Zwane matter: hearing

Meeting report

Adv Victor Ngaleka (National Assembly Procedural Advisor): Good morning, Members.

Deputy Chief Whip Ms D Dlakude (ANC): Morning, Mr Ngaleka.

Adv Ngaleka: Yes. Members we have a quorum, we have more than six members being present. Therefore, I think the meeting could start. I think before we proceed, Members, [with] the meeting of this Committee it must first elect a chairperson in terms of Rule 212(2). As the Committee does not have a chairperson I will facilitate the process of electing a chairperson. Once the election has been completed I will hand over to the duly elected chairperson. The legal team of Mr Zwane and the Initiator can remain in the meeting but may not participate. The procedure to elect the 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 as duly elected. If there is more than one nomination, the names of the minis will be put 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… Sorry? Oh, okay. At the end of the vote, the Member with the most votes will be declared the chairperson. The nomination process will now begin. Are there any nominations Members? Mr Stock’s hand is up. Mr Stock?

Mr D Stock (ANC): Thank you very much. A very good morning to all Hon Members, officials [and] everyone who is part of the meeting. I would like to rise and nominate Dr Manketsi Tlhape for the position of Acting Chairperson. Thank you very much.

Adv Ngaleka: Thank you, Sir. Is there a seconder for the nomination? Deputy Chief Whip of the majority party?

Ms Dlakude: Thank you very much Mr Ngaleka. Good morning to everyone on the platform. I hereby second the nomination of Dr Manketsi Tlhape as the Acting Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee. Thank you very much.

Adv Ngaleka: Thank you. Dr Tlhape, do you accept the nomination?

Dr M Tlhape (ANC): Good morning, Advocate and Hon Members. Yes, I accept the nomination to act as the chairperson of this Committee.

Adv Ngaleka: Dr Tlhape has been duly nominated by Mr Stock and seconded by the Deputy Chief Whip of the majority party. Are there any further nominations, Members? I see that there are no further hands. Dr Tlhape, you have been duly elected as the Acting Chairperson. I now hand over to you. Thank you.

Mr N Xaba (ANC): Congratulations. Thank you.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Advocate. Thank you, Hon Members. Good morning to Hon Members of this Committee, the legal teams and all participants that are here this morning. Hon Members, we are meeting just a few days after we buried the chairperson of this Committee, Hon Violet Siwela. I will, at this moment, request that we observe a moment of silence in memory of our late chairperson, Hon Siwela. May the soul of Hon Violet Siwela and those that have departed rest in peace. Thanks, Hon Members. Hon Members, as I welcome you all to today’s proceedings, I would request that we deal with part A of this agenda for now. As indicated, the legal teams that are here can stay with us as we deal with part A. They will participate in the next part, that will be part B. Are there any apologies for today's meeting, Secretariat?

Committee Secretary: We have not received any apologies, Chair. Thank you.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you to the team, the Secretariat. In the absence of apologies, can we then move to the next item? That will be a consideration of the set of minutes that we have – the sets of minutes on the twentieth of October, the first and the fifth [of] December. Can we please flight those minutes? Let us start with the twentieth [of] October minutes. Hon Members, those are the minutes. Opening and welcome. We are at five matters arising, as indicated by the agenda. That was item four. Let us move. Please go up again. That was page two of the minutes of the twentieth of October. Can you scroll up? We are at page three. Item seven was closure at two minutes past five. I have been looking at my attendance register on the other side. Hon Members, do I have a mover for the adoption of the minutes of the twentieth October? Hon Tseke?

Ms G Tseke (ANC): Thank you very much, Chair. Good morning to everyone on the platform. I move for the adoption of these minutes as a true reflection of what transpired for the day.

Acting Chairperson: Thanks. Hon Tseke moves. Any seconder? Hon Stock?

Mr Stock: Thank you very much, Acting Chair. I move to second the proposal for the adoption of the minutes. Thank you.

Acting Chairperson: Thanks, Hon Stock. Whilst the minutes are still here, do we have matters arising on them? Let us scroll back to where we started on the attendance register. That is page one. Hon Tseke, is that a hand for matters arising?

Adv Ngaleka: Chair?

Ms Tseke: No, Chair.

Acting Chairperson: Okay. Yes, Sir?

Adv Ngaleka: The matter of Mr Zwane is a subject of the Part B of this meeting, that is the only matter arising. The other matters have been dealt with, Chair. There is no matter arising further.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Advocate. In that case, there are no matters arising on this set of minutes of the twentieth of October. We will be dealing with one matter that is on today's agenda. Can we then move for the second set of minutes, that of the first December 2023? Page one, that is the attendance register for those who were in attendance. We move on to page two. Let us move. We take it that Members have received these minutes well in time. Page three, closing at item five. We are still at eight minutes past five. Hon Members, do I have a mover for the adoption of the minutes of the first [of] December 2023? Hon Xaba?

Mr Xaba: Thank you, Chair. Chair, I move that the minutes be adopted. They reflect what we discussed. Thank you.

Dr Tlhape: Thanks, Hon Xaba. Any seconder? Hon Dlakude?

Ms Dlakude: Thank you very much, Acting Chair. I second the adoption of these minutes as a true reflection of what transpired in the meeting. Thank you.

Acting Chairperson: Thanks, Hon Dlakude. Hon Members, the minutes have been seconded for adoption. Can we go back to page one for matters arising. Page one deals with the attendance register. Hon Dlakude, your hand is still up or is it for matters arising?

Adv Ngaleka: Chair?

Acting Chairperson: Yes, Sir?

Adv Ngaleka: From our side, the SONA (State of the Nation Address) incident was dealt with by the Committee and reported to the House. There are no further matters arising from our side.

Dr Tlhape: Thanks, Advocate. No matters arising on this set of minutes and they have been duly adopted. Can we then move to the last set of minutes of the fifth [of] December 2023? Page one, that is your attendance register, opening and welcome, apologies and agenda items start at [page] three. We move to page two. Can I have a mover for the adoption of the minutes of the fifth of December? Hon Mlenzana?

Mr Z Mlenzana (ANC): Yes, greetings, Acting Chair and everyone on the platform. I rise to move that we adopt the minutes as a true reflection of what transpired. Thanks.

Acting Chairperson: Thanks, Hon Mlenzana for moving for the adoption. Hon Tseke, your hand is up for seconding. Are you seconding?

Ms Tseke: Yes, Chair. I second the move for the adoption of these minutes. Thank you.

Acting Chairperson: Thanks, Hon Tseke. Hon Members, the minutes have been adopted. Can we move to the first page and check for any matters arising on this set of minutes.

Adv Ngaleka: Acting Chair, from our side there are no matters arising from these minutes. Thanks.

Acting Chairperson: No matters arising from the minutes of the fifth of December. That brings us Hon Members to the conclusion of part A of the agenda. Can we then move to part B of this agenda?

Adv Ngaleka: Sorry, Chair, there is still item six.

Acting Chairperson: Oh, item six? Okay, thanks for bringing that up. ‘Finalisation of hearing dates for the ninth and tenth of June 2022 incidents.’ Hon Members, you will remember that in our last meeting, we agreed that the legal team must meet and also consult with the late chairperson in this regard. Do we have anyone to lead us on this one – the legal team?

Adv Andile Tetyana (Legal Advisor to the Committee): Good morning, Chairperson, Hon Members, and to my colleagues as well. Chairperson, I hope that I am audible enough to everybody. Chair, you will recall that initially, the hearings in question were supposed to start on the eighth of January and on the sixteenth of January, so it was going to spend a period of seven days. But, of course, due to the fact that the chairperson, our late chairperson, was not well, and therefore not available to preside in the hearing the following week. So what we then did, Chair, on the fifth of January we then addressed correspondence to Ian Levitt Attorneys, which is the firm which is representing the affected Members, sensitising them about the fact that the chair – our late chair – was not available to preside at those hearings. Of course, they responded the following day and proposed that dates be moved to some future date in Feb[ruary] 2024. And you will recall saying that the only days we were able to utilise was only the fifteenth and sixteenth of January. And, of course, we had proposed that we continue on the seventeenth and eighteenth, and the attorneys of the affected Members then informed us that they are not available on Wednesday and Thursday, which is the seventeenth and eighteenth. We then wrote to them on the ninth of January, proposing dates for February 2024, and they responded to us, Chair, on the twelfth of January. But what was clear, Chair, is that they then changed gear. In other words, they said they are no longer available now in February, they will only be available in March from the thirteenth to the fifteenth of March. Of course, we addressed correspondence to them on the seventeenth, requesting them to give us dates in February because they had committed that they will be available in February. And then, Chairperson, on the nineteenth of January, they wrote to us saying they are only available from the twelfth to the fifteenth of March and the eighteenth of March. We then addressed correspondence to them on the twenty-fourth of January, informing them that due to the Chairperson’s unfortunate demise, the Committee will only be able to deliberate on this matter today. So, Chair, as the Parliamentary administration, we are in your good hands. We also want to make the Committee aware of the fact that we know for a fact that the Assembly will be dissolved soon, so whatever date that the Committee decides on the Committee must be informed by that. Thank you very much, Chairperson.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Advocate. Hon Members, there is the brief. Can we get guidance? Hon Dlakude?

Ms Dlakude: Thank you very much, Hon Chairperson, and thanks to the parliamentary legal team for the briefing on this matter. Hon Chairperson, as we all know, we have already started with the process of the… with the hearings of the ninth and the tenth incidents. And the affected Members’ legal team committed to the February dates. So they cannot come back here and change gear by saying that they have other matters that are in court. Meanwhile, as the Committee, we do not have any proof of that before us. So, we would want this matter to be concluded before the National Assembly is dissolved, as we have already started; and the witness, Mr Xaso, is already on the stand. He has already started with giving evidence, so we cannot go further too much. They are bringing this date of March because they know very well that Parliament will be dissolved by that time. So as a Committee, we are not going to agree to that. They must give us dates in February, as per their commitment – their initial commitment. They cannot chop and change now. So that is our presentation, Hon Acting Chairperson. Thank you.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Dlakude. Hon Members, it means the legal team must go back to the legal team of the affected Members and insist on them honouring the days that they initially agreed on in February. Is that okay, that we leave it at that point? That the legal team go back and persuade them to go back to the…

Ms Dlakude: There are other hands, Hon Chair.

Acting Chairperson: Oh. Hon Xaba and then Hon Mlenzana.

Mr Xaba: Thank you, Chair. Chair, I think our responsibility is to serve and as the committee, we are ready. I think I rise to second what the Deputy Chief Whip had outlined. We stick to our time and we are ready. So I think we are clear on that, Chair. As you allude, the Chief Whip is correct. Thank you.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Xaba. Hon Mlenzana.

Mr Mlenzana: Thanks, Chairperson. Once more, greetings to all on the platform. Echoing what Hon Xaba has just said, one would rise to second what the Deputy Chief Whip has just said. But then for clear record purposes, Chair, I would ask if our legal team would not, as a way of giving us proper guidance, give us these proposals that we do not just leave this item hanging like we are saying. We must continue or we should continue within the stipulated period. If that stipulated period, in terms of the fixed dates, could be given – not unless Mr Ngaleka is unable right now, then I will accept. But if there is a proposed date or dates that would be welcomed for record purposes. Thanks, Chairperson.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Mlenzana. Adv Ngaleka, do you have those dates?

Adv Ngaleka: We do not have a date, but we want to propose this, Chair, that the Committee allows the team that supports the Committee to consult with the lawyers of the affected Members and the Initiator, but in consultation with the Chair, finalise a date [and] inform Members accordingly in February – for the date in February. I am not sure if I am clear, Chair?

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Adv Ngaleka.

Mr Mlenzana: Chairperson?

Acting Chairperson: Yes, Mr Mlenzana?

Mr Mlenzana: I rise to indicate that this is now a very comfortable response. Thank you very much.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Mr Mlenzana. Hon Members, we will then allow our legal team to have the Initiator and also the affected Members to consult with the Acting Chair and come up with suitable dates in February, as we are agreeing. Can we then step off from agenda A?

Adv Ngaleka: Chair? My apologies, Chair. There is a matter that we think from our side, we should make an announcement. I will ask my colleague, Andile, Mr Tetyana, to do so. It relates to the Speaker.

Adv Tetyana: Good morning, Chairperson, again. No, Chair, it is just to give feedback to the Committee because you had tasked the parliamentary administration to appoint an initiator, I mean, someone who is going to lead evidence and guide the Committee in the matter which my colleague has referred to. The only report I have, Chairperson, is that we have been in contact with the state attorney and by the end of this week, we should have the initiator appointed. Thank you very much, Chairperson.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Mr Andile. That will be the initiator for which matter? All these matters? Do we have an initiator today?

Adv Tetyana: No, no. The Speaker’s matter, Chair.

Acting Chairperson: Oh, the Speaker’s matter. Yes.

Adv Tetyana: You would recall that the Deputy Speaker made a referral to this Committee regarding the increase, you know, of the STP’s salary, and so on.

Acting Chairperson: Yes, alright.

Adv Tetyana: That is the matter I am referring to.

Acting Chairperson: No, thanks for the information. Are we then good? Can we then go to part B of this agenda? Thank you, Hon Members. We will now proceed to part B of the agenda that deals with the hearing of Hon MJ Zwane. Let me take this opportunity once more to welcome the affected Member, the Initiator and his team, and the legal team of the affected Member. Hon Members, we are, today, holding a hearing on the matter of Hon Zwane. On 2 May 2023 the National Assembly approved the report of the Joint Committee on Ethics and Members Interests relating to Hon Zwane on the contravention of the code of ethical conduct and disclosure of members interests in respect of Hon Zwane. One of the penalties imposed on the matter was to enter an apology in the House. It is alleged that Hon Zwane failed on two occasions, 2 May 2023, and 6 September 2023, to present himself to the House to enter an apology as resolved by the Assembly. The Speaker then referred the conduct of Hon Zwane to the Powers and Privileges Committee, in terms of Rule 214 (1), read with Section twelve of the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislature Act, Act 4 of 2004, for consideration and reports. I now declare the hearing open. I will ask the Initiator to introduce himself and his team and to inform the Committee of the purpose of today's hearing. Initiator, you have the platform.

Adv Zuko Mapoma (Initiator of the hearing): Thank you, Hon Chairperson and Members of the Committee. As the team that is initiating the proceedings, we are ready to proceed with the hearing. I do not know if I must proceed, Chair?

Acting Chairperson: No, thanks, Advocate. I would also want to afford the legal team of the affected Members to introduce themselves.

Adv Mapoma: Thank you, Chair. My name is Zuko Mapoma, the counsel appointed to initiate the proceedings. I am an advocate of the High Court and a member of the Cape Bar. I am instructed by Mr Appalsamy from the State Attorney, who is with me here.

Mr Somasundrum Appalsamy (Senior State Attorney at Department of Justice and Constitutional Development): Thank you, Chair. My name is Mr Appalsamy. I am from the State Attorney’s Office. We have appointed Adv Mapoma to assist the process. Thank you.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Adv Mapoma and your team. I will now ask the legal team of the affected Member to introduce themselves. But before allowing them to speak, I would also like that the legal team confirm the presence of Hon Zwane. You have the platform.

Mr M Zwane (ANC): No, thanks, Chair. My name is Mosebenzi Zwane. I am here as called by the Committee and I am not accompanied by any legal team. So I am here. I am present. Thank you.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Zwane. Hon Members, in that case our affected Member is here and he is not accompanied by a legal team, as indicated. Let me then allow the Initiator to put the charges to Hon Zwane.

Adv Mapoma: Thank you, Chairperson. The notice of the hearing has already been served on the affected Member and it has the preamble. I will, without much adieu, Chair, proceed straight to page three of the pack that has been prepared, where it is the third page of the charge sheet that contains the allegations. So I will focus straight on paragraph B: charges and allegations that are directed at the affected Member. The affected Member being the Hon Mosebenzi Zwane, Member of Parliament. You are required to answer the charges and allegations relating to the contempt of Parliament, as listed below. Charge one: It is alleged that you are guilty of conduct constituting contempt of Parliament in terms of Section 13(c) and (d) of the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislature, Act 4, 2004 – the Act read with Rule 10 of the Rules of the National Assembly – in that, as a Member of Parliament, you willfully and intentionally failed and/or refused to obey the resolution of the House, the house being the National Assembly, and order of the Speaker of the National Assembly at the sitting of the 2 May 2023 to enter an apology as ordered. I would allow the Member to plead before I proceed to charge two.

Mr Zwane: Chair, thank you.

Acting Chairperson: Before you come in, Mr Mzwane, I will recognise you and request you to plead to that charge but I will allow you up to three minutes, if you wish, to give a plea explanation. If you plead guilty to the charge, I will ascertain whether you admit guilt to the charge, as put by the Initiator. And if you refuse to enter the plea of not guilty in respect of your good self. How do you plead, Hon Zwane, to that charge?

Mr Zwane: Thank you, Chair. I do not plead guilty to the charge because on the set date, second of May 2023, indeed, I was notified that I should come to the Parliament physically and enter an apology. When I was at the airport my flight was delayed, and I indicated, by way of SMS, that I might have problems in terms of arriving on time to come and enter my apology, as directed by Parliament. I even talked to a lady, I think it is Xolelwa, on that particular day, asking me if I will be able to present myself the following day. I said yes, I am already at the airport. I have this crisis if I am offered an opportunity the following day, I will anyway be in Parliament. And I did went to Cape Town. And I arrived at Parliament the following day – records could show – and my name was not caught. And I apologised profusely for that causing the inconvenience to everybody that had awaited me. So I did not intentionally refuse to enter the apology or to come and present myself to Parliament as required by the Speaker, by the way of the resolution which was taken. That is my point, Chair.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Zwane. Initiator, you can proceed to the second charge.

Adv Mapoma: Thank you, Hon Chair. Charge two: It is alleged that you are guilty of conduct constituting contempt of Parliament in terms of Section Three, paragraph C and D of the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislature Act 04 2004, read with Rule 10 of the rules of the National Assembly in that as a Member of Parliament, you willfully entered into intentionally failed and/or refused to obey the resolution of the House and order of the Speaker of the National Assembly to present yourself to the National Assembly at its sitting on 6 September 2023, and enter an apology as ordered. Your conduct constitutes a serious and repeat conduct constituting contempt of Parliament as contemplated in Section thirteen, paragraph C and D of the Act.

Acting Chairperson: Thanks, Advocate. Hon Zwane, I am also giving you the platform to plead for this charge. I will allow you, again, three minutes, if you wish, to give an explanation to this plea. And Hon Members, if the Member pleads guilty to this charge, I will ascertain from him whether he admits guilt to the charge as put by the Initiator. If a Member refuses to enter the plea, I must enter the plea of not guilty on his behalf. Hon Zwane, how do you plead to this charge?

Mr Zwane: Chairperson, I plead not guilty. On the fifth of September, it is also recorded by the Speaker herself that I was in Parliament. The Speaker saw me [and] the register can say that. Whilst I was in the sitting I received the news that my sister, who was in the ICU in Pietermaritzburg – I even gave the name of the hospital – needed an approval by a family member for blood to be injected to her because she was weak. I am the only son at home – breadwinner, to put it like that – so I reported this matter to the Whip…

Acting Chairperson: Hon Zwane? Hon Zwane?

Mr Zwane: Yes, Chairperson?

Acting Chairperson: Sorry to interject. We lost you a bit.

Mr Zwane: Oh, you lost me?

Acting Chairperson: Yes.

Mr Zwane: Okay, can you hear me now?

Acting Chairperson: Yes, you are now audible.

Mr Zwane: Thank you, Chair.

Acting Chairperson: We lost you when you were talking about the Chief Whip. Can you start there?

Mr Zwane: Yeah, I indicated to the Whip, not the Chief Whip, the Whip of my Committee, that I am receiving this news that I need to be in Pietermaritzburg and go and give approval to my sister who was at ICU, for the blood to be injected. So I then left, because of that emergency. I went to Maritzburg, with the hope that this matter would be reported, Chairperson. And I indicated that I am in the hospital, this has happened. Upon my coming back, I wrote a letter through the lawyer, apologising that I could not be there because of this incident. And I even offered that I am willing at any given opportunity to come and do what I was supposed to do. And as a result, Chair, I never had any intention of willfully or intentionally, to cause any harm to my own integrity, or send a message that suggests that I disrespected Parliament or any other instruction that I was to carry. I have carried all the instructions, including the pay cut, so I do not see any issue really on me going and giving an apology except to say I could not be there because of this crisis. I have profusely apologised, written a formal letter apologising and stating my situation. Thank you, Chair.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Zwane. The Initiator, Adv Mapoma, I am back in your hands. Do you have a witness that you would like to call, maybe?

Adv Mapoma: Chairperson, in the ordinary course of events, I would be calling a witness but the facts in this matter are clear cut. They are well documented – documentation that is before the Committee and Mr Zwane himself. The explanation that has been provided here is an explanation that only speaks to the mitigation of the guilty conduct. So I am prepared to argue, Chairperson, based on the documents that the Member be found guilty, because the factual evidence on papers is common course and credible.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Adv Mapoma. Hon Members, having listened to the charges put to Hon Zwane as the affected Member, and his entering the plea and explaining his reasons for absenting himself, as ordered by the House. I will… Usually, we cross-examine and put evidence and re-examine. I will allow you at this stage, Hon Members – I am going to give you about fifteen minutes – to ask clarity-seeking questions to the affected Member. I am opening the floor to you.

Adv Ngaleka: Just for maybe assistance, Chair, maybe you should allow the Initiator to present his evidence and then only after that evidence is presented then give Members the opportunity to ask questions – but not on the personal explanation, Chair.

Acting Chairperson: I did not get that one. You were breaking on my side, Advocate.

Adv Ngaleka: I am saying, Chair, we are suggesting that you allow the Initiator to present his evidence to the Committee and only after that Members can ask questions to the Initiator, followed by Mr Zwane giving his own evidence, when he would have been sworn in as a witness, in his case.

Acting Chairperson: Okay, thanks for the assistance in that one. Hon Members, let us allow Adv Mapoma…

Adv Ngaleka: Hon Chair, just before I proceed, may I just ask for a minute or two adjournment to consult with my instructing attorney, please.

Acting Chairperson: Thanks, Advocate. I will be generous and give you five minutes. Let us reconvene to ten to, Hon Members.

Adv Mapoma: Thanks, Chair.

Ms Dlakude: Thank you, Chair.

The Committee adjourned for a five minute break.

Acting Chairperson: Initiator, are you back or do you still want a minute?

Adv Mapoma: Thank you, Chairperson. Chairperson, I am going to… I propose, Chairperson, to proceed then by presenting evidence as contained in the bundle of documents that have been prepared by and on behalf of Parliament regarding the charges. What is now no longer an issue is whether Mr Zwane is guilty of what he was found guilty of by the Committee. So I am not going to take the Committee back on those issues. What we are dealing with today is whether Mr Zwane is guilty or not in his failure to attend the House on 2 May 2023, and 6 September 2023. So I am not going to spend my time – waste the Committee’s time – on the offence itself that led to that. Now, regarding the direction that was given by the House of Assembly, I would refer to page 20 of the paginated bundle that was prepared, which contains the minutes of the proceedings of the National Assembly on 6 September; in particular, paragraph three. But maybe before that, Chair, let me leave that because it relates to count two – charge two. I will first go to the next page, page 21, which is a letter that was written by the Speaker of Parliament to the Hon Member that is affected. The Speaker of Parliament informed the Member of the resolution of the House in relation to the penalties that were imposed against him. The first penalty on that letter, Chairperson, dated 30 August 2023, is that he was supposed to be fined an amount of five days salary cut and then suspension from parliamentary debates. The third penalty was an apology to be entered in the House. Now, it is now common cause that the first and second penalty were complied with by the affected Member and uncontested. The remaining part is only the part on the apology to the House that has not been complied with. So essentially this sanction that was imposed by the National Assembly has been partially complied with. And the real issue is failure to comply with the one that relates to entering an apology in the House, which is the most important part because the conduct in the question here is about how the Members of Parliament carry out themselves and honour the respect that is bestowed on the House of National Assembly. So that in itself is clear cut; is not in dispute. Even in the explanation by Mr Zwane he does not dispute that there was such a sanction. He does not dispute that he has not complied with that sanction now. So that is common cause. Now, again, on page 23 there is another letter dated 12 September to the then Chairperson of the Committee – may her soul rest in peace. Again, the Speaker in paragraph two of that letter dated 12th September 2023, the Speaker wrote this letter to the House… I mean, to the Committee, of the Powers and Privileges – this Committee – where the Speaker explained that Mr Zwane was required, on two occasions – that is on paragraph two of the letter – 2 May and 6 September 2023. And he failed to present himself to the House in order to enter an apology as resolved by the National Assembly. Now, this is what the Speaker says. But not only that, Chair. If we go to page 25 of the paginated bundle, this is now the Hansard, which records the proceedings of the National Assembly, on 2 May. That is the date now when the House adopted the recommendations of the Committee on Ethics. And I would like to direct the Hon Committee to page 27 of the paginated bundle, which shows the… In fact, if you start from page, the Speaker there sets out what has been contravened. If you proceed on to page 27 where the Speaker shows that a Member was sanctioned to enter an apology in the House of Assembly for the press statement that he issued and all that. Now, essentially, in short, the proceedings illustrate that the House was seized with a recommendation from the Committee for Mr Zwane to enter an apology. And then this is how the House sort of resolved to adopt the recommendation. In fact, on page 28 it is recorded there, starting from page 27, where the Chief Whip of the majority party, which Mr Zwane is a member of, is informing the Speaker and the House of National Assembly that a previous ruling was made that Mr Zwane was aware of this plenary, on that day of 2 May. That is the date, Chair, when the National Assembly adopted the recommendation from Mr Zwane to appear, but on that day he was not in the House. The Chief Whip of his party is informing the Committee he was informed to be present based on what was recommended by the Committee; that now that the National Assembly was going to adopt the ruling or the findings of the Committee, he had to, there and then, apologise. Now, the Speaker is informing that he was aware of those proceedings of 2 May but failed to present himself when he was actually made aware by the Speaker – I mean, by the Chief Whip – that he must be present and apologise. Now, that is what relates to the blameworthy state of mind of the Hon Mr Zwane, to show he was conscious that he had to do what he had to do, that is come and enter an apology to the National Assembly and receive a possible reprimand by the National Assembly. Now, if we proceed to page thirty. Those are the Proceedings of the National Assembly on the 30th of September, that is now in relation to count number two, where, again, on that day, the Member was not present Now, again, importantly the Chief Whip of the majority party – where he belongs – says “Hon Speaker, I am not Hon Zwane. My name is Pemmy Majodina, the Chief Whip. Hon Zwane was here yesterday, knowing very well that he was supposed to be here in this House today for the reprimand. I cannot account for his whereabouts when he is not here in the House. I suggest that the Speaker finds accordingly and acts accordingly, with the powers vested in you. Thank you.” Now, the upshot of this address by the Chief Whip importantly is that we are dealing with somebody who had been at the Parliament yesterday, that is the previous day, and who it would appear that had a conversation with his Chief Whip where he was counselled to come and comply with the ruling of the of the Council of the National Assembly, which we know did not take place. Now, if we proceed to page one, the Chief Whip goes on to say “He knows he should be here, Hon Members. Just to remind all of us that Hon Zwane should have presented himself to the National Assembly in May, if I am not making a mistake. Hon Zwane decided to stay away from Parliament without an apology and without informing the Chief Whip of the majority party.” Now, where I want to emphasise [is] the Chief Whip, to whom the Hon Member is accountable, is telling the committee that ‘I was here. He was here yesterday. He knows that he is supposed to be here. And even in May he absented himself without an apology and without informing the Chief Whip.’ Now, that is what we are dealing with and that is the evidence that is not disputed, or it cannot be disputed, to be more exact. Now, Hon Committee, the Speaker, as the Chief Whip of the ruling party, a party where Mr Zwane belongs, is now giving the matter to the Speaker to do as he is supposed to do. Now, the letter that I referred to before is essentially showing that the Speaker then did not leave the matter there; she referred it to this Committee to deal with it as it is now dealing with it. Now, we are at a stage where we are dealing with somebody who has been contemptuous by not abiding by the rules of the Parliament, and who has not complied with what is ordered. And we will argue, ultimately, we are dealing with a clear contempt of Parliament here. That is the evidence that we will rely on, Hon Chairperson and Members of the Committee. So, at this stage, then I will close the case for the Parliament and I will then leave the matter for the affected Member to open his case. But from where we are as the Initiator of the proceedings we are closing our case and we will argue that the elements of contempt have been proved here. That is where I must end for now, Chairperson.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Advocate. Hon Members, at this point I will give you about fifteen minutes to ask questions of clarity from the Initiator on the evidence that he has just put before your good selves. I am opening the platform for fifteen minutes [for] questions of clarity, Hon Members. I do not see any hands. It means Hon Members are okay with the evidence that has just been led by the Initiator. There is no one that wants to engage with that. Am I still audible, Hon Members, on this platform?

Ms Dlakude: Yes, you are.

Acting Chairperson: Thanks so much. In the absence of clarity seeking questions, Hon Members, I will then go to the affected Member, Hon Mosebenzi Zwane, to lead his evidence. But Hon Zwane, before I give over to you, let me indicate to you that Rule one sixty-eight requires that before a witness gives evidence before a House or a Committee the Chairperson must, in accordance with section sixteen of the Powers and Privileges Act, inform the witness as follows: Please be informed that by law, you are required to answer fully and satisfactorily all the questions lawfully put to you, or to produce any document that you are required to produce in connection with the subject matter of the inquiry, notwithstanding that the answer or 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. Hon Zwane, do you have any objection to taking an oath or making an affirmation?

Mr Zwane: Chair, I do not have any objection to taking [an] affirmation.

Acting Chairperson: Okay, then please repeat after me. I confirm that the testimony or evidence…

Mr Zwane: I confirm that the testimony or evidence…

Acting Chairperson: … I am going to give is the truth.

Mr Zwane: … I am going to give is the truth.

Acting Chairperson: And only the truth.

Mr Zwane: And only the truth,

Acting Chairperson: And binding on my conscience.

Mr Zwane: And binding on my conscience.

Acting Chairperson: Thanks, Hon Mosebenzi Zwane. I will now give you the platform to lead your evidence.

Mr Zwane: Okay, Chair. Thank you for affording me this opportunity. I do not wish to say much, Chair, on this matter as my conscience is clear that number one, I, in all the instances where I could not present myself, entered an apology, and gave a reason why I could not. And in doing so I was trying to be honest with my own organisation, that in this case is led by the Chief Whip in Parliament, to know what happened. What is surprising me a bit, Chair, is that on 2 May, I was even asked by a parliamentary member that, ‘would you be able to present yourself the following day?’ And I said, ‘Yes’, and I came. As I listened to the presentation by Advocate, it does not mention all the endeavours I made to try and correct the situation that had occurred – which I think would then lead to a point where the advocate is saying the posture is clear, according to the presentation, because the presentation does not take into account what I did after 2 May. I understand the posture of the Speaker. I understand the posture of the Chief Whip because facts were not there at the time they were making these allegations. On 6 September, I also understand the seriousness of being there. That is why I said on the fifth it is documented, it is in the Hansard that I was there, ready for the 6th. The presentation by [the] Advocate does not take into account what I have raised as a cause of me leaving Parliament during its sitting to attend to the crisis of my sister who was in the ICU. Chair, looking at both the situation, me coming to enter the apology tomorrow and leaving somebody for their possible demise: My own blood. I then indicated to the Whip that I have a crisis I need to attend. So I attended the crisis on the fifth that led me not to come to Parliament, the sitting on the 6th, because I was in Pietermaritzburg. And I wrote a letter thereafter apologising for the inconvenience I have caused. I indicated that I will present myself any minute I am needed to come and apologise. That is well documented [and] it is in front of the Committee, I believe. So I honestly believe, Chair, that the notion that I am a delinquent – because I can see this thing leading there – is not what my intentions are. My intentions have always been to be a respectful member of the African National Congress. Those who know me will tell you I have never had an opportunity where I sat with the Chief Whip and purport to go the way my party is saying I should not go. Unfortunately, Chair, I had to try and attend to this crisis. If my reasons for 2 May are not sufficient, I may listen to that. But to say on 6 September, I should still be there when there was a crisis that only we could resolve, I would not agree with that, Chair. And with all the respect, I would leave the Committee to take a view, but I can say I have never intentionally or willfully wanted to bring the Parliament into disrepute. I have never sought to take that posture. I will never posture that way. It is unfortunate if in the minds of some Hon Member it came out to be that way. It is not how I am cultured. I respect rules, as I have respected [the] rules of this Committee. If you remember, this Committee has been calling me and the matter would be postponed. In no circumstances have I ever said ‘No, I will not come to the Committee’ because every time when I am called, I present myself and put the side of my story. I would want to end there, Chair. Thank you.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Zwane. Hon Members, at this point I will then call upon Adv Mapoma, the Initiator, to cross-examine Hon Zwane as he has led his evidence. Adv Mapoma, that will take us to the tea break at half past.

Adv Mapoma: Thank you, Chairperson. Mr Zwane, you have been a Member of the Parliament for a number of years, is that correct?

Mr Zwane: That is correct, Advocate.

Adv Mapoma: How many years?

Mr Zwane: I have been a Member of this Parliament, National Assembly, since 2015. Of course, with the background of the legislature since 2009.

Adv Mapoma: Yes, so since 2009, you have been a Member of Parliament, both provincially and nationally up to now, is that correct?

Mr Zwane: That is correct, Advocate.

Adv Mapoma: And as a Member of Parliament, you have been representing the ruling party all these years, is that correct?

Mr Zwane: That is correct.

Adv Mapoma: And you, at some point, at the National Parliament you were a member of the Cabinet, that is a minister?

Mr Zwane: That is correct.

Adv Mapoma: And throughout your tenure as a Member of Parliament, you have been a senior Member of Parliament, in the sense that you have been the MEC (member of the executive council) at the provincial level, and at some point, a member of cabinet nationally, is that correct?

Mr Zwane: Not throughout my tenure, Advocate, at some point.

Adv Mapoma: Now, is it fair to say you are a senior member of Parliament, given the number of years that you have spent in Parliament?

Mr Zwane: Well, I do not regard myself exactly like that because there are people who have twenty and thirty years, but I am a fairly experienced Member of Parliament.

Adv Mapoma: Yes, because they have so many years serving in Parliament, just like yourself, is that not so?

Mr Zwane: Yes.

Adv Mapoma: Now, when you serve in Parliament there is a Chief Whip to whom you account as a Member of Parliament for your parties, is it not so?

Mr Zwane: It is actually like that, Advocate.

Adv Mapoma: And that is the Chief Whip?

Mr Zwane: As a member of a party, not Parliament.

Adv Mapoma: Yes.

Mr Zwane: You have a Chief Whip that you account to.

Adv Mapoma: Yes, as a Member of Parliament.

Mr Zwane: Yes.

Adv Mapoma: And that Chief Whip is the face of the party in the National Assembly?

Mr Zwane: That is correct, Advocate.

Adv Mapoma: And if there is some conduct on the part of his or her Member as the Chief Whip, that person must be answerable to the Speaker of Parliament, is it not so?

Mr Zwane: Can you repeat that again, Advocate?

Adv Mapoma: I am saying the Chief Whip of your party, if there is a conduct unbecoming of her Member she must be answerable to the National Assembly and the Speaker, or call upon her Member to conduct him or herself in a manner that is acceptable. Is that not fair to say?

Mr Zwane: Well, it differs on the matter. If the matter is a matter that concerns Parliament the Speaker will take it up. A matter affecting the Chief Whip will call the Member and discuss the matter on behalf of the party.

Adv Mapoma: Yes.

Mr Zwane: That is how I read it.

Adv Mapoma: Fair enough. Fair enough. So at all material times when he was in Parliament, at the behest of your party, you have to obey and be answerable to the Chief Whip. Is this so?

Mr Zwane: You have to, as a Member of Parliament, obey and be answerable to the Speaker of Parliament. On issues that affect your party, you will be answerable to the Chief Whip of your party.

Adv Mapoma: Yes, so if for whatever reason you are unable to discharge your functions as a Member of Parliament, your Chief Whip should know why, is it not so?

Mr Zwane: As a member of the party the Chief Whip should know why. I agree with you there, Advocate.

Adv Mapoma: Yes, it is the same as when you have been directed by the Speaker of Parliament to do something, the Chief Whip has to know why you cannot do it and if you do not do it, is it not so?

Mr Zwane: Well, Advocate, I think how Parliament is if the Member of Parliament is not adhering to the rules of Parliament the Speaker will deal with that Member of Parliament according to the rules. And it stops there.

Adv Mapoma: I understand. I agree with you. But at the same time, your Chief Whip…

Mr Zwane: There would be no point, Advocate, where the Speaker of Parliament would want to go and call the party to assist. The party will deal with a Member on its own outside the ambit of Parliament.

Adv Mapoma: I do not have qualms with that. The point I am making, or the point I want to put across with you – and you will have to disagree if you do – your Chief Whip has got a responsibility to account to the Speaker if his or her Member behaves in a manner unbecoming, or at least has to explain, is that not so?

Mr Zwane: I have taken an affirmation here, and I will differ with you, with due respect, Advocate.

Adv Mapoma: And you yourself, if for whatever reason…

Mr Zwane: The Parliament consists of four-hundred members who come from different political parties. And when those members misbehave or to not adhere to rules, the Speaker has, according to the rules of Parliament, all the right to deal with the member affected directly. A closed matter.

Adv Mapoma: Yes, I agree with you. That is a hard line between – a hard vertical line between you as a Member of Parliament and the Speaker. But now I am talking about a dotted line. Remember, you are serving Parliament at the behest of your party. That is correct, is it not?

Mr Zwane: That is correct.

Adv Mapoma: Yes, and the Chief Whip has, amongst other things, the responsibility to ensure that when you are there, deployed by your party, you will carry out the mandate in a manner expected of you. The Chief Whip has got that responsibility.

Mr Zwane: That is correct.

Adv Mapoma: Yes.

Mr Zwane: That responsibility is not exercised in Parliament. It is a party responsibility, where I should be called by my party and be put in line. The issue that I am raising here is that as and when my party sees that there something is not going right with me, the party has the right to call me, deal with me at the party platform, take a view there – a view that at some point may even also not be the same view as what the speaker is going to take. When I am in Parliament a person who deals with me there is the Speaker.

Adv Mapoma: Now, let us move. Let us come to 2 May. You and I and now are aware that on that day, you are aware that you were supposed to be in the National Assembly.

Mr Zwane: Yes.

Adv Mapoma: And on that day, you were supposed to go there and enter an apology, is that correct? You know that? We knew that.

Mr Zwane: Yes.

Adv Mapoma: And you did not honour that up to now?

Mr Zwane: I did not honour that because I had a misfortune of the flight that was delayed. It happens, Advocate, that we take a flight in the morning to Parliament – it is not an isolated case. So unfortunately, my flight was delayed and I reported this matter in Parliament and at the party.

Adv Mapoma: And your Chief Whip had conversations with you about having to present yourself in Parliament on 2 May. Is that correct?

Mr Zwane: My Chief Whip called me on Saturday as she normally does. ‘There is this matter, have you seen it?’, ‘Yes, Chief Whip, I have seen the matter’, ‘Okay, go there and be brave, be presentable, deal with this matter.’ As a leader that is what she normally does to us as members of the organisation, and she did that on that particular Saturday.

Adv Mapoma: And that was the Saturday before 2 May?

Mr Zwane: Before 2 May, yes.

Adv Mapoma: So you and the Speaker… I mean your Chief Whip, were of the same mind that you would appear in the National Assembly and present yourself and apologise.

Mr Zwane: I actually assured her that I would be there. I would be presentable and I would enter my apology, Advocate, to be honest.

Adv Mapoma: Alright. Just for the record now, why did you not present yourself in Parliament on 2 May to tender an apology to the National Assembly?

Mr Zwane: Because my flight was delayed, Advocate, so I went out of that time slot where I needed to present myself.

Adv Mapoma: Is that the reason why…

Mr Zwane: And I did not ask for that.

Adv Mapoma: Sorry, I have not heard you. What is your explanation as to why you did not?

Mr Zwane: My flight was delayed at OR Tambo Airport. That is when I called Parliament. That is when I SMSed the Chief Whip, who later on said ‘No, I saw the message later, because I was engaged on other matters.’ And I understood; I understood her posture because we had spoken on the Saturday and I had agreed.

Adv Mapoma: On 2 May, the evidence that we have here is that of the Chief Whip saying you were supposed to be or you knew that you were supposed to be here. And she does not know why you were not there. You are aware of that?

Mr Zwane: I hear you, Advocate.

Adv Mapoma: Yes.

Mr Zwane: I cannot dispute that point because, as I have already said, we had spoken on Saturday, and she indicated to me that she saw that message late. And I want to believe that by the time she said what she said, it was because of the Saturday issue, not the SMS that I had actually written to her. I cannot blame her for that.

Adv Mapoma: Now that you are presenting your case, you know that you have a responsibility to present evidence to the best of our ability, including documents, or whatever form of evidence to confirm what you are saying by word of mouth. You know that, do you not?

Mr Zwane: Advocate, can I hear that once more?

Adv Mapoma: I am saying as a person who is facing these charges, you are presenting your case. You are aware that in presenting your case you have a duty to present all the evidence that you have, is it not so?

Mr Zwane: It is actually so, Advocate. All the evidence I could get a hold of I have presented to the Committee; also, because of me being aware that I cannot just create a story. So I am well aware of that fact. In fact, I was thinking in my mind, what made Parliament to give me the second chance of 6 September, it is because afterwards they were that I had apologised for 2 May, because at some point, one of the senior Members in Parliament said ‘No, we apologise on behalf of this lady who said you must come on the 2nd. She was not supposed to do that.’ And I accepted that, okay, because it is me who caused all these things, let me accept. So I thought maybe the issue of the 2nd was addressed in a way that I was given a chance to come on the 6th.

Adv Mapoma: Now, you say if I understand, correct me if I am wrong, that you SMSed the Chief Whip about your delayed flight?

Mr Zwane: Yes, I said so, Advocate.

Adv Mapoma: Did you present that evidence to the Committee of an SMS to the Chief Whip?

Mr Zwane: I did not present to the Committee of the Chief Whip, Advocate. I will tell you the reason – there are two reasons. Number one, I did not see it fit to implicate other people for what I have to stand for. Secondly, I already did not have that information with me because the information was in May and I had to present in September. But I believe that if I go search for my records, I can get those SMSes. They should be there, or the Chief Whip still has them. I am not manufacturing. I can go back and get that information if it is needed.

Adv Mapoma: So we do not have any evidence that you spoke to the Chief Whip and explained what you say you explained – the Committee does not have that evidence. You and I agree on that, is it not so? Except what you are saying by word of mouth.

Mr Zwane: The Committee does not have that, but I have raised that issue, Advocate, and if that issue was going to be an issue, I should have been informed timeously that try and retrieve the records, put them here. Or even ask the Chief Whip if she still remembers if I sent the SMS to her.

Acting Chairperson: Adv Mapoma?

Adv Mapoma: Yes, Chairperson.

Acting Chairperson: I will have to request you to give it a break at this point. We are over Members tea time by ten minutes. I will allow them a fifteen minute tea break, and then we continue when we come back.

Adv Mapoma: Thank you, Chairperson. I will then proceed to another matter.

Mr Zwane: Chair, can I ask that I try and relocate, because where I am at twelve o’clock there will be load shedding? I will use the fifteen minutes, maybe if it is twenty minutes, to try to get to a spot where I am able to connect and continue.

Acting Chairperson: Alright. No, that is great. Hon Members, let us reconvene in fifteen minutes. That will be at eleven o’clock.

The meeting adjourned for a fifteen minute tea break.

Acting Chairperson: Hon Members, are we back?

Ms G Tseke (ANC): Yes, Chair.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you. Is Adv Mapoma back also? Adv Mapoma, are you here?

Adv Mapoma: I am here, Chairperson.

Acting Chairperson: Hon Zwane, are you here? Did you find a good place to connect? Mr Zwane? Can we be advised if Mr Zwane is on the platform. He said he is going to get a better spot. Not yet?

Adv Ngaleka: Chair, I think we need to give him some time [as] he has not joined yet.

Acting Chairperson: Okay.

Adv Ngaleka: We will alert you as soon as he has joined.

Acting Chairperson: Alright. Thanks, Hon Members. Let us give it five minutes or so and get an indication.

The meeting adjourned for five minutes.

Acting Chairperson: Not yet? Can the Secretariat please check on Mr Zwane?

Adv Ngaleka: Chair, Mr Zwane has joined now. Thanks.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Mr Zwane. You are welcome once more, Hon Zwane. Can we then allow Adv Mapoma to continue. Adv Mapoma, you can continue with the cross-examination.

Adv Mapoma: Thank you, Hon Chair. Mr Zwane, in the previous mini session you testified that for functionality of Parliament you are accountable directly to the Speaker as a Member of Parliament. You remember that?

Mr Zwane: Yes, Advocate, I remember.

Adv Mapoma: Now, after you absented yourself on 2 May 2023 did you speak to the Speaker of the National Assembly about it?

Mr Zwane: I had already sent an apology through the Office of the Speaker, to a lady, I think it is Ms Xolelwa, Advocate.

Adv Mapoma: Sorry, I missed that answer. I could not hear you well.

Mr Zwane: Yes, I did send an apology, Advocate, to the office of the Speaker to a lady. I think it is Ms Xolelwa.

Adv Mapoma: No, I was asking if you spoke, if at all, to the Speaker.

Mr Zwane: I did not speak to the Speaker, Advocate. But I sent my apology through the office.

Adv Mapoma: The Speaker is a Member of your party, is she not?

Mr Zwane: The party has never met on this matter officially, Advocate, except for me speaking with [the] Chief Whip one on one.

Adv Mapoma: No, that is not an answer to my question. My question is simple. She is a member of your party, is she not?

Mr Zwane: She is a member of my party, yes.

Adv Mapoma: What would stop you from speaking to her directly about your absence?

Mr Zwane: This matter involved me, as a Member of Parliament.

Adv Mapoma: Of course.

Mr Zwane: And I thought as such that I should follow the protocol and not take advantage of the fact that I am dealing with the members of my party here, Advocate.

Adv Mapoma: She is a Member of Parliament like yourself, is she not?

Mr Zwane: She is a Member of Parliament like myself, yes.

Adv Mapoma: Yeah, is there anything that hindered you from walking to her office and speaking to her directly about what happened and why you did not present yourself there? Did you, at all, do that?

Mr Zwane: I did not see it that way, Advocate. I thought that now that things are like this, I must be able to respond accordingly according to what she will also have at hand and present it in Parliament.

Adv Mapoma: So the direct answer is you did not speak to her subsequent to your absence?

Mr Zwane: No, I did not. Yes, I did not.

Adv Mapoma: You did not write to her, subsequent to that?

Mr Zwane: I did not do what, Advocate?

Adv Mapoma: Write to her to explain yourself.

Mr Zwane: When this thing happened, Advocate, I called the office, and the office – a certain Ms Xolelwa said – said, "Present yourself tomorrow". I presented myself the following day, I was in Parliament. And when I saw I was not called I thought, okay, maybe this thing is not on the agenda because I know things are processed to be on the agenda. So I waited for that opportunity, taking it kindly that this matter has been trashed in terms of my whereabouts the following day.

Adv Mapoma: And then now there is a letter that was written by the Speaker to yourself in August. Do you remember that letter – where the Speaker was complaining about you not having complied with the order to present yourself and apologise?

Mr Zwane: There is a letter I got – I do not know if it is the same letter – that raised this matter and continued that we should agree on a date going forward, where I will present myself to Parliament and tender the apology. I do not know if we are talking about the same thing.

Adv Mapoma: That letter was dated the 30 August. That is the letter I am referring to. Did you respond to this letter?

Mr Zwane: Advocate, I do not have that kind of information in front of me. So I may not be able to respond directly and positively and honestly to the contents of the letter you have, whilst I do not have [it] here. With all the respect, Advocate.

Adv Mapoma: Alright. This letter is on page 22 on the bundle of documents – in fact, it is on page 21 up to page 22.

Mr Zwane: Yes.

Adv Mapoma: I just want to read for you on page 22 in the middle of the first paragraph after the… Okay, she says: “Furthermore, you were expected to present yourself in the National Assembly on second, May 2023 to enter an apology to the House despite your commitment to do so. According to the Chief Whip, you were absent.” Now this is where I am going to say “Your conduct is unacceptable.” She goes on to say “You are hereby instructed to arrange with the Chief Whip of the majority party to enter this apology during the plenary at the earliest opportunity at the commencement of the third parliamentary term on 29 August.” Now, my question is, did you act upon this letter at all?

Mr Zwane: No, I did not act upon the letter, Advocate. The letter was saying me and the Chief Whip should meet and prepare, as I have said earlier on, for a date that I will enter the apology. So we did not actually interact. On my side, also, I did not do anything, except that the meeting was arranged – and I adhered to that meeting. I believe that the letter was actually a preparation for that meeting on 6 September.

Adv Mapoma: And remember, this is now 30 August, four months after you were supposed to have arranged yourself and attended to go apologise. Did you make an arrangement between 2 May up till the time this letter was written to you?

Mr Zwane: Yes, I did, Advocate. On the same day of 2 May the arrangement was that the following day the matter would… I would be allowed to avail myself.

Adv Mapoma: Yes, I remember you said on the 3rd, on the following day, in May, you were in Parliament, the matter was not called. Did you go to whoever, even the Speaker, to inform the Speaker [that] now that you are here you would like to present yourself to apologise?

Mr Zwane: If my memory serves me well, the Speaker was not the one chairing on the third because she is not always chairing the session, there are other chairs. There was another chair who was chairing, and I remember Members of Parliament raising this matter, and the chair said, ‘No, this matter will be dealt [with] by the Speaker at the right time. That matter was raised on the third, so the chair that was chairing said, no, he did not know anything about this matter. The matter will be dealt by the Speaker at an appropriate platform, at the right time. I think that record is on the Hansard.

Adv Mapoma: I will argue you, and I put it to you now [that] this is what I am going to argue, that you had ample time from 2 May, after you were not there – and you were there on the third up until the Speaker writes you a letter on 30 August – to take it upon yourself to seek audience to the National Assembly to apologise, and you failed to do so. And by doing so, you persisted in your contempt of Parliament. That is what I am going to argue. I am giving you an opportunity, if any, to comment on that.

Mr Zwane: My intention is not to come here and counter-argue with you, Advocate. But I can put it on record that in my common knowledge, once this matter was raised on the third, I had a reasonable expectation that that platform will be created [or] I will be called because I did not see it that I should be the one who initiate[s] because that is not how it is done normally.

Adv Mapoma: No, but you know that you were supposed to be in Parliament on the 2 November. You did not go there to apologise, and that conduct constituted contempt. Is it not so? And you had a duty to rectify that.

Mr Zwane: On 2 May?

Adv Mapoma: May, yes. Your absence there constituted a misconduct of contempt of Parliament, and you had a duty to rectify that. Why would you expect that to be coming from somebody else?

Mr Zwane: Yes, I had a duty, Advocate. I presented myself on the third because of that duty the Advocate is talking about. When this matter was raised in the setting where I was, my understanding was in agreement with what the Speaker said – that the Speaker, at the right time, will raise this matter and deal with it. In my mind I thought the apology is not everything the speaker has got. I could not dictate to the Speaker that ‘Do this thing tomorrow, because I have apologised.

Adv Mapoma: Now, on 6 September incident your evidence is that you were there in Parliament the day before and that is actually what the Chief whip is saying. Now, you said an incident occurred that required you to leave – you remember that?

Mr Zwane: I remember that, yes, Advocate.

Adv Mapoma: And on the fifth you did speak to the Chief Whip about attending the session on the following day?

Mr Zwane: Before I got the message, Advocate, I initiated – I went to her.

Adv Mapoma: Yes, you spoke to her.

Mr Zwane: To the Chief Whip?

Adv Mapoma: Yes.

Mr Zwane: So we engaged and engaged. And she said ‘Take the opportunity tomorrow and let us correct what has happened.’ We agreed.

Adv Mapoma: Yes.

Mr Zwane: I then sat down. Everybody could notice I was there, even the Speaker noticed because the following day [s]he said: ‘This Hon Member was here.’ And I got a call while seated there after I had met with the Chief Whip. I then indicated to my Whip that I have this emergency in Pietermaritzburg, as I indicated earlier on. I need to go and give approval for my sister to get fresh blood. She is in ICU. Then I left. I even left the sitting to get [on] a plane so that the following day I am there and attending to this situation which, to me, was a crisis.

Adv Mapoma: So when did this turn of events occur between the day before and the actual day?

Mr Zwane: On the fifth, a day before I was supposed to give an apology, I was in Parliament. Then when I was in Parliament I met with the Chief Whip. We spoke, and I sat down. As the proceedings were proceeding I got a call from the hospital because I had given their call as a person to be contacted, because my mother is seventy-five years old. Then when I got that call, the call said, ‘We want a signed approval that we should inject your sister in ICU with fresh blood, otherwise…’ So that is when I got this call. And I indicated to the Whip that ‘I have an emergency situation. My sister is in ICU. I need to attend and give them an approval that they inject blood in her system.’ Then I left on that afternoon of the fifth, Advocate.

Adv Mapoma: So this issue that required you not to be present at the National Assembly on the 6th occurred… you received this call when you were still in Parliament?

Mr Zwane: In the sitting, yes.

Adv Mapoma: And you had agreed with the Chief Whip that you would present yourself on the following day, before that incident, that call came. Is it not so?

Mr Zwane: I was there because I was attending the following day, according to the request of the Parliament.

Adv Mapoma: Yes.

Mr Zwane: I went to the Chief Whip to greet and converse with her. As we were parting ways, she then raised this issue, ‘Do you remember tomorrow?’ I said ‘I will do as I am expected.’

Adv Mapoma: Now, what I want to find out, you had agreed with her, and then later on, my understanding is that you got this call that you had to attend to that. Did you then speak – go back to the Speaker and say, ‘No, our arrangement is no longer going to take place, because now I have got this emergency’? Did you do that?

Mr Zwane: Let us get it. [Are] you asking about the Chief Whip or are you asking about the Speaker, Advocate?

Adv Mapoma: I am asking about the Chief Whip. The one who you spoke to and you agreed with her that you will be there on the following day.

Mr Zwane: Okay. I did indicate to the Whip of the Committee because I sat next to her. The Parliament was in session. So when the Parliament is in session Members are expected to report. I would have deemed it not appropriate for me, when the Parliament is in session, to go and get to the Chief Whip when the Whip is here, Advocate. So the reason I went to the Whip is because it was convenient for me, she was closer to me. In the Committee I am answering to her.

Adv Mapoma: Okay, now come the following day you are not there. The Chief Whip is not aware you are not there. Then come the 7th, did you speak to the Chief Whip about the arrangement that you had on the fifth that you did not honour on the 6th and explain why?

Mr Zwane: Yes, I did, by way of a letter. When I came immediately, I think on the 7th, I wrote a letter of an apology. I stated my case. Why I did so was because I thought addressing this matter verbally will seem as if I am dodging the actual activity of me going to Parliament to enter my apology. So I wrote a letter through the lawyer on the 7th, I think, immediately when I came back from there, and sent the letter to both the Speaker and the Chief Whip that indicated the whole story of the emergency. And I said, concluding that letter, ‘I am ready for any time. I am sorry about what happened. I could not do otherwise. This was a crisis.’ I did, Advocate.

Adv Mapoma: No, the letter we have here on the 7th is a letter authored by the lawyers on your behalf – it is not your letter. Is that not the case? Or when you say you wrote are you referring to the letter written on your behalf?

Mr Zwane: I instructed them to write the letter on my behalf, Advocate. I am sorry if the impression I have created is that I wrote the letter. I said I went to the lawyers to write a letter of apology. Why I could not do this thing verbally [was] because it was happening for the second time. And both the Speaker and the Chief Whip were very angry, you can hear from their tone in the first instance and the second instance. So I thought, let me write a letter to a lawyer, put it officially that this is what happened and I am ready to apologise any time when I am offered such an opportunity.

Adv Mapoma: Why did you need lawyers to do that?

Mr Zwane: In my head, I think, from the earlier engagement of the 5th with the Chief Whip, I could hear… and I apologised there because she was still very cross with the issue of 2 May. This thing repeated itself on the 6th. I knew that I would not get a proper hearing because of the happenings, so I said the lawyer should advise me how to write a proper apology and put it on record. That was the motivation to go the legal route.

Adv Mapoma: So you felt you could not apologise to the Speaker? You had to get lawyers to do that for you? Is that what you were saying? I thought you said you have a direct line with the Speaker, [that] you are accountable to her. Now, you fail to honour what she expected of you, you go get lawyers to apologise to your direct superior, why?

Mr Zwane: Advocate, I apologise if I have created an intention to have a direct line with the Speaker. I do not have that kind of a line. She is a member of my party. I have always interacted with her when we meet, but on work issues, I have always followed everybody will follow – the channels that are followed by everybody.

Adv Mapoma: I put it to you, and I will argue, that you knew that you had acted contemptuously by not appearing in Parliament on the previous day, the 6th, and you wanted lawyers to help you get out of your contemptuous approach or to defend you on your contemptuous approach. That is what I will put to you. What is your comment?

Mr Zwane: I would say, Advocate, after hearing all the facts, it would be unfair of you to add to that, because to me, it says I should have left my sister who was dying at the hospital and attend to a matter. So I had to weigh these options: ‘Here is somebody very sick, and it is a crisis. Let me attend to the crisis.’ I had already apologised, through the Whip – I think I want to emphasise that point – when I left on the fifth. Coming back, I knew that this thing is going to be a big issue – that is true. I knew that it would be difficult for the Chief Whip to listen to me on the same matter, because she had already said on the fifth that she is disappointed about what happened. I said, ‘No, I am here, I am correcting those things.’ So I went to the lawyer not because I wanted to hide anything. I went to the lawyer to indicate that ‘I am sorry. I am remorseful about what happened but I could not do anything. And therefore I am pleading for the third chance to deal with the matter correctly.’ That is all I went there to do.

Adv Mapoma: And this letter of these lawyers attaches a picture here of you in hospital. This letter does not indicate when this picture was taken. So you appreciate that?

Mr Zwane: The hospital has all the records should the Committee need the record. They also have a record of me signing the register I entered there, Advocate. That information can be retrieved. It is there in that hospital. I have the name of the hospital. So I would apologise if that is causing any kind of confusion.

Adv Mapoma: It does. And I will argue that it must be rejected because it is not credible.

Mr Zwane: Advocate, I am not here to defend myself in terms of the seriousness of the matter. I am here to put facts as they are obtained, on that particular fateful day. From the 5th, I reported, when I left… I would have argued that should I have been given an opportunity to – as I had asked in the letter – I would have indicated my willingness to come and enter in apology because I hear you say I am unwilling to apologise. No, that is not my intention. My intention is, right from the onset, I want this matter closed. I do not want to create politics on this matter: that is my stance today. That is why I came here alone. I did not bring lawyers because I thought the facts were here; let me state the facts from the Committee.

Adv Mapoma: Now, from 2 May, until today, you have not apologised to the National Assembly, why? If you do not have [the] intention to the contemptuous, why have you not rectified that contemptuous conduct?

Mr Zwane: Thank you, Advocate, for raising that. I have not apologised because on the two occasions where I was given an opportunity, I could not be there; for the reasons I have already alluded to. I have entered an apology. And I have said in my second apology, I am willing to present myself. Since the 7th of September up to today, I have been willing to present myself, Advocate, without any fail, to enter my apology. And unfortunately I cannot dictate time and space, because that is beyond my powers.

Adv Mapoma: Did you ever ask for an opportunity to be given audience to the National Assembly to enter an apology?

Mr Zwane: Yes, I did through the letter that was written to my lawyers, Advocate.

Adv Mapoma: No, this letter does not seek that audience. It explains why you did not honour your responsibility of going to Parliament on 6 September. That is all that we have here. There is nothing else that says you, as a Member of Parliament, accountable to the Speaker, have ever approached the Speaker to seek an opportunity to address the National Assembly and enter an apology. You have not done that, up to now. Any explanation for that?

Mr Zwane: Advocate, me and the Speaker have been writing to each other, and through that way of communication, the letter in front of you raises a plea of an opportunity to come and tender such an apology. It is in the office of the Speaker that I am willing to tender the apology. I would have never thought of anything beyond that letter because to me, the letter indicates my willingness at an earliest opportunity to come and tender the apology.

Adv Mapoma: I would argue that that cannot be believed.

Mr Zwane: If Advocate argues that cannot be believed, it is written in that letter, as I conclude, that I am willing to present myself at the earliest opportunity to tender the apology. That is my understanding, at least.

Adv Mapoma: Thank you, Chairperson and the Committee Members. I have no further questions.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Adv Mapoma, for the cross-examination. I will then open the platform for about fifteen minutes for Members for clarity seeking questions. Hon Members, do you have questions for Hon Zwane? Hon Mlenzana, followed by Hon Dlakude for now. You have the platform, Mr Mlenzana.

Mr Mlenzana: Chairperson?

Acting Chairperson: Yes.

Mr Mlenzana: I am not sure, but you will pardon me. I had thought you would allow us to seek questions of clarity from the Advocate first – I do not know. My question is a question of clarity to the Advocate, for now. It is not that I do not have questions for Mr Zwane. If you can just give me direction, then I will come back.

Acting Chairperson: Hon Mlenzana, initially before we broke for tea, before Advocate led the cross-examination, I gave the Members a platform and there were no hands for clarity-seeking questions for Adv Mapoma. He has just cross-examined Hon Zwane. We are now at that point where you will have to get clarity-seeking questions from Hon Zwane.

Mr Mlenzana: Okay, no, it is fine. It is fine. It is fine. Perhaps as a way of comment, when the Advocate comes back, if he would, just for me to be on the correct pedestal, indicate as to after this current cross-examination is he, as the legal person, able to advise me into his understanding of Mr Zwane’s understanding of both the rules of Parliament and the manner in which Parliament operates, gathering from what they have been discussing? But then, as I am saying, it is neither here nor there. The Advocate will find time to respond to that. Now, let me come to Hon Zwane, if I am allowed. Greetings, Hon Zwane.

Mr Zwane: Greetings, Hon Mlenzana.

Mr Mlenzana: My first, Chair, would be more of a comment to Hon Zwane. Hon Zwane, I know you as a man of the cloth. We normally call each other…

Ms Dlakude: Hon Chair? Hon Chairperson?

Acting Chairperson: Yes, Hon Dlakude?

Ms Dlakude: I am sorry. I am a little bit confused now. Is it a platform… Did you open for us to make comments and discussion, or is it time for clarity-seeking questions? If we mix both then we will lose direction.

Acting Chairperson: Hon Dlakude, thanks for the question. This is the clarity-seeking question from Members to Hon Zwane. The next step, we will be going to the closing arguments. After the Initiator, I will give Members, again. After Hon Zwane, I will give Members, again. So at this point, it is clarity-seeking questions from Hon Zwane, after [the] cross-examination by the Initiator.

Mr Mlenzana: Thanks, Chairperson. I am taking the order. Chair, can I go on?

Acting Chairperson: Yes, Hon Mlenzana.

Mr Mlenzana: Thanks. Hon Zwane, do you understand the term or what I term here, political party administration in Parliament? What I will do, Chairperson, if guided by you – because I think I have got about four questions which are linked to each other – would Mr Zwane be able to take notes, after which then he just responds? I do not want to be putting him on the spot. Can I continue as such?

Acting Chairperson: Yes, Hon Zwane, please write the questions down so that we avoid, sort of, conversing between the two of you. You pose your questions and he comes in to respond to the four questions.

Mr Mlenzana: Thanks. Yes, the first one was, do you understand what I term political party administration in Parliament. That is one. Two, does your party operate through…

Acting Chairperson: You are drowning, Hon Mlenzana. We cannot hear you.

Mr Mlenzana: And now?

Acting Chairperson: Yes, you are now audible. Please, go closer to your mic[rophone].

Mr Mlenzana: Okay, so it means I must hold on like this. Can I go back to the second question?

Acting Chairperson: Yes, question number two.

Mr Mlenzana: Does your party operate through your Chief Whips in the parliamentary sittings? Then the next one is, do you bother to know the responsible duty whips in parliamentary sittings? Or put in another way, did you bother to know the responsible duty whips on each of the days in question, that is, in May and September? And the last one would be, what is your understanding of the terms defiance and contempt? Thanks, Chairperson.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Mlenzana. Hon Zwane, can you respond to the questions posed.

Mr Zwane: Thanks, Chair. I was still writing the questions down. Do I understand political administration in Parliament? Yes, I do, Hon Mlenzana. I know that we are guided by the Chief Whip, with the help of the duty whip, in order to see that the organisation is represented well and the organisation goes according to what has been agreed to – that is my understanding. Does my party operate through the Chief Whip, the duty whip; and if I bother to understand, each day, the work of the whips on duty? I do, because normally when we fill in the party register that is when one has a chance to interact with the whip on duty and ask who else is on duty. Defiance? I do understand defiance. Defiance means willfully not wanting to cooperate with a particular instruction. And contempt, my understanding is that you have not done what you were supposed to do, and there are no tangible reasons put forward for your failure of not doing what you were supposed to do. I would not want to, Chair, because of time, put my understanding into why these questions are asked because I have already tried to elaborate that it was not my intention to really defy or be in contempt of any other instruction that is given to me. Thank you, Chair.

Acting Chairperson: Thanks, Hon Zwane. Hon Tseke, you can pose your clarity-seeking questions.

Ms Tseke: Thank you very much, and greetings to your good self and all the colleagues connected. Good day, Hon Zwane.

Mr Zwane: Good day, Hon Tseke.

Ms Tseke: How are you?

Mr Zwane: I could be better talking to you outside of this space, but I am okay.

Ms Tseke: Unfortunately, we are in this space together. Thank you so much.

Mr Zwane: Yes.

Ms Tseke: Just one question that I have, Hon Chair. Hon Zwane as an experienced Member of Parliament – I heard it loud and clear that you served in the legislature and you started in 2015 in the National Assembly – are you aware that there are structures in Parliament that processes the… I am raising this matter because you said, at some point, that you called on 2 May – when you missed your flight – an official, which confirmed to you that your matter will be scheduled the following day, which is the 3 May. Did you believe that? That is basically my question; are you aware that you cannot just schedule a matter abruptly like that? Are you aware of the process of programming in Parliament – how we schedule items in the National Assembly? Thanks, Chair. That is my question.

Acting Chairperson: Hon Zwane?

Mr Zwane: Chair, let me thank Hon Tseke for this question. When this happened – me calling and getting a question whether I can present myself in Parliament – I was aware that there were scheduling structures. I was also aware that these scheduling structures do, sometimes, depending on the seriousness of the matter, reschedule the matter that they want to prioritise. That has happened to me whilst I was still a Minister. So from where I was in the crisis that was caused by the delay of the plane I wanted to do anything and everything that will resolve this situation. So I had no reason not to believe, or disbelieve, but I am aware that there are structures, matters are scheduled. That is why when I was called, my name was not called on the 3rd. I did not make it an issue, because I understood that maybe the conversation of the 2nd was out of emotions. Thank you, Chair.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Zwane. Hon Dlakude?

Ms Dlakude: Thank you very much, Hon Chair. Good afternoon, Hon Zwane.

Mr Zwane: Good afternoon, Deputy Chief Whip.

Ms Dlakude: Thank you very much. Mine is a clarity-seeking question, Hon Chair. I just want to know from Hon Zwane what his line of reporting in Parliament is.

Acting Chairperson: Thanks, Hon Dlakude. Hon Zwane?

Mr Zwane: The line of reporting is… My understanding of my line of reporting is that first and foremost, in Parliament, I report to the Speaker. There are committees that will then have responsible heads. I will report to those heads of the committees. And outside that I will report to the Chief Whip on the issue of political administration. And this will cascade through my whip and other duty whips when I am in the sitting. That is the political line. I do not know if I answered the question. Thank you, Chair.

Acting Chairperson: Thanks, Hon Zwane. Hon Xaba, you are the last one. We are over fifteen minutes.

Mr Xaba: Hello, Hon Zwane.

Mr Zwane: Hello, Hon Xaba.

Mr Xaba: Thank you. My question is, in your leadership, having been a leader so experienced, have you ever served, at some point, as a Chief Whip? Lastly, along with that question, in the booklets or the books that we receive as Members of Parliament, is there any that you may have had that describes the responsibility of the Chief Whip? Thank you, Chair.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Xaba. Hon Zwane?

Mr Zwane: Chair, let me thank the question. I have been a chief whip, at some point, in this organisation, specifically speaking. Before I became an executive mayor of the district, I was a chief whip. I have dealt with a number of cases. But I must say in this Committee, it also differs on the approach, and that cannot be faulted. I am not questioning anything done by the Chief Whip. And I will never question anything that comes my way as an instruction from my chief whip, because I understand how the organisation works. Whether I am happy about it, or I am not happy, is another matter. I wish to end it at that point, Chair. I hope I answered the question from Hon Xaba.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Zwane. Hon Members, those were the clarity-seeking questions, as responded by Hon Zwane. May I, at this point, request the Initiator to make his closing arguments. Adv Mapoma?

Adv Mapoma: Thank you, Hon Chair and Committee Members. Chairperson, my request is for the Committee to find Mr Zwane guilty of contempt of Parliament. I will argue along those lines. It is clear in the evidence of Mr Zwane himself that he knew all the time, on 2 May as well as on 6 September, that he was supposed to have gone to Parliament to enter an apology. He was aware of that requirement. By omitting to do so he was also aware that that conduct constitutes contempt of Parliament. Now, it is not about not obeying the Chief Whip, that is not about that; that would be evidence that showed that he was aware that he had to honour that responsibility. He himself concedes that. The only issue that he is raising is that he had no intention not to apologise. That is his case here. I will argue, Chair and Members, that that argument does not hold water. In fact, the evidence is overwhelming, that we are dealing with somebody who knew what needed to be done, and what is the best thing to do to have it done. Starting on 2 May, the evidence that we have here of the Chief Whip is that, one, Mr Zwane was aware that he had to go to Parliament. The Chief Whip, together with him, agreed that he had to go and enter an approach to sort of end the matter. Come that day, he is not there. He has not even taken the liberty of letting the Chief Whip [know] – that he had agreed with – that he was not going to be there. That, ‘No, I am no longer going to be there because I am late – my flight is late.’ All that he did, according to his argument, was to communicate with the office of the Chief Whip to indicate that he is going to be late. I will argue, Chairperson and the Committee, that that is not enough. We are dealing here with a senior Member of Parliament, somebody who knows the workings of Parliament. It is not just an ordinary person who has just come to Parliament. He knows very well what needs to be done and how to get it done. If at all he had the intention to go and enter an apology at the National Assembly, it was just easy for him to do that, because we have somebody here who knows what needs to be done. Even if, for that matter, as he says, that on the 3 May, he was there, but his matter was not called. He asked the chairperson of the day, and the chairperson of the day indicated to him, according to the evidence, that that would have to be taken up with the Speaker. There is no evidence whatsoever that he took initiative then with the Speaker, to honour what he was supposed to have done on 2 May. It took four months for the Speaker to write to him, and complain that he has not honoured what he was supposed to have honoured. And not only that, the Speaker also directs that: arrange to come and apologise. Mr Zwane has, in his own evidence, admitted that he never took up steps to sort of live up to that directive by the Speaker. Now come 6 September, again, the day before that, they agree with the Speaker that ‘Let's go there. Go and apologise to defuse this issue.’ He agrees. Now, according to his evidence, in the afternoon thereafter, there is this emergency; he has to leave. But he does now find it necessary to address that with the colleague, that is the Chief Whip, that ‘Hey, I am not going to be able to go there tomorrow’ and then he leaves. Nothing that says, later on, when he is wherever he was, asking for steps to be taken to let the Speaker know that ‘I am no longer able to come there.’ The Speaker is at a loss as to what is happening, having written to him on 30 August. He goes to lawyers, asks lawyers to write a letter of apology. Why? There is no plausible explanation. Why does it include lawyers, a matter that is a simple matter of having to honour what you have to honour? It can only be inferred that lawyers are invoked in this matter to help evade this thing of having to go and apologise or to enter an apology. That is the only reasonable inference that can be drawn off that conduct. It was just not necessary altogether. And as if that is not enough, even this explanation of having to go to the medical attention for the daughter or sister, it is not backed up by evidence. I am not insensitive of this with respect to our Committee Members. The fact of the matter is that if you come with an explanation, it must be a plausible explanation. It must not just be an explanation that appeals to the sentiment of the listener. But it must be a credible and believable explanation. The photos that get shown by the lawyers, that photo has no date, nothing that says when it was, if it was intended to be illustrating the date of the incident. It is not about whether the child got sick and Mr Zwane had to go there. It is about whether that occurred on the 6th so much so that he could not honour what he was supposed to have done. I submit, Chairperson, that must be well understood, because otherwise, there is a possibility that it can sway and effectively pull wool over the listeners' eyes. When you present explanation for contempt or failure to obey what the order has instructed you to do, [a] reasonable and believable explanation has to be made. Failing that, there can only be one conclusion, that you had no intention of complying. Therefore, you are contemptuous. Now, for what it is worth, I might be tempted to deal with the question that was relating to the difference between defiance and contempt. Chair, both are in the same WhatsApp group – defiance and contempt – because they indicate the blameworthy state of mind of not wanting to do what you have to do, or what you are called upon to do. In fact, defiance makes it worse. It aggravates it. So, with respect, my argument is this, Chair, that we are dealing with somebody here who, on the basis of evidence that is available, had every opportunity to take initiatives to attend to the compliance. If he was not there on the day that was set to do that, to illustrate convincingly, that indeed, there was a valid reason why he could not do it. There is nothing that comes up. And what is worse, it takes four months from May to August – even then, no steps are taken. Now, September is gone past, lawyers get involved to apologise for September and not to apologise for not honouring what the order is – what the instruction is – that come and tender an apology in Parliament. This is a case where we are dealing with somebody who has complied with other elements of the sanction that was given. This one is the one that is difficult. There can be only one inference, also, that it is because it is a political decision to not want to apologise to the National Assembly for what was done then. So that in itself indicates that there is every intention. You cannot say you did something accidentally, but you let it continue without remedying it, when you had omissions. So in short, Chairperson and Hon Members, I ask that, for the benefit of stability and respect to the rules of Parliament and the proper functioning of Parliament, when something like this occurs, it must be frowned upon by Parliament, so that Parliament can protect its own systems and functions. The issue of whether the rules of Parliament are understood or not, does not come in anywhere near to what is before us. This is a simple case of determining whether somebody complied with what somebody was expected to do, because we are no longer dealing with whether he broke the rules or not. No, the rules were broken and he was found guilty of having broken rules and was penalised for that. It is about now complying with the penalty. That does not require rules; it requires you to just obey the order or the instructions that are there. So it is as simple as that, with respect, Chairperson. That is my argument. Mr Zwane is guilty of contempt of Parliament on two occasions. That is my argument. Thank you, Chair. I think you are muted, Chair.

Ms Dlakude: You are muted, Chairperson.

Acting Chairperson: Thanks, Hon Members. I did not realise that I had muted myself. I was saying that at this point I request that we take a 45 minute lunch break and be back at two o’clock. When we come back, I will open the platform for Members to ask the Initiator clarity-seeking questions on the closing arguments that he has just made. Can we then break for lunch and be back at two? Thanks.

Ms Dlakude: Thank you, Chairperson.

[The Committee adjourned for a 45 minute break]

Acting Chairperson: Hon Members, are we all back? Are we all back on the platform?

Ms Tseke: Yes, we are here, Chair.

Acting Chairperson: Let me check my attendance register. Alright, at this point, Hon Members, I will then allow the Members of the Committee to ask clarity-seeking questions from the Initiator for about 15 minutes. Remember that before we broke for lunch he had just finished his closing arguments. The platform is open for Hon Members. Any clarity-seeking questions on the closing arguments of Adv Mapoma? I do not see any hands. I will give you a chance at one, two, three and gone. Hon Members, I take it that you do not have any clarity-seeking questions on the closing argument of the Initiator. Can we move on? Am I audible?

Mr Mlenzana: Chairperson? Mlenzana here. Mine is on a procedural matter, if I am allowed?

Acting Chairperson: Yes, alright.

Mr Mlenzana: Thanks, Chair. Just on a procedural matter. I do not see Hon Zwane on the platform. Can we continue without him?

Acting Chairperson: Oh, no. He has to be here because we are going to him next. Thanks for bringing that up. When there was silence when I said are we all here, I thought that without indication everyone was on the platform. Secretariat please can you help us?

Adv Ngaleka: We are calling Mr Zwane.

Acting Chairperson: Just remind him that we are back in session.

Adv Ngaleka: Chairperson, Hon Zwane is on the platform. Thank you.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Advocate. Hon Zwane, you are most welcome. We indicated earlier on that we will take lunch at two o’clock. Nevertheless, we just dealt with the item of clarity-seeking questions from Members on the closing arguments of the Initiator, and there was none. At this point, I will allow you time to make your closing arguments.

Mr Zwane: Chairperson, thank you. Thank you for briefing me. I think it is still… Let me make my closing argument, Chair. In the morning, when we started this thing – we started with a meeting – there were two charges put to me. And I want to recall the charges; charges were that on 2 May, I failed to present myself to Parliament and on the 6th [September], and I did not plead guilty to both charges, because the charges were saying I willfully and intentionally avoided presenting myself on 2 May. I have explained the reason why. And I did not hear from the side of the Advocate having an issue about 2 May, except to say between May and August what did I do to show my willingness – which I want to put on record, Chair. Between May and August, beyond the issue of the 2nd, was not what was put to me as a charge. Therefore, it is my humble plea that when Members look at this issue we should remember I have two counts I am charged with. The issue of the 6th, which is, according to the Advocate presenting the evidence, is that the evidence is questionable overwhelmingly because the picture I sent does not bear a date. I want to explain and clarify that matter. The picture I took on the 6th because I had a call from one of the chairs, an Honourable Member of the ANC, who told me that ‘You are wanted in the House. Where are you?’ I told him that I am in Pietermaritzburg and immediately I took that photo. I have said to this meeting that if this photo alone does not present enough evidence, records of me being in Pietermaritzburg are available. My sister was not in that hospital. I was there on that particular day. I even filled the register. Meaning with all the humility, I would have anticipated a situation where Advocate would have put it to me ‘Are you willing and able to collect that information present in front of this Committee, so that the Committee can make an informed decision.’ I would want to say without making this issue an emotional issue, because that is not my intention to make the scenario of the 6th, which was a crisis to me, an emotional issue, and therefore pull wool over Members' ears and eyes. This is not my intention. But I would plead to this Committee that if the evidence is not sufficient, why am I not given an opportunity, a reasonable opportunity to present the register or whatever that this Committee will need? Because I have never refused, Chair, to do that. Chair, it is unfortunate that an inference has been thrown to this Committee that the matter of me not wanting to go and appear in Parliament is a political matter. I do not know how, but I want to bring to light to this Committee that I did not want to bring that issue here, up until the Advocate raised this matter. I want to say to this Committee that indeed, to my eyes, this is a political matter, because this matter is already in court, when this Committee has not even pronounced whether I am guilty or not. The matter has been put in the High Court of Eastern Cape; so it is a political matter. You can see that thing. But I am pleading with this Committee that: give me an opportunity. If you think the facts I have put forth are not convincing, tell me which facts are not convincing, and give me an opportunity to present further facts to convince the Committee that I was there. The matter that I was there, I have evidence thereof. And it cannot then be taken as if I am trying to pull wool to the Members because I do not want to apologise. If I was trying to do that, I would not have said in the letter written through the lawyers, that I avail myself in the earliest opportunity that can be given by the Speaker. Let me also hasten to say, Chair, maybe I might be missing something, but once I have indicated to the Speaker on 2 May, I waited for any opportunity for the incident of 2 May. If that opportunity did not come my way and it came in September, I accepted that. I would want this Committee to look at this issue as that, and say to this Committee, most of the Committee Members know me. It is not true that I am an arrogant human being, to the fact that Parliament has sort of used me as an example to set itself straight when it comes to issues that are not going right. I do not agree with that. I plead with the Members to look at this case as such. We will hear from the Members. I thank you, Chair.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Zwane. Hon Members, I will then open the platform for you for about fifteen minutes to ask clarity-seeking questions from Hon Zwane. We have heard his closing arguments. I will now allow you, at this point, to ask any clarity-seeking questions. Hon Xaba?

Mr Xaba: Thank you, Chair and thank you to Hon Zwane. I think I have heard him clearly in his presentation. Just one question, on his phone or any communiqué, has there ever been any response of affirmation out of his request for leave or absenteeism, either in Parliament or even on the second request appearance? Thank you, Chair.

Acting Chairperson: Hon Zwane?

Mr Zwane: Thanks, Chair. If I am hearing the Hon Member, Hon Xaba, is that have I ever received any communiqué from Parliament since the 6th or 7th September. If that is the question I should say yes, I have received an indication that my matter has been sent to this Committee. That is the only indication I have received, nothing else. Thank you, Chair.

Acting Chairperson: Thanks, Hon Zwane. Hon Tseke?

Ms Tseke: Thank you very much, Chair. Just to get clarity from Hon Zwane. Hon Zwane, you are saying this matter, to you, is political and that it is registered in the High Court in the Eastern Cape. But I just want to get clarity on which matter you are referring to, are you talking about this case, between ourselves as the Powers and Privileges [Committee] and yourself? Just to get a better understanding.

Acting Chairperson: Hon Zwane?

Mr Zwane: Chair, the Advocate leading evidence indicated that he does not see any other reason why I have failed to present myself to Parliament to enter an apology, except for the inference that matter, from my side, is political. I have said I agree with him – with that view – that this matter is political but not from me. To clarify, this Committee and Chair, yesterday, I was given an indication that I should appear in the Western Cape High Court, amongst the matters I am appearing for, is this matter of failing to enter an apology. So my issue is why would this matter go to that level when the matter is still being dealt with by this Committee? That is the issue that I am raising, that maybe the inference drawn by Adv Mapoma is correct that this matter is bigger than what I think. From where I am, I have always regarded this matter as a matter that I need to correct because I was not able to do so on two occasions, until I received the letter yesterday from [the] Western Cape High Court. Until it is inferred in this matter, that in fact, the way this is being seen, at least from where [the] Advocate is standing, the only reason I cannot apologise in Parliament is because the matter is political from my side. It means I have this thing that I do not want to go and apologise in Parliament, and that is not me. That is what I was raising. I hope that I have clarified that matter. Thank you, Chair.

Acting Chairperson: Thanks, Hon Zwane. Is there any other who would want to ask a clarity-seeking question? Hon Dlakude?

Ms Dlakude: Thank you very much, Hon Chairperson. Hon Zwane, on both occasions, that one of 2 May and also that one of 6 September, you said yourself, you had an engagement with the Chief Whip. She called you on Saturday that you must come to Parliament for this and this. And then you said your flight was delayed in Joburg. As Members of Parliament, we all have houses in Cape Town. As a leader yourself, you were supposed to take that responsibility to make sure that you travelled to Cape Town a day before, if you were taking this matter seriously, because the issue of flight being delayed is not a new thing. For all of us, we know that as Members of Parliament. That is why we always encourage Members, whenever we have three line whips, to be in Cape Town a day before, to make proper arrangements to come to Cape Town a day before because we have houses in Cape Town. Why did you not do that? And why did you not communicate the message of your flight being delayed to the Chief Whip on time because it is always announced at the airport that your flight will be delayed? My second question will be, Hon Zwane, you put that picture as evidence, you attached it. But you failed to attach the messages, the communications that you said you had. What was the reason for that? Because if you attach one thing as evidence, why did you not put the other communications that you had as evidence? Thank you, Hon Chair.

Acting Chairperson: Thanks, Hon Dlakude. Hon Zwane?

Mr Zwane: Chair, thank you. Thanks for the question from the Deputy Chief Whip. I understand what she is putting to me. I consulted with my lawyer the previous day and that is why I opted to go in the morning. And when that happened, when the flight was delayed, I communicated with the Chief Whip. The Chief Whip did not see my communication. And at the time when I was needed, she said ‘I do not know this Hon Member. I have talked with him’ and I accepted that. And if the reasons for me not communicating sufficiently on 2 May is an issue, I would not contest that. But I will say to this august Committee, I tried my level best accordingly, as I thought it would suffice. It is not up to me to determine whether that was sufficient or not. All that I am saying is that it is not correct that I willfully stayed behind. The issue that has been raised as the second question, I think I have… If I could get it again, the second question?

Acting Chairperson: Hon Dlakude, are you able to repeat the second question?

Ms Dlakude: Thank you, Hon Chairperson. On the second date, Mr Zwane is saying to this Committee that on the fifth he was in Parliament, and he received that message of the unfortunate situation his sister had in hospital. He was in Parliament, but he failed to communicate to the Chief Whip – to tell the Chief Whip – that ‘I have this situation that I am facing, and I must rush back home to attend to the situation.’ He failed to do that. I do not take it that when we are in the seating, you cannot go to your Chief Whip and consult – that is not true. Members always do that. He did not do that. He did not even consult with the duty whips for that. What was the reason for that? Because the Chief Whip was always in contact with him with regards to his matter with Parliament. He failed to do that. What was the reason for that, for not communicating with the relevant people he was communicating with in Parliament?

Acting Chairperson: Hon Zwane?

Mr Zwane: Chair, I am quite aware that this Committee has to take a decision on me, but let me try to be as honest as I can. We are dealing with a crisis situation on the second here – on the fifth. The Hon Member is saying ‘Despite the crisis happening, why did you not communicate sufficiently?’ I indicated earlier on that after communicating with the Whip, I immediately went outside and booked a flight and left because to me, this issue deserved my urgent attention, which led me then not to go to the Chief Whip and everybody. I accept I was acting in a crisis situation. If my explanation is not enough, I would also accept. That is why immediately when I came back, through my lawyers, I wrote a letter. The issue of the evidence that is in question here – the issue of the evidence according to the Advocate leading the evidence, is that it does not have a date, which, on the 6th, when I was called, on the same date I sent this picture. It is me standing in the hospital with my sister. On the 7th September, in Joburg, I attached the same picture. I would understand that today in January 2024 the issue of the date will arise, but if this matter was dealt with on the 7th, the matter of a date would not arise, if we are to be fair. I am saying on those bases, because this matter has been dealt with at a later stage, and it raises this issue of a date, evidence can be attached if this august House is willing to give me that chance because at that particular time when I sent this matter, a date would not have been an issue. What makes, according to how I hear the Advocate, to say that this evidence cannot stand, is a simple issue of a date. And I am saying it is because the matter has been dealt with long after it has happened, I understand that. That is why I was saying, given a chance, I can provide even the register that I was there. Anyway, how would I generate a picture with my sister sick on the bed with me and then give it to Parliament on the 7th if it has not happened on the 6th. Thank you, Chair.

Ms Dlakude: Hon Chair?

Acting Chairperson: Yes, Hon Dlakude? Is that a follow-up?

Ms Dlakude: Yes.

Acting Chairperson: Go ahead.

Ms Dlakude: I am on a follow-up on the question that was raised by Hon Tseke. Mr Zwane said the matter is in court. I want him to clarify to us which one he is referring to. This very same matter or it is something else that we do not know? If he can clarify that.

Acting Chairperson: Hon Zwane?

Mr Zwane: Chair, I have said that this matter that we are dealing with now is me failing to present my apology… I have already received an indication of appearance in the Western Cape High Court, amongst other issues, to come and thrash out this matter. The very same matter that we are dealing with. I do not know if I am clarifying the matter sufficiently, Chair. Thank you.

Acting Chairperson: Hon Zwane, maybe if you could indicate to Hon Members of the Committee who the complaint is? Maybe that would help.

Mr Zwane: Through you, Chair, there are about three applicants on the matter. The first applicant is #UniteBehind what what… The second is Ahmed Salie, and the third applicant is Vuyiswa – I cannot remember her name. I should indicate that I am not alone as a respondent to matters that have been raised. But specifically to me, one of the issues is this matter.

Acting Chairperson: Alright. Thank you, Hon Zwane. Hon Mlenzana, to be followed by Hon Xaba.

Mr Mlenzana: Thanks, Chairperson. Perhaps, let me start with a disclaimer now that I had already drafted this question, and as a result will not be hindered by the manner of response by Hon Zwane. Hon Zwane, I am gathering, and after gathering, understand, that you are, from time to time, interacting with your legal persona as advisors. I am not asking. But the question is, why this time around did you decide not to be legally represented in this particular hearing? Now, the flip of the coin, Chairperson, would be: if you have decided not, then why? If your legal representation has advised you not to come, then why?

Acting Chairperson: Thanks, Hon Mlenzana. Hon Zwane?

Mr Zwane: Chair, thank you. I think Members understand that I am on a step-aside. As a result, I have been affected financially. And every time I interact with lawyers, I have to pay them. I do not have enough funds. Honestly, I would have wanted my lawyers to come and represent me here if I had funds. They are not coming for free, Chair. So I could not afford. That is the reason.

Acting Chairperson: Thanks, Hon Zwane.

Mr Zwane: Thank you, Chair.

Acting Chairperson: Hon Xaba?

Mr Xaba: Thank you, Chair. Just one more question related to the earlier one I asked. Hon Zwane, is there any response, either by a text or a letter or email, from either the Chief Whip or the portfolio whip for him to be excused or not to be available? Is there any he may bring as evidence? I would assume that it goes across all Members of Parliament; you would request something, the Chief Whip would respond or something. Is there any of such a thing to him? Thank you, Chair.

Acting Chairperson: Hon Zwane?

Mr Zwane: A letter that approves me doing what, Chair, if I may understand? Me coming on the 3rd or me going to Maritzburg on the 6th? Am I hearing the question correctly?

Acting Chairperson: Can you explain that, Hon Xaba?

Mr Xaba: Can I come in, Chair? Chair, I think being a senior Hon Member of Parliament, Hon Zwane, I do not want to say you are given permission but there has to be an acknowledgment. Moreover, even around your sister’s matter to say ‘Get well soon’ or something. Is there any of the nature of a communiqué back then for you to release? Thank you, Chair.

Acting Chairperson: Hon Zwane?

Mr Zwane: The get well soon I got from the whip – my committee whip – who even asked how my sister is doing, Chair. Thank you. I had reported the matter. I think that is all that I have in my interaction, Chair.

Mr Xaba: Sorry, Chair, a follow-up question?

Acting Chairperson: Okay, as you follow up.

Mr Xaba: Hon Zwane, I do not know. Would you interpret that as permission for you to go? Would you say to the Committee that you understood or agreed that you have permission to be released? Or you simply took it like really ‘I am just going’ because it is an emergency matter?

Acting Chairperson: Hon Zwane?

Mr Zwane: The reason why I apologised, Chair, when I came back on the 7th, through the letter I have written, is that I responded to a crisis, I did not seek permission. And so there is no permission which was granted to me. That is why I even tried to explain my situation. I did not ask for any permission. I raised the matter that I have a crisis with the whip that was next to me, and then left to attend to the crisis. On the first matter, Chair. I was already at the airport. Getting delayed, I tried to indicate that I am delayed. I could not ask for permission because that was not planned. Thank you, Chair.

Acting Chairperson: Thanks, Hon Zwane. Hon Stock?

Mr Stock: No, thank you very much, Hon Acting Chairperson. I think the other question that I wanted to canvas as well, has already been asked by the Deputy Chief Whip on the incident, where Hon Zwane actually is responding on the charge that he actually missed the flight. So I just want to find out from Hon Zwane, on the second incident, where you actually attended the sitting, and then based on your explanation, you are actually reporting to us in the Committee that there was an emergency of your sister, which you actually had to attend to. So I also want to put the disclaimer upfront to say, this is an emotive issue of your sister, of course, one understands. I am not trying to, by any chance, maybe denounce the situation which you were actually allegedly facing at the time. But I just want to find out from you, Hon Zwane, that between the time where you attended the sitting and you were informed that there is an emergency happening, and then your sister was facing this challenge, did you not deem it fit, without reporting to – because I think your information that you reported to us was that you reported to the Whip – between that time, because the Chief Whip made a call to you over the weekend, to interact with you to find out your state of readiness, and then also to inform you that you were supposed to be in Parliament physically to come and render this apology. Now, that day when you are sitting, you were supposed to tender an apology the next day. So between that time when there is an emergency reported to you, you have decided to report to and inform your whip of the portfolio committee. So I want to find out first and foremost, because I want to assume that the Chief Whip was in the sitting which we attended. If the Chief Whip was not in that sitting, the Deputy Chief Whip would have been present at that sitting. Also, as a seasoned cadre of the movement, I mean these issues of discipline, understanding of protocol of the movement, and all of that, I think, Comrade Zwane, we do not have to be lecturing you. You understand all of those processes. Now, in the Chief Whip and a Deputy Chief Whip, there are also House whips and all of that, who are actually in charge of the processes during the day. I also want to find out, did you interact with those Hon Members who were in that sitting at that time, before you decided ‘No, I am leaving’? And then also secondly, I want to find out from you, when you left the House – that is the second part of my question – between Cape Town and Harrismith, and I want to assume that you were flying, was there no… There is this thing that is called a reconciliation of the thought. You know when you have been in a situation and then you left and later on you decide ‘Ah, there is this thing that happened. Can I not phone this person? Can I not send a WhatsApp? Can I not send a message?’ Was there no communication at all between yourself and the leadership of the caucus in Parliament, or the office of the Chief Whip and all that between the time you left and you got to your sister? Where you took the picture. I just wanted to understand from that point. Thank you so much.

Acting Chairperson: Thanks, Hon Stock. As Hon Zwane responds, Members, we have just gone over our fifteen minutes. That was the last question. Hon Zwane?

Mr Zwane: Chair, thank you. When you remove emotions on this matter that we are dealing with, the matter stops to be a crisis. I am going to Hon Stock the way it happened. I honestly, at no stage recalled or came to the senses that I need to follow this and this and this, up until I got a call from one of the chairpersons. When he called me he said ‘Hey, you are wanted here. Where are you?’ So I tried to explain and that is when I took a photo and sent it as proof. All along, Chair, it never came to my mind, really, to do that. On the 7th, when I was… Beyond that issue, I told the members of the family – my mother, who was there – that ‘Now, I have a problem. But I will see how best I can deal with the problem.’ And maybe I should just say, in rounding up, Chair, I do not have a problem with how the Committee is going to view this matter. I thought I should come before this Committee, present my information as it is obtained, and say what I think happened. And I want to thank you, Chair, for that opportunity. And also acknowledge all the questions that we posed. Thank you, Chair.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Zwane. Hon Members, we have just deliberated on the evidence that was presented on both sides. At this point in time, as we appreciate the Initiator and Hon Zwane for their evidence, we just… as the Initiator and another were waiting for the evidence. We just…

Adv Ngaleka: Chair, you are muted. Hello, Chair? We are connected.

Ms Tseke: Advocate, they said we must come back at ten past three.

Acting Chairperson: Yes, we have given Members a leg stretch. The technicians were just taking too long and it was just quiet on the platform. We will reconvene at ten past.

Adv Ngaleka: Chair, we are connected now.

Acting Chairperson: Yes, but I have given Members a break. Yes, they will be back at ten past.

Adv Ngaleka: Ten past? Okay, sure.

The Committee adjourned for a ten minute break.

Acting Chairperson: Are we back, Hon Members? Is everybody back on the platform?

Ms Dlakude: Yes, we are on the platform.

Adv Ngaleka: Just a moment, Chair. Chair, everybody is at the venue. Thank you.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Members. Like I was saying, the Initiator and Hon Zwane have presented their evidence. We have just heard closing arguments from both sides. It is now time for us to deliberate on the evidence presented and to make findings on whether Hon Zwane is guilty as charged. If the Member is found not guilty, it is the end of the matter and we will table the report to the House to that effect. If, however, he is found guilty, we will then proceed to the next step. Just to recap in a very summarised form, Hon Members, Hon Zwane is charged for conduct constituting contempt of Parliament in terms of Section[s] thirteen C and D of the Powers , Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act 04 of 2004, read with rule ten of the rules of the National Assembly, in that he, as a Member of Parliament, number one, willfully and intentionally failed and refused to obey the resolution of the House at its sitting of the 2 May 2023 to enter an apology as ordered. Two, willfully and intentionally failed or refused to obey the resolution of the House at the order of the Speaker of the National Assembly to present himself to the National Assembly at its sitting on 6 September 2023 and enter an apology as ordered. Hon Members, the floor is then open for your inputs on the findings, as I indicated. I am recognising Hon Dlakude.

Ms Dlakude: Thank you very much, Hon Chairperson, for this opportunity. Hon Chairperson, I listened to both the closing arguments of the Initiator and that of Hon Zwane. Let me start by dismissing the fact that or the notion that this is a political matter: it is not a political matter. This is a parliamentary process by a parliamentary committee. The process that we deal with whenever a matter is referred to this Powers and Privileges Committee. It cannot be today that we come here and say this is a political matter, it is not, Hon Chairperson. Secondly, Mr Zwane, Hon Chair, we regard him as a senior leader and a senior Member of Parliament, reasons being that he served for years in the legislature, he served as a Chief Whip in the provincial legislature – he said so himself. He confirmed that when the Initiator was asking him about that. He served as an MEC in the provincial legislature. He served in Parliament as a Minister and also as a chairperson, though now he has stepped aside. So we regard him as a senior leader. He is not like any other Member who has just arrived in Parliament doing their first time. So Hon Chair, I would say that Hon Zwane acted irresponsibly as a leader. The Chief Whip of the majority party called him on Saturday before the 2nd, to inform him of what is expected of him. He failed to make the necessary arrangements to be in Parliament on time. Yes, he responded when I sought clarity on that one, to say that he had some consultation with his lawyers of which is what he told us now. But in the morning of the 2nd when he was supposed to… If I may go back to what I was saying. He did not mention to the Chief Whip that he might experience some challenges, because on the first he must consult his lawyer. Then he will be travelling on the 2nd. And when his flight was delayed, he failed to communicate; he did not communicate. I am saying so because we do not have anything, as this Committee, before us. He failed to communicate. So we went to the House. And the Speaker being the Speaker of the National Assembly had every right to ask the Chief Whip of Mr Zwane’s whereabouts. She always consults with Chief Whips of political parties in Parliament, whenever there are matters with regard to their members. The point of entry from the Speaker will be the office of the Chief Whip. So the Speaker did that. And the Chief Whip had to stand there in the National Assembly and say that in the House that she had no idea of where Hon Zwane was. I want to say that, Hon Acting Chairperson, Mr Zwane was supposed to, seeing that the Chief Whip had not read the message that he said he sent to the Chief Whip earlier, he was supposed to consult another whip in that regard, especially a duty whip. Duty whips are published, always, to say these Hon Members will be duty whips – I mean, on our side. I am also there as the Deputy Chief Whip, and other whips, for that matter, to say, ‘Pass this message to the Chief Whip.’ That did not happen. So it was only after the following day that, oh, he said that his flight was delay. On the second matter, the failure to appear before the National Assembly on the 6th. Mr Zwane was in Parliament on the fifth. He got that message that was telling him about the situation his sister was facing in hospital. I understand the shock he might have had at that particular time, but, he went out to make a call, to make his travelling arrangements. Before he went out he said he spoke to his committee whip who was in the house. The situation that you found himself in on that particular day, as he said, he was supposed to have gone straight to the Chief Whip, or myself as the Deputy, or the duty whips, to say I have this situation, knowing the importance of what was expected of him the following day in Parliament. And now he is in a situation where he would not be in Parliament. He must be in Pietermaritzburg. He was supposed to have told one of the whips, the senior whips in the House. He was supposed to do that. Mr Zwane did not do that. And coming back after going to Pietermaritzburg to attend to the family situation that he was facing at that particular time. Instead of him coming back to the Chief Whip, to the Speaker, to explain his situation, he went straight to the lawyers. What was the reason for him to go to the lawyer instead of coming back to Parliament and explain his situation? But you went to the lawyers? I really do not believe that if I found myself in that situation the first point of entry would be a lawyer's office. I would not do that. We are led by human beings, who have families. Human beings who listen to one’s issues. We are Members of Parliament, we encounter many challenges in our families, and we approach our leaders in Parliament to say that ‘I have this situation.’ Members are given permission to go and attend to whatever challenges they have. I would want to believe, Hon Acting Chairperson, that had Mr Zwane done that on his return – go to the Speaker's office, go to the Chief Whip’s office and put his case – we would not be here today. We are here today [because] Mr Zwane went straight to the lawyers. What was the reason for him to go to the lawyers? The matter is between Parliament and Mr Zwane. It is nowhere else, it is here. So Hon Chairperson, I think this is what I put forward to this Committee with regards to the closing arguments that Mr Zwane and the Initiator put forward. Thank you very much, Hon Chair.

Acting Chairperson: Thanks, Hon Dlakude. Hon Members please remember that you have to help us arrive to the findings. We have deliberated. We heard the evidence. Now we want to go to the findings with this deliberation, and determine, through your deliberations, whether Hon Zwane is guilty as charged, or he is not guilty. Hon Members…

Ms Dlakude: I am sorry, Chairperson.

Acting Chairperson: Yes, Deputy Chief Whip?

Ms Dlakude: I am sorry, Chairperson. I did not finish what I wanted to say. From the presentation, Hon Chair, Mr Zwane acted irresponsibly and he is guilty as charged. Thank you.

Acting Chairperson: Thanks, Hon Dlakude. Hon Mlenzana?

Mr Mlenzana: Thanks, Chairperson. Once more, greetings to all in the platform, even those who joined us after lunch – greetings to them. Perhaps, Chair, to assist the process let me start where you want us to start and then add on by justifying my observation. My observation, Chair, is that, as the Deputy Chief Whip is indicating when concluding, that Hon Zwane is actually guilty as charge. That is my observation. Reason being, amongst others because I will not list all, is it is only the presiding officers and the Chief Whip who have been towards Hon Zwane going to Parliament to implement a decision of a particular committee which finds him guilty. As a result, he had a verdict that he should go and apologise in Parliament. At no stage do you get him advancing, it is only a one-way traffic. Hence, then I would echo the element of irresponsibility on his side. Listening to today’s interactions, Chairperson, you would notice that it is just that Hon Zwane is humble as he is, otherwise his words are saying to us ‘Here I am. Do what you like. I will take it.’ He said it from the onset that he is not here to argue whether he is guilty or not, meaning he understands that he is guilty. That is the second part. The last [part] because as I said, I do not want to bore this session with what has already been raised, would be that I believe though Hon Zwane says that he has got financial challenges, and as a result, would not have sufficient funds for his legal representation in this hearing. But linking to what I have just said, I believe that he is deliberate that he is here on his own because he was not prepared to present any arguments where he would be against the charge. Hence, then, he had no need of bringing in legal representation, which means coming here he knew that in actual fact, he is guilty as charged. Of course, it is linked to what the Deputy Chief said before that here you are dealing with somebody who when you are talking about parliamentary processes he is well-versed. Thanks, Chair.

Acting Chairperson: Thanks, Hon Mlenzana. Hon Dr Lotriet?

Dr A Lotriet (DA): Thank you, Chairperson. I have listened to the different arguments to answers to questions. And when I look at what we have to decide, in the sense that was there any intention not to appear in Parliament and to apologise. I think at this point, if I listened to what we have heard, Chairperson, there was ample opportunity for Mr Zwane to inform the Chief Whip of his whereabouts, of any crisis that had arisen. I did not get any, or I was not convinced that the situation was such that he at no point totally forgot, or it just did not cross his mind to inform the Chief Whip that he has a crisis be it a plane that was delayed, or that he had a crisis in the family. I am not convinced that it did not take all measures to make sure that the Chief Whip would be able to justify his absence in Parliament. And then I also think, Chairperson, just hypothetically, if it was a situation where the Hon Zwane had to, for example, do a speech, do a statement or motion or a question, surely he would at that point if there was a crisis indicated, ‘Look, I cannot do it, can someone else please do it in my stead?’ So I am really not convinced that all proportions were taken to make sure that his absence is justified. And as was previously said, that is why first go to the lawyers before reaching out to the Speaker and the Chief Whip to explain the situation that he experienced at that point. And so, my only conclusion that I can come to is that he is guilty as charged. Thank you.

Acting Chairperson: Thanks, Dr Lotriet. The next will be Hon Xaba, followed by Hon Majozi as the last speaker on this matter. In that order.

Mr Xaba: Thank you, Chair. Chair, I think that Members alluded to how they interpret and my interpretation will be as follows, Chair: That I am really concerned around the matter that Hon Zwane really there is no evidence indicating to have requested permission or to be allowed to leave or be given leave, which is indeed worrisome and problematic for any Member to act responsibly and within leadership attributes. Two, Chair, is that self-deciding to leave obviously would have some repercussions or you must have had a way to make follow-ups at some point like as the previous Hon Member alluded to, that you may have had ample opportunity to close up the gaps, if there is any other gap. Chair, the other thing which I find worrying relates to the question I did ask earlier to say, ‘Hon Zwane, have you ever been a Chief Whip?’ It is very important for Hon Members, as honourable as we are, to respect authority, in particular the mandate bestowed on responsibility of a leader which at some point, he had been a leader and understands tasks and responsibilities that emanate with an individual, if you are either a Chief Whip or a minister, as a senior leader. There is a lack of leadership responsibility, which those coming after him as younger, or as other Members of Parliament could learn from him, which indeed, would require him to work on. So these are matters which I would like to raise to the Committee and give me a problem, why he may have done it in that manner. Chair, I would like to add my word as well to say the Committee, indeed, would find him guilty. I also add my voice to find him guilty. Thank you, Chair.

Acting Chairperson: Thanks, Hon Xaba. Hon Majozi?

Ms Z Majozi (IFP): Thank you, Hon Chairperson. Good afternoon to all Hon Members, Hon Zwane as well. No, Chair, I think we have listened to the evidence leaders and also what Mr Zwane had to say. And firstly, I would say that yes, Mr Zwane is guilty of not being in Parliament, and not adhering to what he was supposed to do on that day. That one is done with, he is guilty. But I want us as Members of Parliament as well, maybe to take into consideration whatever sanction – I may have not heard the sanction as I stepped out for a bit. He is showing remorse for what transpired in the scenarios that were put. I do not know. I am pleading with Hon Members that whatever sanction we are going to give, maybe let it be a sanction that would be reasonable. But I do not disagree with the fact that he is guilty and he was supposed to be in Parliament. It is just that his explanations, yes, they leave a lot to be desired. But I would want to believe that sometimes you are involved in a certain situation and your mind does not function the way it usually does. But with that being said, I agree with all Hon Members that he is guilty of not being in Parliament and not adhering to the Speaker's request. And now he will have to face that, but in terms of that I wanted them to have a lenient sanction. Thanks, Chair.

Acting Chairperson: Thanks, Hon Majozi. Hon Members, the findings of the Committee are that Hon Zwane is guilty as charged. We will now proceed to hear arguments in aggravation from the Initiator. And as we do that Initiator I request that you put to the Committee the argument in aggravations and proposals regarding appropriate sanctions. I did not want to interject Hon Majozi. This is the item that relates to what you just alluded to. Adv Mapoma?

Adv Mapoma: Thank you, Hon Chairperson and the Members of the Committee. Chairperson, I will first deal with the aggravating factors that I will argue should be taken into account in arriving at the appropriate sanction. Firstly, what we are dealing with is a very serious offence. If one looks at the charge, the charge makes reference to Section 13 that has been breached. That on its own means it is not just contempt of Parliament, because the rules of Parliament have been breached. But it goes further to a statute whose provisions have been breached. That is how serious it is. And it is more serious if it is committed by an individual in the lawmaking body. What it means is that it goes to the heart of our very Constitution, and its fundamental principle of the rule of law. That is how serious it is. It cannot be that an important arm of our Constitution, which is the law given arm of the Constitution, can find itself embroiled in a situation where the very lawmakers must be in breach of the law. So fundamentally, that is such an intolerable state of affairs. And I ask that Parliament, I mean, the Committee takes that issue into account as forming seriously on how it must handle this matter, so that it does not find itself recurring. The second issue that aggravates this further is the fact that it must be found to have been permitted by a senior Member of Parliament as Mr Zwane, in itself means that it cannot be forgivable in the circumstances. We are dealing here with somebody who clearly knows what is expected, who is a seasoned Member of Parliament. There is just no confusion that can be accepted that he did not know what he was doing. So that has to be taken into account also. As if that is not enough, Chairperson and Committee Members, the affected Member had ample opportunity to remedy this situation. It is an issue that started on 2 May 2023. We are now finishing January 2024. For more than six months, actually eight months now that we are in, somebody has been going around, having been directed to obey the law – has gone around for such a long period of time, not having met what has to be done in ensuring that he behaves as a law abiding member of a lawmaking body. It is unbearable that something like that should happen. A wrong precedent that surely cannot be tolerated has taken place, conducted by a senior Member of Parliament. How about the junior Members of Parliament that are joining the House of Assembly, I mean, the National Assembly, if it can be seen that Members as senior as having 22 years experience, or close, were to behave like this. It is grossly intolerable and unforgivable. And lastly, surely, but not least, this matter is so simple. It is a matter that actually should not be taking this long. And in fact, there was no reason why this Committee must find itself having to be here, to spend time, to spend resources, get state attorney resources to be here, get to hire legal representatives to be initiating at the cost of the taxpayer. It surely is a matter that should not be allowed to go on like this and the Committee surely has to draw the line; it is only fair that something that happens, so that it does not reoccur. Now, what will it be that will make that there is no recurrence of this kind of conduct. I dare to suggest, Hon Chairperson and Members, that it can only be when it must hit hard on the pocket for it to put a clear message. There are provisions of Section twelve, subsection five of the Act that provides for something of this nature deserves of a cut or a docking of the salary. Fifty percent of the salary is an appropriate sanction, number one. Not only that; number two, there must be a corrective measure, what has to be done still needs to be done. The Committee should emphasise that it ensures that what has to be done that has not been done all along, has to be done. So, in addition to the docking of 50% of the salary, I submit, Chairperson and the Hon Committee Members, that the apology that had to be entered still remains having to be entered. I submit that the Committee should direct the affected Member to take it upon himself to ensure that he appears in the National Assembly and enter the apology as directed, by no later than the twenty-ninth of March. Failing that, it will be a mockery of the whole process, if this that needs to be done remains not having to be done and it would undermine the whole system. So for it to be effective, the Hon Member has to take it upon himself to approach the Speaker of Parliament and seek an audience to the National Assembly and do the right thing. So in the circumstances, Hon Members of Parliament, I purpose those two things as an appropriate sanction. Thank you Committee Members and Chairperson.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Advocate. Hon Members, we will now proceed to hear arguments in mitigation from Hon Zwane. I request Hon Zwane, now, to put to the Committee arguments in mitigation and proposals regarding appropriate sanctions. Thanks.

Mr Zwane: No, thanks, Chair. It has been clear from the onset that I have been willing to enter the apology. It has been my wish. That wish has not diminished. So I would welcome that opportunity, as it is suggested. The first proposal of me being docked half of my salary; if I had to have a say, I think, Hon Members will understand that part of things that I have to pay, including school fees for the kids and stuff like that, will suffer. And I honestly believe the sanction is a bit harsh, and I would want to request that it be looked into. I would not want to dictate because I am not given that opportunity. And that is all I can say. Thank you, Chair.

Acting Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Zwane. Hon Members, I would request your indulgence that I give you about ten minutes – I know that we are supposed to go off at four – just to consult privately on this so that we come back after ten minutes and deliberate on the appropriate sanctions. We have just heard the aggravating and mitigating arguments. Can we take ten minutes so that we consult and reconvene to handle the issue of the sanction?

The Committee adjourned for a ten minute break.

Acting Chairperson: Are we back? Hon Members, you have heard both the arguments and mitigation and aggravation and proposed penalties. It is time for us to deliberate on the appropriate penalties, considering the aggravating factors as well as the mitigating factors put to the Committee. Can I recognise the Members who want to speak on the penalties considering the aggravating and mitigating factors – the penalty that has to be put for Hon Zwane? I do not see any hands. The platform is open for your deliberations Hon Members. Hon Dlakude?

Ms Dlakude: Thank you very much, Hon Acting Chairperson. Acting Chair, we heard the aggravating arguments and also the mitigation by Hon Zwane. We understand and also we know we heard him. He is of course remorseful, but Hon Chair, we want to support the proposed sanctions by the Initiator and sanctions which must be effected as from the 1st of March. Thank you very much Hon Chair.

Acting Chairperson: Thanks, Hon Dlakude. Hon Xaba, followed by Hon Tskeke and Hon Mlenzana.

Mr Xaba: Thank you, Chair. I rise to also agree with the Chief Whip, and also indicate that, indeed, Hon Zwane is remorseful. An apology must come to the House and also with effect from the 1st of March. I support what the Chief Whip alluded to. I think the committee is also considerate of all the matters that Hon Zwane raised with regards to the kids and January matters. The fifty percent will be from the 1st of March.

Acting Chairperson: Thanks. Hon Mlenzana?

Mr Mlenzana: Yes, thanks, Chairperson. Perhaps, let me start by saying I did not take very light the humility and the show of remorse Hon Zwane actually indicated during the course of the day. As such, I would agree with the proposal of the Initiator and also the timing of the implementation. Yes, I think the 1st of March is fine so that at least he be given some breathing space from now until then. Thanks, Chair.

Acting Chairperson: Thanks, Hon Mlenzana. Hon Majozi?

Ms Majozi: Thank you, Chairperson. I think I will follow what other Hon Members said. I think this is a very reasonable sanction, because as I stated before, he is showing remorse. I think this is properly… because it must also weigh that thing of we cannot undermine what happens in Parliament. If you have to adhere to anything you have to do so. But yeah, I agree with the sanction. I think it is reasonable. Thanks.

Acting Chairperson: Thanks, Hon Majozi. Hon Mlenzana is still up, or is it a legacy hand?

Mr Mlenzana: Sorry, it was a legacy hand.

Acting Chairperson: Thanks, Hon Members. There are no other hands. Having listened to your deliberations, Hon Members, let me also indicate for the record that the penalty for Hon Zwane would be that he enter an apology in the National Assembly from the 1st of March. The Initiator has indicated that it should be no later than 29 March. So from the date that will be decided upon, he has to enter an apology in the National Assembly. Number two, he is also fined the amount of fifty percent of his salary. That will also be affected in the month of March. I would, therefore, Hon Members, request the support team to submit a draft report to the Committee for its approval, which if approved, we will table it in the House for consideration. At this point in time, Hon Members, I would like to thank you as Members of this Committee for the work and time that you had put into this matter; the Initiator, for the work that you did today; Hon Zwane, for representing yourself and really showing up for this Committee; as well as the support staff. Hon Members, this brings us to the end of today’s business. I would, therefore, adjourn this meeting at this point. The hearing stands adjourned.

The meeting was adjourned.