at that point; hence it had to be escalated to the next level. Yes.

Adv Golden: Thank you. We may proceed.

The Committee resumed watching the video recording.

Adv Golden: Here we see the Sergeant-at-Arms, Mr Tebello Maleeme – Mr Xaso, just to confirm? I just want to be very careful, I do not want to say Malema. It is Maleeme, is that correct?

Mr Xaso: Yes.

Adv Golden: The Sergeant-at-Arms. He is now approaching Mr Matumba to leave.

Mr Xaso: That is correct, yes.

Adv Golden: Thank you.

The Committee resumed watching the video recording.

Adv Golden: Mr Xaso, please just explain for the record purposes what we observe on the video recording.

Mr Xaso: We now see the Sergeant-at-Arms…

Adv Golden: Could we go back to the video recording, please? If we could just pause there where we left off. Thank you.

Mr Xaso: The Sergeant-at-Arms pointing out, for the benefit of the Protection Services, the Members who ought to be removed from the House, and that would have been, at this point, standing next to Hon Matumba but also looking in the direction of Hon Ntlangwini.

Adv Golden: Yes. And also just for record purposes to say that there are male and female members of the Protection Services that have been asked to come in to assist with the removal?

Mr Xaso: Certainly, that is correct, yes.

Adv Golden: Yes, thank you. We can go ahead.

The Committee resumed watching the video recording.

Adv Golden: If we could just pause there, please? Thank you. Mr Xaso, as you correctly pointed out the male and female members of the Parliamentary Protection Services, as we call them the PPS, have come into the Chamber because Ms Ntlangwini and Mr Matumba refused to leave the Chamber.

Mr Xaso: Yes.

Adv Golden: They have been in the Chamber now, and it seems like they are still refusing to leave. Is that correct?

Mr Xaso: They had not left on their own, yes. And they had not been removed yet, yes.

Adv Golden: They refused the Sergeant-at-Arms as well?

Mr Xaso: Well, I think the Sergeant-at-Arms can speak to that. As far as I see it they had not been removed yet, and they had not left when the Sergeant-at-Arms had removed them.

Adv Golden: Yes, but members of the PPS are already inside, they are still there.

Mr Xaso: They are already inside. It could be that the Sergeant-at-Arms was trying to explain to them the exact Members…

Adv Golden: Where to go and who to remove?

Mr Xaso: Yes.

Adv Golden: Okay, let us see.

Mr Xaso: But because I was not there physically with the Sergeant-at-Arms so I do not know the conversation that was happening there. Certainly they had not left at that point.

Adv Golden: Yes, so in other words they were still refusing at that point to leave?

Mr Xaso: Chairperson, I am not able to say they were refusing because I do not know what they were saying there, but they had not left. They had been asked to leave, and they had not left, so they were still in the Chamber.

Adv Golden: I think maybe I need to make it clear, it is my fault. They had refused the Sergeant-at-Arms.

Mr Xaso: That is right.

Adv Golden: Yes, which necessitated the calling in of the PPS?

Mr Xaso: That is correct, yes.

Adv Golden: Thank you, let us see what happens further.

The Committee resumed watching the video recording.

Adv Golden: If we could pause the video recording, please? Mr Xaso, if you could just explain to us what happened?

Mr Xaso: Here we see the Hon Matumba clearly not keen to move, to leave the House and being removed forcefully by the Parliamentary Protection Services. And I do need to state this, and Hon Members will see, there are some instances where Protection Services will come in and the Member would just walk out with the members. But there are instances like this one where the Member is not moving out on his own and has to be forcefully removed from the House, and that is what we see here.

Adv Golden: Yes, so what we see here – and just for you to confirm – is that Mr Matumba resisted his physical removal, hence why they had to physically remove him from the Chamber?

Mr Xaso: Yes, that is right.

Adv Golden: Thank you. We can go ahead.

The Committee resumed watching the video recording.

Adv Golden: And, again, if we could pause there, please. Thank you. That is then followed by Ms Ntlangwini. Can you explain to us what we have observed?

Mr Xaso: We have observed her also being removed by the Parliamentary Protection Services from the House. We do not see any fighting, but, of course, the Member had refused to move out when asked to by the Speaker and by the Sergeant-at-Arms and it had to take Parliamentary Protection Services to be called in for her to be removed physically.

Adv Golden: Yes, and which Members of the PPS had walked out with Ms Ntlangwini?

Mr Xaso: I see there… Can we just ask for a rewind?

Adv Golden: Can we rewind for just one minute, please?

Acting Chairperson: Adv Golden, as they are rewinding I want you to come to a point where we will break and allow Members and the teams to take lunch so that we do not infringe on them.

Adv Golden: Sorry, Chair?

Acting Chairperson: We will allow you to rewind and deal with that point.

Adv Golden: That is fine. Thank you. So we will take the lunch adjournment now and then when we come back, and this is just for [the] purposes of the technicians, if we can rewind and go back to the removal of Ms Ntlangwini when we commence again after lunch. Thank you, Chair.

Acting Chairperson: Okay, perfect then. That will suffice for us. Hon Members, I will request that we pause here, take the lunch that is scheduled for forty-five minutes. We resume at two o’clock.

The Committee adjourned for a lunch break.

Acting Chairperson: Hon Members, the time is exactly two o’clock. Can we check with our support staff is everybody back?

Adv Golden: Chair, we [are] just waiting for the EFF’s legal team to come inside.

Acting Chairperson: Okay, you will then give us indication so that we resume.

Adv Golden: Thank you. Chair, we are all here.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Members. I hope we are refreshed. We are on our last leg for the day. Can we settle and resume as we allow Adv Golden to continue with leading the evidence. We are in your hands, Advocate.

Adv Golden: Thank you, Chair. We will then just go back to the removal of Ms Ntlangwini. If the technicians can just take us to that part of the video recording, please? Thank you. Chair, it seems that we [are] having some technical difficulties. Perhaps we can just allow the technicians to sort out the problem.

Acting Chairperson: We are here. We are waiting for them.

Adv Golden: Sorry, technicians, we cannot see the video. If you could go back to 39 minutes, please. We cannot see the video. If you could project it on the screens, please.

The Committee resumed watching the video recording.

Adv Golden: Thank you. If we could pause there. We have now had a better look, Mr Xaso, at the removal of Ms Ntlangwini. What are your observations, as obvious as they may be, but we need to go through them?

Mr Xaso: Thank you, Chair. I am sorry that I had to take you back to that clip. I see three colleagues, Protection Services – female – around Ms Ntlangwini when the Member is being removed from the Chamber. Yes.

Adv Golden: We can continue, thank you.

The Committee resumed watching the video recording.

Adv Golden: If we could just pause there, please? Yes, I must say that the audio of the video recording is bad. We can hardly hear anything that is happening. If the technicians can please… what they can do about the quality of the video.

Mr Xaso: That is Hon Mafanya.

Adv Golden: Mafanya?

Mr Xaso: Yes.

Adv Golden: Sorry, could the technicians go to one hour and three minutes, please? If we could just go there. I am terribly sorry, but we cannot hear anything.

The Committee resumed watching the video recording.

Adv Golden: If we can just stop there, please. Mr Xaso, although Ms Tafeni is not part of the charges, you do confirm the video recording that that was now her removal?

Mr Xaso: Yes.

Adv Golden: We can proceed.

The Committee resumed watching the video recording.

Adv Golden: Thank you. If we could pause there. Mr Xaso, you confirm that the Speaker has now asked Mr Mafanya to leave?

Mr Xaso: Yes, she did and she says something like ‘Can you bring in the bouncers?’ Which is… but, yes, she had asked.

Adv Golden: Thank you. We can continue. If we could go to one hour and fifteen minutes. I think that is where the President starts speaking.

The Committee resumed watching the video recording.

Adv Golden: If we could just pause there for one second. Mr Xaso, there is obviously great disorder on the online platform. Is my observation correct?

Mr Xaso: Yes, it is correct.

Adv Golden: Yes, and the Members on the online platform are speaking at the same time that the Speaker is speaking in the House, and that is why we cannot hear her properly?

Mr Xaso: That is correct, Chair.

Adv Golden: Yes, so I think at some other stage she rules that the online platform is muted. But let us just resume with the video. Hopefully that will come up within the next minute. Thank you.

The Committee resumed watching the video recording.

Adv Golden: I am sorry, if we could just stop there. Mr Xaso, the disorder and chaos continues on the online platform and that is the chief whip of the opposition, Ms Natasha Mazzone – she is trying to address the House and the Speaker, is that correct?

Mr Xaso: Yes, the then Chief Whip.

Adv Golden: Yes, while there is chaos on the online platform?

Mr Xaso nodded his head in the affirmative.

Adv Golden: Sorry, if I could just, for record purposes, refer to pages 316 and 317, Chair and Committee, of the unrevised Hansard. The chaos was so bad that the address of Ms Mazzone to the House could not be transcribed. We can continue.

The Committee resumed watching the video recording.

Adv Golden: We can stop there, please. Thank you. Mr Xaso, here we see that the Speaker has ruled on the issue of the points of order. If you could just, for record purposes, confirm what her ruling was?

Mr Xaso: The Speaker was concerned about the disorderliness that was prevalent at the time. Her ruling was that the virtual platform would be muted and, of course, that points of order would not be taken. And the idea was that…

Adv Golden: To be more accurate, if my memory serves me right from the video clip, that there will be no points of order until the President has delivered his budget vote speech.

Mr Xaso: That is correct, yeah.

Adv Golden: Yes, and she also said that up to that point the points of order that had been raised had been frivolous.

Mr Xaso: Yes.

Adv Golden: Thank you. We may continue. If the technicians could possibly go to one hour thirty-one minutes.

The Committee resumed watching the video recording.

Adv Golden: If we could pause there. Thank you. Mr Xaso, if you could identify that Member, please?

Mr Xaso: That would be Hon Mathulelwa.

Adv Golden: Mathulelwa?

Mr Xaso: Yes.

Adv Golden: Thank you. If we could continue with the video.

The Committee resumed watching the video recording.

Adv Golden: If we can stop there, please. Thank you. Mr Xaso, just your comment on Ms Mathulelwa’s behaviour, she is shouting at the Speaker after the Speaker has not only made a ruling but has repeated a ruling.

Mr Xaso: Yes.

Adv Golden: Just comment on her behaviour, please.

Mr Xaso: I think the point that has to be made before I get to the specifics is that when a Member has difficulties with a ruling of the Speaker, there is a procedure to do that. And the rules say that that ruling must not be challenged in the House, but you may report the principle of the ruling – it may be dealt with by the rules committee. So I think that point is important. So Speaker had made a ruling, and the expectation is that everyone must abide by that ruling – the Member did not. Of course, she was outside when the ruling was made but Speaker took the time to explain what she had ruled, and the Member continued to speak and also unrecognised, in breach of the rule that says that when the Speaker speaks, Members should not speak.

Adv Golden: And did she respect the Speaker?

Mr Xaso: She did not respect the ruling of the Speaker.

Adv Golden: And is it fair to say and accurate to say, judging from the video, that she continued to shout at the Speaker?

Mr Xaso: Yes, she was shouting.

Adv Golden: Thank you. We can go ahead.

The Committee resumed watching the video recording.

Adv Golden: If we can pause there as well. So Mr Xaso, again, we hear the accusations against Mr Ramaphosa from Ms Mathulelwa, calling him a criminal and money launderer. And we now already know that was dealt with earlier on in the proceedings by the Speaker, is that correct?

Mr Xaso: Yes, that is correct. Even if it was not dealt with earlier it would still be wrong. It is abusive in terms of the Rules.

Adv Golden: Yes, and we see once again that… Is it fair to say that Ms Mathulelwa was being particularly egregiously defiant and disrespectful to the Speaker?

Mr Xaso: Yes.

Adv Golden: Thank you. We can go ahead.

The Committee resumed watching the video recording.

Adv Golden: If we could just pause there. We hear now, just for you to confirm Mr Xaso, that the Speaker then ruled that Ms Mathulelwa leave the Chamber. She refused to leave and then the Sergeant-at-Arms was called to remove her.

Mr Xaso: That is correct.

Adv Golden: Thank you. We can continue.

Adv Ka-Siboto: Sorry, Chairperson? Sorry, Chair? Chairperson, can I please come in? It is Ka-Siboto for the EFF.

Acting Chairperson: Yes, Adv Ka-Siboto?

Adv Ka-Siboto: Chairperson – and I apologise for doing this but I must – you recall in the previous sitting that we had I objected to the line of questioning of Mr Xaso particularly because the answers were suggested to him. It happened initially in these proceedings, and I did not object, and I generally do not unless it is, of course, a concern. At the start the proposal that was put to Mr Xaso was ‘You would have heard the submissions by Mr Ka-Siboto, and they took me by surprise. Surely, they took you too by surprise. That infers the answer that Mr Xaso must give. It is happening yet again. And you will recall, again, from the previous hearing, I had suggested that when you put words in the mouth of the Witness, then it becomes embarrassing if that is not his actual answer, because then he is going to say ‘No, that is not my answer, I merely agree with the Initiator’s proposal.’ Now, what has happened now is a statement is put to Mr Xaso which is untrue and he accepts it to be true. If you have regard to this particular question at 326, the proposal is put that the Speaker had warned the speaker, or rather, Ms Mathulelwa, and asked her to leave. That is not what the transcript reflects, neither is it reflected in the video. Again, I ask, speaker, that when a question is put to Mr Xaso it must be open-ended: who, why, what, why. It cannot be prefixed by a suggestion of what the answer should be. Thank you, Chair.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Adv Ka-Siboto. Adv Golden, [do] you have anything to say before you proceed?

Adv Golden: Sorry, Chair? If you could just repeat that.

Acting Chairperson: I was saying do you have anything to say in terms of the request made by Adv Ka-Siboto before you proceed with your evidence-leading?

Adv Golden: Chair, yes, just on the issue of the questions. There was a complaint that I was putting leading questions to Mr Xaso. I am only putting what is already on the record to Mr Xaso, and that which is uncontroversial, and I am doing that in order to expedite the leading of the evidence, and normally that is uncontroversial if something is not in dispute. It was clear from the video recording that she had asked, or she had told Ms Mathulelwa to leave. I also refer you and the Committee to page 325 of the unrevised Hansard. You will recall that my learned friend, when he objected to my line of questioning, said that it is not correct that the Speaker had first warned Ms Mathulelwa. I am sorry, but my learned friend is just wrong. He is factually incorrect. When one looks at page 325 of the unrevised Hansard it is clear that the Speaker warned – it is in the middle of the page – she is warning Ms Mathulelwa. The warning was then followed by an instruction to leave the House. When she refused, the Sergeant-at-Arms was called. So that is uncontroversial. And may I also just complete my response by saying this, that we need to look at the behaviour of the relevant Member, not just in terms of the video evidence, but also cross-refer where possible, where it has been transcribed, to the unrevised Hansard. They complement each other. And that is where the warning comes from, but the warning was already on the recording. So the questions, if they are of a mildly leading nature, it is because it is uncontroversial and because it is already on the record. Thank you, Chair.

Adv Ka-Siboto: Chairperson, if you could just, before you make your ruling…

Acting Chairperson: Advocate?

Adv Ka-Siboto: Yes, Chairperson, if I could just respond before your ruling.

Acting Chairperson: I have not given you that. I would request that you also allow me to give me the space to say do you have anything, because I would not agree that you guys – you advocates – do something like a conversation amongst yourselves. I will give you that minute so that I make my ruling and we proceed, otherwise it is going to be you and her wanting to respond.

Adv Ka-Siboto: Thank you, Chairperson. I was by no means going to budge in and make my point without you giving me permission. That is precisely what I was asking for. And thank you for the indulgence, Chair. I persist with my objection. My learned friend has suggested that what she puts to Mr Xaso is uncontested and it is on the record. She, again, has repeated that on the record the Speaker asked my client to leave. I am inviting her to show this House where that is. It is not on 325 that she is talking about. It is not on 326. How then can it be uncontested? I ask again, where in the record does it show that what I am saying is shocking to her and Mr Xaso? There is no evidence to that effect. It is a proposition that is nowhere, so it cannot be correct to say it is uncontested evidence. Where does it say that the Speaker has asked the Member to leave? It is nowhere here. But yet Mr Xaso agreed to it. So I am inviting her to show us where the Speaker said the Member must leave, and thereafter you can make your ruling, Chair. Thank you.

Acting Chairperson: Adv Golden, do you want to respond to that before I make the ruling?

Adv Golden: Yes, may I – I do not agree with the objection – propose that I resolve it in this way? Can I put another question, Madam Chair, to Mr Xaso, just to deal with that? Mr Xaso, may I refer you… May I proceed, Chair?

Acting Chairperson: Yes, Ma’am, as a way of moving forward, or are you dealing with the concern that was raised by Adv Ka-Siboto that you must not ask leading questions, so that we move forward? I am trying to understand, are you dealing with what Adv Ka-Siboto raised, that you must refrain from asking leading questions, so that we know we moving forward. I would have ruled that you observe that request that is coming from him.

Adv Golden: I am happy to move forward.

Acting Chairperson: Alright, please do, but also consider what he has raised.

Adv Golden: I will take it under consideration. Thank you. Mr Xaso, you have now heard the interaction between the Chair, myself and Mr Ka-Siboto on the issue of the Speaker asking Ms Mathulelwa to leave. May I refer you to page 326 of the unrevised Hansard.

Mr Xaso: I am there, Chairperson.

Adv Golden: Yes, perhaps you can start where the Speaker says ‘Hon Member, will you please withdraw that?’

Mr Xaso: Yes.

Adv Golden: If you could just read the next couple of lines.

Mr Xaso: ‘Hon Member, will you please withdraw that?’ The Member says: ‘I am not leaving. What are you going to do?’

Adv Golden: Okay, if we could just pause there. Chair and Committee, here on page 326, Ms Mathulelwa says: ‘I am not leaving. What are you going to do?’ So what does that tell us, Mr Xaso, if Ms Mathulelwa tells the Speaker she is not leaving?

Mr Xaso: It tells us that Ms Mathulelwa understood what was going on to be asking her to leave.

Adv Golden: Thank you. We can go ahead with the video recording, please.

The Committee resumed watching the video recording.

Adv Golden: If we can just pause there. Mr Xaso, what did you hear Ms Mathulelwa say about leaving?

Mr Xaso: She is not going to leave.

Adv Golden: That she is not going to leave? Thank you.

Mr Xaso: Questioning, basically, the role of the Sergeant-at-Arms and his status.

Adv Golden: Thank you. We can go ahead.

The Committee resumed watching the video recording.

Adv Golden: We can pause there. Mr Xaso, then we hear again, if you can confirm that, that Ms Mathulelwa once again calls the President a criminal. Is that correct?

Mr Xaso: Yes, it is correct. Also, it is significant that the Speaker says ‘I have given you a further opportunity to leave the House.’

Adv Golden: To leave, yes.

Mr Xaso: And that further opportunity is when the Sergeant-at-Arms is assisting the Member – ‘further opportunity’.

Adv Golden: Thank you.

Mr Xaso: So it means that there would have been a first opportunity and then a further opportunity.

Adv Golden: Thank you, Mr Xaso. We can continue. Thank you.

The Committee resumed watching the video recording.

Adv Golden: If we could just pause there, please. Again, at the risk of asking you an obvious or rhetorical question, Mr Xaso, what are your observations from the video recording when the PPS comes in to remove Ms Mathulelwa? What is her behaviour?

Mr Xaso: I am seeing resistance, violent resistance from being moved from the House.

Adv Golden: Yes, thank you.

The Committee resumed watching the video recording.

Adv Golden: We can pause the recording there. Thank you. Mr Xaso, you confirm now that at that point for the 9th of June 2022, these were the EFF members who were removed from the House: it was Ms Ntlangwini, Mr Matumba, Ms Mafanya, and Ms Mathulelwa. Is that correct?

Mr Xaso: And Ms Tafeni as well.

Adv Golden: Ms Tafeni? Yes. Although she is not charged.

Mr Xaso: Indeed. So these are the Members who are before this Committee now who were removed on the day.

Adv Golden: On the 9th?

Mr Xaso: Yes.

Adv Golden: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. That is the evidence-in-chief… Sorry, that is my mistake. My request was going to be that[we take a five minute leg stretch and bathroom break, and then we will continue with the video recording of the 10th. The video recording for the 10th will take a bit longer because it involves more Members, on the 10th, including the Members who were also removed on the 9th. But I am in your hands. Thank you.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Members. Let us take a five minute leg stretch as requested. And please ask your technical team to be ready in five minutes.

Adv Golden: Thank you, Chair.

The Committee adjourned for a five minute break.

Acting Chairperson: Are Members back, saving us a minute?

Adv Ka-Siboto: Speaker, the counsel for… the Initiator and her junior are not with us at the moment, neither is the Witness. If you could just indulge us.

Acting Chairperson: That is fine, I will get an indication when everybody is back.

Adv Golden: My apologies, Madam Chair. We are back.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Adv Golden. We are in your hands for continuation. Just note as you continue for an hour that you save us on the time that we agreed on the programme.

Adv Golden: Thank you, Chair. We will now start with the video recording of the 10th of June 2022, which was the day the President was supposed to respond to questions regarding the budget vote speech which occurred the day before. Chair? Sorry. Just to facilitate things a little bit, I think we can jump straight to – this is for the technicians now – 40 minutes in the video. But there is just one or two things that I just want to place on the record with regards to the introduction. We do not have to play it, but I will just read it out. You will find it on page 480 and 481 of the unrevised Hansard, the first two pages of Friday 10 June, where the Speaker opens the proceedings by saying the following – I, for good order, will read into the record. She says: ‘Order, order, Hon Members. May I have your attention, please. Thank you. Hon Members, I noted that yesterday it took us exactly an hour and ten minutes before we could start with the business of Parliament.’ Then I jump to the second paragraph below that.”‘Now, there are certain rules, I want to draw your attention to which you are quite familiar with, that is on points of order Rule 92(1): ‘A Member may raise a point of order at any time during the proceedings of the House in terms of the procedures prescribed in Rule 66 by stating that he or she is rising on a point of order.’ This is the first thing I would like to remind: ‘A point of order must be confined only to a matter of parliamentary procedure or practice or a matter relating to unparliamentary conduct, as defined, and must be raised immediately when the alleged breach of conduct occurs’ that is in terms of Rule 92(2).’ Now please note this: ‘No other Member may raise another point of order before the presiding officer has ruled on the first point of order, that is Rule 92(7). No Member may raise a point of order again on a similar point of order if the presiding officer ruled that it is not a point of order or that the matter is out of order’ which is Rule 92(8). ‘Members may not disrupt proceedings by raising points of order that do not comply with the rules. A presiding officer's ruling on a point of order is final, binding, and may not be challenged or questioned in the House.’ This is now Rule 92(11). Now, Hon Members, I am reading all this because I would want to ensure that there is no disorder in the House today. Hon Members, it makes it very difficult for the presiding officer when everyone is up on their feet and raising their hand whilst the presiding officer is yet to deal with the first point of order. It makes things difficult. I want all of us with all the differences that we may have, it is important for us to maintain the decorum of the House. I am appealing to all of us, Hon Members, it is important that we maintain the decorum of the House. On that note, Hon Members I hope that I am understood and that Hon Members will conduct themselves like real Hon Members should. Thank you for your attention.” We do not have to play that on the video recording. I would ask that we then go, for the technicians, to say 42 minutes into the video recording. Thank you. We can start there. Sorry, if you could just pause there for one second, please. Technicians, can we just start at five minutes, please? If we could move back to the beginning. If we could just forward where the Speaker is in and where she starts the proceedings. Thank you. We could just fast forward where the Speaker is in a way… she stops the proceedings, thank you.

The Committee resumed watching the video recording.

Adv Golden: Sorry, if we could just pause there? Sorry, Chair, we are just having a problem with the correct video reference, but we will continue in just a second. Mr Xaso, what is the Speaker addressing the Members on now?

Mr Xaso: Chairperson, this is after Speaker had suspended proceedings. There was disorder which involved a Member crossing the floor and going where the mess is or was, and the Speaker then suspended proceedings and allowed Whips to reflect on the issue. So what you see here is a resumption of business after that happened and certain Members had to be removed from the Chamber. This is later in the proceedings.

Adv Golden: Thank you. So just to orientate ourselves on the video recording we would have to go to the beginning where the Speaker comes into the National Assembly, into the Chamber, and we just need to take it from there. Chair, the difficulty is that this is a Zoom recording being played for us today, whereas previously we were played the YouTube recording. That is what throws the video times out quite a bit. But let us try and follow it as closely as possible. If the technicians could just take us to the beginning of the proceedings on the 10th, then we will take it from there. Sorry, Chair, there is a problem with the video recording. If I could please just ask Mr Gcaleka to liaise with the technicians. They do not have the right place for us on the video clip.

Acting Chairperson: Mr Gcaleka, please assist as requested.

The Committee resumed watching the video recording.

Adv Golden: Sorry, if you could just pause there. Mr Xaso, you confirm that is the start of the proceedings of the 10th of June 2022?

Mr Xaso: Chairperson, I confirm that would have been the start of proceedings, yes.

Adv Golden: Thank you. If we could just let the video run for a minute or two. Thank you.

The Committee resumed watching the video recording.

Adv Golden: If we could just pause there. Thank you. Mr Xaso, if you could just identify that Member, please?

Mr Xaso: That is Hon Tambo.

Adv Golden: Thank you. We can continue.

The Committee resumed watching the video recording.

Adv Golden: If we can pause there, please. Mr Xaso, we have now all seen the interaction between the Speaker and Mr Tambo. Any observations on your part?

Mr Xaso: Hon Tambo made his point of order and Speaker ruled on the matter. And what I see here is that in spite of Rule 67 ‘Whenever the presiding officer addresses the House during a debate any Member then speaking or wanting to speak must resume his or her seat and the presiding officer must be heard without interruption.’ That was not observed. And, of course, remarks were made about the President being charged. And the House procedures are clear that in terms of Rule 85 if you believe something like that has happened then you must do a Motion in the House for the matter to be considered. The issue really was not whether the President was charged or not, it was the manner of raising matters in the House. And Speaker was trying to get the attention of the Member and the attention of the House, which she was not getting. Thanks.

Adv Golden: And tell me, was he listening to her, was he respecting her?

Mr Xaso: No, she was not respecting the rulings of the Speaker – he was not.

Adv Golden: Thank you. Can we continue with the video?

The Committee resumed watching the video recording.

Adv Golden: If we could just pause there, please. Mr Xaso, we see Mr Tambo is on his feet again. What are your comments and observations here?

Mr Xaso: I see that. [The] Speaker is begging him to take his seat, and, of course, up until now he had not taken his seat.

Adv Golden: Okay, we can continue. We can fast forward a bit, please.

The Committee resumed watching the video recording.

Adv Golden: Technicians, can we pause the video, please? Sorry, Mr Xaso, who is that on the floor?

Mr Xaso: That is Hon Marais.

Adv Golden: Ms Paulnita Marais?

Mr Xaso: Yes.

Adv Golden: We can continue.

The Committee resumed watching the video recording.

Adv Golden: Can we pause, please. Mr Xaso, just to confirm the Speaker, asked Ms Marais to leave the House. Is that correct?

Mr Xaso: Yes, Speaker asked Hon Marais to leave the House.

Adv Golden: Okay, continue.

The Committee resumed watching the video recording.

Adv Golden: If you can just pause there. So, Mr Xaso, the Speaker is repeatedly asking whom to leave the House?

Mr Xaso: Hon Marais.

Adv Golden: And did she comply?

Mr Xaso: No.

Adv Golden: Thank you. We will continue.

The Committee resumed watching the video recording.

Adv Golden: If we can just pause there. Mr Xaso, the PPS have come in to remove whom?

Mr Xaso: Hon Marais.

Adv Golden: Ms Marais?

Mr Xaso: Yes.

Adv Golden: Okay, we can continue.

The Committee resumed watching the video recording.

Adv Golden: If we can pause there. Mr Xaso, who is that?

Mr Xaso: That is Hon Chirwa.

Adv Golden: Ms Chirwa?

Mr Xaso: Yeah.

Adv Golden: Thank you. Was she recognised by the Speaker?

Mr Xaso: She was recognised.

Adv Golden: Okay, go ahead, please.

The Committee resumed watching the video recording.

Adv Golden: If we can pause there, please. Mr Xaso, what do you observe regarding Ms Chirwa’s behaviour?

Mr Xaso: It is an exchange with the Speaker, which is not permitted by the rules. As indicated earlier, the rules expect that when the Speaker rises the Speaker must be heard without interruption; that did not happen. It is a disregard of the authority of the Speaker and the rules of the House.

Adv Golden: And is it accurate to say, and this is observed from video, that she continued to shout at the Speaker while the Speaker was trying to address her?

Mr Xaso: Yes, she raised her voice when addressing the Speaker.

Adv Golden: Okay, we can continue. Thank you.

The Committee resumed watching the video.

Adv Golden: Can we just pause there, please. So we have Ms Chirwa and we have Mr Tambo, Mr Xaso. Can you just explain to us what you have observed, what did Mr Tambo do?

Mr Xaso: I see the Sergeant-at-Arms approaching Hon Chirwa and Mr Tambo.

Adv Golden: Can we just have the video recording, please?

Mr Xaso: And Hon Tambo standing in-between the Sergeant-at-Arms and Hon Chirwa, who is supposed to leave the House.

Adv Golden: What does Mr Tambo do?

Mr Xaso: Mr Tambo seems to be exchanging words with the Sergeant-at-Arms.

Adv Golden: Yes, and he is in-between Ms Chirwa and what does he do?

Mr Xaso: Blocking.

Adv Golden: Sorry?

Mr Xaso: Blocking the removal of Hon Chirwa.

Adv Golden: Okay, and Ms Chirwa is still in the House.

Mr Xaso: She is still in the House.

Adv Golden: She has been asked to leave and is refusing?

Mr Xaso: Yes.

Adv Golden: Thank you.

The Committee resumed watching the video recording.

Adv Golden: If we could just pause there. Let us just deal with Mr Tambo first. We see that the PPS comes in to remove him. Mr Xaso, is that correct?

Mr Xaso: Yes, that is correct.

Adv Golden: Yes, how would you describe his behaviour when the PPS male members come in to escort him out?

Mr Xaso: Firstly, let me just cite Rule 73 (5) and (6): ‘No Member may in any manner whatsoever physically intervene in preventing or obstruct or hinder the removal of a Member from the Chamber in terms of these rules. Any Member or Members who contravene sub-rule 5 may, on the instruction of the presiding officer, also be removed from the Chamber and the precincts of Parliament forthwith.’ Now, sub-rule 4 of 73 says: ‘If a Member resists attempts to be removed from the Chamber, the Sergeant-at-Arms and the PPS may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to overcome the resistance.’ So, what we saw earlier on was obstructing the removal of a Member and what we now see is resistance and where reasonable forces [are] being used to remove the Hon Member from the House. That is Hon Tambo.

Adv Golden: Ms Marais is removed?

Mr Xaso: Marais had been removed already.

Adv Golden: You can play the video.

The Committee resumed watching the video recording.

Adv Golden: If we could just pause there. Mr Xaso, there is the PPS female members trying to get Ms Chirwa out. Is that an accurate description of what is happening?

Mr Xaso: Yes, it is an accurate description.

Adv Golden: And what is she doing?

Mr Xaso: She is resisting removal from the Chamber. And, indeed, something does then happen. We see other Members getting involved, obstructing her removal.

Adv Golden: The other EFF members getting involved?

Mr Xaso: Other Hon Members of the EFF getting involved.

Adv Golden: Getting involved in what way?

Mr Xaso: In obstructing her removal.

Adv Golden: Yes, thank you. We can go ahead. Just to finish this removal, and then I think it would be appropriate to stop there for the day in accordance with the ruling of the Chairperson. Thank you.

The Committee resumed watching the video recording.

Adv Golden: If we could just stop there, please. Sorry. Mr Xaso, on the left there was a female EFF Member with a hard hat on, a red hat. Who is that?

Mr Xaso: That is Hon Mathulelwa.

Adv Golden: And what does she do?

Mr Xaso: There is an exchange of blows there. There was resistance and physical exchange between her and members of the PPS.

Adv Golden: So what is she trying to do? She is obviously trying to help Ms Chirwa, but in what way?

Mr Xaso: Physically and violently.

Adv Golden: Sorry?

Mr Xaso: Physically trying to prevent her removal.

The Committee resumed watching the video recording.

Adv Golden: If we can stop there. That is the removal, Mr Xaso, you confirm, of Ms Chirwa?

Mr Xaso: Yes.

Adv Golden: Chair, we can stop there for today and then we can continue tomorrow. I do ask that the technician, please, we start tomorrow at exactly this place where we have stopped now. If they could, please, keep that place ready. Thank you, Chair.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Adv Golden. Hon Members, we will adjourn here for today. And as the Advocate is requesting, please, technicians help us to run smoothly tomorrow. We could do better than today. Let us meet tomorrow at ten o’clock. And thanks for being such a good audience and allowing me to facilitate today's hearing. The meeting stands adjourned.

The meeting was adjourned.








 

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

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: