National Assembly 9 and 10 June 2022 incidents: hearing

Meeting report

Chairperson: Good morning once more, Hon Members.

Committee Secretary: Hello, Chair?

Chairperson: Hon Members, I was just trying to get a good spot. Yes, I am here. Let me welcome you once more. We agreed earlier that we will resume at 11:30. I just want to check with the staff if all Members are present and if we form a quorum.

Committee Secretary: Hello, Chair?

Chairperson: Yes?

Committee Secretary: We do have a quorum, Chair. I am requesting that we give Adv Ka-Siboto a moment before he comes in.

Chairperson: No, problem. We will allow that. You will give us an indication.

Committee Secretary: Will do so, Chair. Hello, Chair? We are ready to go.

Chairperson: Alright. Good morning once more, Hon Members, the legal teams, our affected Members and staff of this Committee. We welcome everybody who is following this Committee on various platforms. Hon Members, we are going to resume with the hearings that we started with on 15 January 2024. Let me also appreciate earlier on when we briefly met that when we allowed Hon Members to attend their caucus of their respective parties, as a show of respect to those who have sent us here. I hope that some of the Members who are still concluding in that regard will join us. May we then resume, Hon Members? Can I check for any apologies from the staff?

Committee Secretary: We do not have apologies, Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you. In the absence of any apologies, Hon Members, today we intend to cover the following areas, that is: closing arguments by the Initiator and the legal team of the affected Members, deliberations on the evidence presented on the findings. We will also check if there is no finding of guilt, then that will be the end of the matter. If, however, there is a finding of guilt, then we will proceed to hearing arguments in mitigation and aggravation and proposed penalties, and at the end, decisions on appropriate penalties. I would now request Hon Members as I call on the initiator to make her closing arguments, indicate that she has 45 minutes and we will not take a tea break – we usually take tea breaks at this point in time. So those who want to do that just silently so that we cover our last time this morning. Initiator, you have 45 minutes and let me request the staff to assist us in tracking the time. Adv Magona?

Adv Penelope Magona-Dano (Initiator of the Proceedings): Thank you, Chairperson. Might I correct the Chairperson, it is Adv Magona-Dano. Just for the record.

Chairperson: My apologies, Adv Magona-Dano.

Adv Magona-Dano: That is correct, Chair. Thank you so much. The Members are charged in terms of the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act of 2004, in that, in particular, they contravened Section 13(c) and 13(d) (1) therefore. You will recall, Hon Committee Members that Section 13 really deals with when a Member is guilty of contempt of Parliament. I will read just for the record and to refresh our memory of what it stipulates. In (a) it states that: “When a Member contravenes Section 7, 8, 10, 19, 21(1), or 26 of the Act, commits an act mentioned in Section 17(1)(a), (b) or (c) or 2(a), (b), (c), (d) or (e) willfully fails or refuses to obey a rule of an order or resolution of the House, or the Houses or commits an act which is in terms of the standing rules that constitute contempt of Parliament, or a breach or abuse of parliamentary privilege.” My emphasis will be on the latter two I have read, that is subparagraph C and D because this is the common thread in all the contemptuous misconduct that is alleged against the Members. Hon Committee Members the details of each conduct relates to each Member is as detailed in the charge sheet, with some having committed such offences over 9 and 10 to 2022 and others on just 1 of these dates. And to refresh your memory with regard to the date, it is Hon Matumba, one of the affected Members – I am listing now the affected Members – is charged for both 9 and 10 June 2022, Hon Mafanya for 9 June 2022, Hon Ntlangwini 9 and 10 June 2022, Hon Mathulelwa 9 and 10 June 2022, Hon Marais 10 June 2022, Hon Chirwa 10 June 2022, Hon Tambo 10 June 2022, Hon Montwedi 10 June 2022, Hon Yako for 10 June 2022. We also had Hon Mkhonto but the Initiator’s case is no longer proceeding with the charges against, so we are left with the 9 affected Members. Before getting into the details of their plea, Hon Committee Members will recall that the Members pleaded not guilty to the charges against them and then there was no plea explanation given by them. The Initiator then called its first Witness, who was Mr Xaso, who summarised for the Committee testifying about his role and what he knew about the incidents that took place on 9 and 10 June 2022. Hon Committee Members will also recall that there was video evidence that was utilised by the Initiator as part of its evidence before the Committee. Further, we filed affidavit evidence, I will call it that, to support the technical part of the evidence as well as one member of the Parliamentary Protection Services (PPS), a female member, who was involved or took part in the removal of some of the female Members between 9 and 10 June. So that is the evidence that was presented by the Initiator before the Committee. I will quickly summarise Mr Xaso’s testimony, just to refresh our memory, where he testified that he is employed as a Secretary of the National Assembly; gave us his duties, that he is a Secretary to Parliament and to assist others in Parliament, and that his responsibilities overall as the management of the parliamentary services specifically takes charge of management of the National Assembly. And he continued to state that he was present during the sitting of the National Assembly on the Budget Vote 1 on the 9th and the reply thereto on the 10th of June 2022; and that the order of those proceedings was decided on by the programming committee, and that is standard procedure. He also took us through the procedure that followed after the incidents – there is a specific procedure that must be followed where the Speaker must file her report, the report for both dates. There is a subcommittee that must sit and deliberate on the matter, then it can be decided; it went to the Rules Committee, and then ultimately to the powers and Privileges Committee to look into the report and whether any action should be taken or not. We are here today to now decide on what was then found to be misconduct, contemptuous conduct by the affected Members. He continued now in his testimony to stage what took place on the day. He confirmed the evidence that was presented before the Committee via video evidence. He started with regards to the 9th, and in summary [he said] that Members made unsupported allegations against the President. And in terms of Rule 92 where points of order were raised, the Speaker made ruling or orders to preserve order within the House. But there certainly was a flagrant disregard of the rules by the affected Members and so…

Chairperson: Can we please mute? Those that are on the platform, please mute? Sorry, Adv Magona-Dano. Please continue.

Adv Magona-Dano: Thank you, Chair. I will repeat this paragraph. He stated that unsupported allegations were made against the President and in terms of Rule 92, where points of orders were raised, the Speaker made a ruling or orders to preserve order within the House. And in his view, there was certainly a flagrant disregard of the rules by the affected Members. In doing so, they were breaching the rules of Parliament. That the decisions made by the Speaker were discretionary; it was not his duty to tell her what to decide on or what he ought to have decided on. But he was there to simply advise her on any rules that were contravened. Before I move, Hon Committee Members, to summarise, in essence, what the charges that he took us through, were committed by the various Members. I wish to state that he also indicated that the Sergeant-at-Arms powers are as contained in Rule 61. He clarified that he does not get out of his own to remove any Member within the House, but must be instructed by the Speaker in this instance – I will get back to this point because it is relevant to the evidence that was placed before the Hon Committee Members. I turn now to, perhaps, remind the Hon Members what were the various charges that he confirmed and testified on as he watched the video footage that was presented before the Committee. The Committee will recall, my learned colleague, Adv Tanya Golden SC, went through the evidence thoroughly, and we spent a lot of time refreshing our memory on what took place on these dates. I will start with Hon Ntlangwini. The Hon Members will recall that the charge related to the contravening of Section 7(a) of the Act, which again is the Powers and Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act 4 of 2004. The contravention was that of Section 7(a) which relates to the conduct where in contravention in the main for contentious conduct in terms of Section 13(c) and (d)(1). Should I read not those two, they do apply to all of them, but in particular, I go to the details of what each Member had done that has led to their charges. So again, on the 9th of June Hon Ntlangwini contravened Section 7(a) of the Act, when during the proceedings Hon Ntlangwini willfully refused or failed to obey Rule 69(d) when the Member called the President a money launderer and accused him of criminal conduct and this disrupted the Proceedings of the National Assembly and improperly interfered with the performance by the House of its authority and functions. That was charge 1. Charge 2, again, related to the contravention of Section 7(a) by willfully refusing or failing to obey Rule 69(c) of the rules, when Hon Ntlangwini repeatedly undermined the authority of the presiding officer by repeatedly refusing to obey the rulings made by her and disrespected and interrupted the presiding officer when she requested her to withdraw the improper statements made about the President and that the conduct improperly interfered with the exercise of performance by the House of its authority. The 3rd charge, which is still on the 9th, was the contravention of Rule 7(a) and failed to obey Rule 73(1), when she refused to leave the Chamber when ordered to do so by the presiding officer, creating disorder and disruption in the House. Charge 4, again, related to contravention of Section 7(a), by willfully refusing or failing to obey Rule 69(f) of the rules when she acted in a manner that is detrimental to the dignity, decorum and orderly procedure of the House. Again, the conduct improperly interfered with the exercise of performance by the House of its authority and functions. Charge 5, again in contravention of Section 7(a), when she willfully refused or failed to obey Rule 70 and Rule 73(1) and (2), when she failed to respect the authority of the presiding officer. When she ordered that she must leave the Chamber she refused to do so; the Sergeant-at-Arms had to be asked to remove her, and her conduct improperly interfered with the exercise of performance by the House of its authorities and functions. Again, you will recall as in my address, I have stipulated that Hon Ntlangwini had committed misconduct on both dates. To save time, on the 10th, her conduct was that she contravened Section 7(a), she willfully refused, again, or failed to obey Rule 69(a) when she deliberately created serious disorder and disruption in the house, and that her conduct disrupted the proceedings of the National Assembly and improperly interfered with the performance by the House. Charge 2, she willfully refused or failed to obey Rule 69(c) when she repeatedly undermined the authority of the presiding officer and repeatedly refused to obey the rulings of the presiding officer. Charge 3, that she willfully refused or failed to obey [Rule] 69 (f) when she acted in a manner that was seriously detrimental to the dignity, decorum and orderly procedure of the House; four, she willfully refused or failed to obey Rule 71 and 2 when she disrespected the authority of the presiding officer. When she asked her to leave the House again, she refused to do so. And that her conduct improperly interfered with the exercise of performance of the House and its authority. And lastly, on charge 5, on the 10th, the Hon Member during the sitting with the National Assembly willfully refused or failed to obey Rule 73(1) and (2) when she refused to leave the House when the Sergeant-at-Arms requested her to leave, that her conduct improperly interfered with the exercise of performance by the House of its authority and functions. Hon Committee Members, I will quickly move to Hon Matumba. You will recall the charges against the Member related to 9 and 10 June. And those on the 9th are stipulated as follows: he willfully refused and failed to obey Rule 69(a) of the rules of the National Assembly; that his conduct interfered with the work of the National Assembly and prevented the performance by the House of the authority and its functions. Perhaps, I should just add so that I do not repeat myself. You will recall, Hon Members, that this is where Hon Matumba was calling the President a money launderer with R60 million on his farm – that would be at page 264 to 265. Members were asked to desist when at the same time Hon Ntlangwini involved herself, also calling the President a money launderer and criminal. Both of them were acting simultaneously at the time speaking and shouting back at the Speaker. This is between page 261 up to 272 when the actual removal took place, Members should take note. Hon Matumba then proceeded on charge 2, on the relevant pages I have just cited, disregarded the authority of the presiding officer and repeatedly refused to obey her rulings. You will recall, Hon Committee Members, there was a ruling already that there is a specific agenda that was set for that sitting, and it did not involve any criminality or criminal elements or any charges that any Member which was within the House had faced or that each Member wanted to bring against them. There was a set agenda which was supposed to be dealt with and that was the Budget Vote, as well as the reply thereto. So on the 9th he discarded the authority of the presiding officer when he repeatedly refused to obey the rulings. One of the rulings was for him to desist and then he was asked to leave. Charge 3, contravened Section 7(a) and further contravened 69 (f). He behaved in a manner which is detrimental to the dignity, decorum and orderly procedure. If you will recall, Hon Members, this was not an easy removal, there was a lot of commotion and also speaking back at the Speaker while she was also trying to be in control of the circumstances at the time. On the 10th of June the Hon Member, Mr Matumba also continued to willfully refuse or failed to obey Rule 92(6), (8) and (9) when refusing to accept the ruling of the presiding officer that no points of order may be raised. He deliberately continued to disrupt the proceedings of the House by raising points of order that do not comply with the Rules and disrupted the proceedings. Further, charge 2 of the 10th, he willfully refused or failed to obey Rule 69 of the Rules when he deliberately created serious disorder and disruption of the proceedings of the House when he refused to accept the ruling of the presiding officer that no points of order may be raised. He deliberately continued to disrupt the proceedings of the House by raising points of order that do not comply with… that his conduct disrupted the proceedings. Further, charge 2 of the 10, he willfully refused or failed to obey Rule 69(a) of the Rules when he deliberately created serious disorder and disruption of the House when he refused to obey and respect the authority of the presiding officer. These are similar incidents, Hon Committee Members, where the ruling is made by the Speaker but which was disobeyed. His conduct improperly interfered with the exercise of performance by the House of its authority and functions. Charge 3, he willfully refused or failed to obey Rule 69(b) when he physically intervened and prevented obstructed or hindered the removal from the House after the presiding officer ruled that he must leave the House. He physically pushed the Sergeant-at-Arms away when he approached him to leave the House. You would remember that all of this was played out on the video evidence, Hon Members. Charge 4, he willfully refused or failed to obey [Rule] 69(c) when he repeatedly undermined the authority of the presiding officer and repeatedly refused to obey the rulings of the presiding officer. Charge 5, he also willfully refused or failed to obey Rule 69(f) when he behaved in a manner that was seriously detrimental to the dignity, decorum and orderly procedure of the House. This conduct cumulatively caused a lot of commotion, as I have indicated, and disturbed or interfered with the agenda of the day and the House could not proceed with what was said for the day. That is charge 5. Hon Members, as I am going speedily, you will recall that Hon Mafanya’s charge relates to the 9th of June. It stipulates that Hon Mafanya refused to obey Rule 92(8) and (9) of the Rules of the National Assembly when he continuously proceeded to raise a point of order when the presiding officers ruled that no Member may raise a point of order, again, until the President had delivered his budget speech. You will remember, Hon Members, that this takes place between page 259 of the unrevised Hansard up to 291, where the Hon Member is asked to leave. The disrespect that is shown, accusations to the President of criminality and that there is a case opened against the President, speaking over the Speaker at the same time disrespectful to the order of the day, and did not want to listen to the ruling that was made by the Speaker that he must leave and he had to be removed. Sorry, just to repeat that there was actually a ruling made that there were some Members who were removed from the virtual platform, and the Hon Member then challenged that removal in the House which is something that is not supposed to be done or it is not supposed to be done in such a fashion. This is 9 June. Further on 2 on the same day, the Hon Member willfully refused or failed to obey Rule 69(a) of the Rules when he repeatedly created serious disruption in the House when he refused to obey the authority of the presiding officer when she ruled on the points of order. I have just summarised what the Hon Member had done. Charge 3, the Hon Member willfully refused or failed to obey Rule 69(c) when the Member repeatedly undermined the authority of the presiding officer; this summarises exactly what I have just read and his actions at the time. Lastly, on charge 4, this is still on the 9th of June, the Hon Member willfully refused or failed to obey Rule 69(f) when the Member behaved in a manner which was seriously detrimental to the dignity, decorum and orderly procedure of the House. And the conduct improperly interfered with the exercise of performance by the House. That is with regards to Hon Mafanya. Hon Members, the other Member is Hon Mathulelwa, who was charged on the 9th and 10th of June. The other Members were only charged for the incidents of 10 June. The Hon Member willfully refused or failed to obey Rule 92(8) and (9) of the National Assembly Rules and continued to raise a point of order despite the fact that the presiding officer ruled on the matter. Hon Committee Members, you will call this dealt with the muting of Members and the ruling that was made by the Speaker that there will be no more points of order that will be taken. So the Member also interfered with that because the Member continued to raise points of order and speaking over the Speaker. Charge 2, on the 9th, the Member willfully refused or failed to obey Rule 69(d) of the rules of the National Assembly when the Member made serious allegations against the President by calling him a criminal without adequate substantiation or following the correct procedure. Charge 3, the Member willfully refused or failed to obey Rule 69(c) when the Member repeatedly undermined the authority of the presiding officer and the repeatedly refused to obey the ruling of the presiding officer when she instructed the Member to withdraw the statement that the President was a criminal. You would remember that the Member refused this, which can be found on page 328 of the Hansard recording, and was then asked to leave but refused to do so and proceeded to make the disparaging remarks against the President. Charge 4, the Member…

Chairperson: Adv Magona?

Adv Magona-Dano: Yes, Ma’am?

Chairperson: I am sorry to interrupt you. Is it possible to summarise [and] not repeat all of the charges? You have 20 minutes left to do your closing remarks. Is it possible that you summarise the charges so that you are on time for your closing remarks?

Adv Magona-Dano: I will attempt to do that, Chair. Thank you for bringing the issue of time to my attention. In essence, perhaps I should state as follows: all the Members, including Hon Marais, Hon Chirwa, Hon Tambo, Hon Montwedi, Hon Yako… Sorry, Chair. I think someone’s mic is on.

Chairperson: Can the others mute. Okay, it is only me and you now. Continue.

Adv Magona-Dano: Alright, thank you, Chair. All the Members were charged. Mr Xaso confirmed before the Hon Committee Members the exact misconduct, pointed it out on the video evidence, and, at times, would take us through the Hansard record – which I was trying to do – where they had contravened these charges. Mr Xaso’s evidence related to that. Mr Xaso assisted the Hon Committee Members in taking us through the various provisions of the rules that were contravened and where he felt that the orders or rulings made by the Speaker to him were deserving and any discretion taken by the Speaker he did not challenge or question because he did not have the power to do that. I will not the Committee through the various subsections or rather, rules, as they are on the record. Further, Mr Xaso testified that he is someone who is partisan – he is not a member of any party, he is a staff member of Parliament. He has no reason to come and make accusations which are unsubstantiated. In my view, he was fair to state where he did not have enough facts to make any statements. We can recall that he was also asked, during cross-examination, around inconsistencies by the Speaker when points of orders were raised, how rulings made by the Speaker were never in favour of the EFF. I think the picture was drawn that the EFF was being treated unkindly in comparison to the ANC members. These are things that he would come in and step in to say that this is a decision that will be made by the Committee. In some of his answers he would say that ‘I cannot say that these are decisions made by the Speaker, it was her discretion. There was also another issue with regard to Hon Mkhonto, who is no longer an accused, so to speak, before this Committee, where he was fair enough to say that if someone was charged wrongly, although he had not taken that decision, that person should not be before the Committee. I think he had time as well, after we had adjourned from the 15th of January to look at it, as he said. On Tuesday the 12th he said he had a look at it. His evidence guided the Initiator, as far as what to do with Hon Mkhonto, where he stated that it was true that Hon Mkhonto was not in the House on the 10th of June, and a decision would have to be made by this Committee. So in summary, he confirmed the video evidence, Hon Committee Members. He confirmed the charges that were put to the Hon Members that are before the Committee now. And as far as the further evidence that was led, I wish to just state that his evidence should then be accepted by the Committee. Further, the evidence led by the Initiator was that of affidavit evidence. As the Committee would recall, the affidavit of Ms Leslie Ann Bryan, a control language practitioner at the Chamber support offices, who explained the process of gathering the Hansard recordings. You will recall that the authenticity of the Hansard records were not challenged, there might have been a challenge on when the other records were handed in. Its authenticity of what took place in the House of the 9th of June stands as unchallenged in front of the Hon Committee. We had Mr Nigel Van Ster, another control language practitioner, whose main function since 2021 is related to audio processing provision for Hansard transcription; that means that the YouTube videos and audios for the 9th and 10th sittings, he confirmed in his affidavit, were extracted and transcribed in the unrevised Hansard. We also have the affidavit of Ms… [inaudible] a broadcast specialist in the broadcasting, audio, visual and technical support unit, who basically confirmed that the video footage of the National Assembly proceeding of 9 and 10 June during the President’s Budget Speech is the unedited video footage of the proceedings as recorded on the control room server. Again, this footage was never challenged, and so it remains evidence before the Hon Committee Members. We have evidence from Mr Tebello Maleeme, who is the Acting Sergeant-at-Arms, who was always mentioned between the 9th and 10th of June, as he was the person always instructed by the Speaker to escort the removal of Members or call on the PPS when the removal did not take. So his evidence on the affidavit confirms. Now, I wish to emphasise that part of his affidavit is that, if I can read this, on 10 June he was physically pushed by Mr Tambo when asking him to leave and he was obstructed by him when Mr Maleeme was approaching Ms Chirwa, as instructed by the Speaker, to escort her outside of the Chamber. This is part of his affidavit. All of this was depicted on the video footage of 9 and 10 June. Lastly, we had Ms Darlene Alice Carolfield, the chamber support officer in the Parliamentary Protection Services, who also just simply confirmed that she performed her duties when called by the Sergeant-at-Arms to come and remove the female members. She and other chamber support officers would enter the Chamber at the request of the acting Sergeant-at-Arms to remove the EFF members, those who refused to leave; and that the assistance of their male counterparts most importantly at the time was utilised as a buffer when some of the Members resisted or fought their removal. This was the testimony that was really put before the Hon Committee Members as far as the Initiator’s case. The Initiator, thereafter, closed its case. We had Mr Tambo who testified. The rest of the affected Members never testified. In essence, I understood Mr Tambo’s testimony as follows: he does not deny that he was in the House on the 9th and 10th of June. He denies the charges against him. He denies having done anything wrong; in fact, he took us through what he alleges were breaches committed by the Speaker – that the Speaker never asked him to leave the House prior to him being evicted. He had an issue with how the Speaker conducted the proceedings of 9 and 10 June, and how certain procedures were not followed with him, whilst with other Members they were followed in terms of Rule 73. The Hon Members would remember that the Speaker ought to have engaged with him first, as prescribed in Rule 70. He [argued that] Rule 73(1) to (4) was not followed by the Speaker. He denied that he blocked or interfered with the Sergeant-at-Arms. What he put as his defence to that was that, ‘No, I was not. I interacted with the Sergeant-at-Arms. I had an issue with a male removing a female Member, due to a past incident where the female colleagues were touched indecently’, I will use my own words now. For him, there was nothing wrong. He was just speaking with a fellow staff member about this [concern]. In fact, when the Speaker made comments saying ‘What are you doing Mr Tambo?’, he raised his hands, asking what he had done wrong as he was on his phone at the time. Furthermore, according to him the Speaker was biased in her rulings against EFF members in comparison to ANC members. During cross-examination, and this is what I understand from my notes, he conceded that the rule is clear that the Sergeant-at-Arms can only act in terms of Rule 61. Hon Members will recall that during the evidence-in-chief when asked by my colleague he said no, he spoke with the Sergeant-at-Arms because he knew that the Sergeant-at-Arms had the powers to remove Members, so he thought he should speak directly with the Member. So on cross-examination, Rule 61 was put to him that stipulates that there must be an instruction from the Speaker. The Sergeant-at-Arms cannot simply come and do his own thing in the House with the Members. He conceded to that. Further, when shown the video he stated that his interaction with the Sergeant-at-Arms was to protect Ms Chirwa, a female Member who had raised sexual allegations that had to be addressed. He agreed that it was through this interaction, when I put it to him, that the Sergeant-at-Arms could not proceed any further in the execution of his duty but that he did not stop him (the Sergeant-at-Arms) from continuing. Hon Members, to me, that is where the focus should be on. The Sergeant-at-Arms could not proceed. The fact that he could not exercise his duties as per the instruction of the Speaker, due to the conduct of Mr Tambo, is clearly a sign and indication that he interfered or blocked the Sergeant-at-Arms. Further, he confirmed that he shifted chairs with Ms Chirwa, as depicted in the video, by the time the Sergeant-at-Arms came to execute his duties of removing her. You will recall, Hon Members, they were sitting… I think Ms Chirwa was sitting closer to the door and Mr Tambo was in the middle. But by the time the Sergeant-at-Arms was coming through to exercise his duties, they had already shifted, Ms Chirwa was in front of Mr Tambo and he was now closer to the door, meaning that the Sergeant-at-Arms had to pass through him to get to Ms Chirwa. For me, Hon Members, I make the submission that this, again, was an indication that this was a man on a mission wanting to block the Sergeant-at-Arms from executing his duties. During cross-examination, I think we made mention of a Xhosa term that was used. Oh, he took issue with the fact that he was not warned. Again, in his evidence-in-chief, he challenged the manner the Speaker dealt with him; why had there not been a process in terms of 73(1) to (4), when a point of order is raised and if the Speaker wants to remove someone, which she did not follow. And then I took him through the record where the Speaker actually told him to leave the House using the Xhosa term ‘Phumani’ (leave). Again, he said, ‘No, I heard that. But the word is unparliamentary.’ He did not understand it to mean it was an order from the Speaker to leave the House. Hon Members, that cannot be true. It is a simple word, I am not a linguist, for one to just leave. I will leave that for the Hon Members to decide on. So there was no need. In fact, during the cross-examination it was shown that [Rule] 73(5) stipulates that ‘No Member may, in any manner whatsoever, physically intervene in, prevent, obstruct or hinder the removal of a Member from the Chamber in terms of these rules.’ [Rule] 73(6), ‘Any Members who contravene sub-rule (5)’, which I have just read now, ‘may, on the instruction of the presiding officer, also be removed from the Chamber and the precincts of Parliament forthwith.’ You will recall, Hon Committee Members, I put it to him that there was no need for any procedure but to simply say that he should also leave with Ms Chirwa. ‘Forthwith’ meant that it had to be done immediately. There was no other process that had to be done because he had committed one of the gross misconducts that is described in sub-rule (5). Further, just on this point, or rather, on cross-examination, he raised the issue of biasness, how the Speaker dealt with various Members. I put to him that there was an indent that the Speaker had recognised Hon Letsie. Before he could say anything she then recognised Hon Shivambu. I took the Hon Members, at the time, to the particular page number. Hon Letsie also was challenged and did not like the fact that the Speaker had not given him the opportunity to speak, and had instead given Hon Shivambu that opportunity. This was to counter the fact that the Speaker was biased and was always allowing the Members of the ANC to speak or raise points of order. As I draw to a close with regards to his evidence. We spoke about the issue of whether there was a complaint. I sensed during his evidence I sensed that he had an issue with the Speaker’s rulings or orders made, but there was a process that had to be followed, I put it to him, if any Member is unsatisfied with the conduct of the Speaker. ‘Did you follow this?’ Well, from his memory he said that he recalled that there were cases made thereafter, but he did not have the details. I am sure that my colleague will then take us through that when is making his submissions before you. But during cross-examination he was unsure, but there were complaints laid against the…

Chairperson: Please note, Advocate, that you have five minutes to wrap up.

Adv Magona-Dano: Alright. Thank you, Chair. So it is my respectful submission, Chair, in my last five minutes, the eight Hon Members ought to be found guilty. Why? They failed to come and testify and counter the evidence that we have put before the Committee. The eight – I have excluded Hon Tambo – simply said they are not guilty and provided no plea explanation. There is no other evidence before the Hon Committee Members to decide on whether to weigh the scales of justice, so to speak, on who is telling the truth and what really happened. There is only one evidence, and that is the evidence that the Initiator has led. In my respectful submission I request for the Hon Committee Members to find all 8 Members guilty, as well as Hon Tambo. There is evidence I have led during cross-examination to counter every defence that he placed before the Hon Committee Members in terms of his own conduct, the disparaging remarks that he made, his conduct, and his failure to leave when requested to do so. That is disregarding the authority of the Speaker. And I ask that Mr Xaso’s evidence, which supported all of Initiators' evidence be accepted by the Committee Members. He was a good and credible witness who indicated that he remained partisan. It is my respectful submission that the Initiator has proven the case against all of the affected Members as charged. And I submit, Hon Committee Members, that they all should be found guilty, as charged. Hon Mkhonto, perhaps, formally must not be found not guilty, as stated before. I’d like to correct my wording, I meant non-partisan, Hon Members. That is my submission. Thank you, Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you, Adv Magona-Dano. That was the closing arguments from the Initiator. Hon Members, I will now allow Members from this Committee 15 minutes to ask clarity-seeking questions to the Initiator. The staff will assist us with the timing. You have 15 minutes, Hon Members. I look at the hands of those who would want to have clarity-seeking questions.

Committee Secretary: We do not have hands to ask questions, Chair.

Chairperson: Thanks, Hon Members. In that case, then I will now request the legal representative of the affected Members, Adv Ka-Siboto, to make his closing arguments. Advocate, you have 45 minutes to do so.

Adv Mfesane Ka-Siboto (EFF legal counsel): Thank you, Dr Chair. I appreciate the opportunity. Just for purposes of record, it is Ka-Siboto on behalf of the affected Members. And I hope I will not be as frantic in my argument, and you are able to follow me. Hon Dr Chair, Committee Members, good morning. I address you, though technically as a lawyer and a defender of the affected Members, as an individual who bears no sword or shield, gladly to battle with the Initiator and whoever else who bears an interest of whatever nature in seeing my client sanctioned for the alleged and impugned conduct. I rather stand bear and humble in front of you, in an effort to appeal to what I believe is an innate sense of reason and conscience of the constitutional order that you saw yourselves to as Members of this august House. Implicit in this constitutional order, and sense of reason and conscience, and I say, of superior logic, is an implied obligation to act with fairness and independence at all times in fulfilling obligations to this House, and to the people of the Republic of South Africa. This is not least in the fulfilment of your obligation in these proceedings. Crucial in your consideration of how you will decide this matters is the following prescript, which is found in Rule 26(4) of the National Assembly Rules 9th edition, “The Speaker must act fairly and impartially and apply the rules with due regard to ensuring the participation of members of all parties in a manner consistent with democracy.” That is the fulcrum and the litmus test that must bind your consideration in deciding when you do in this matter. Sitting as you do in this Committee, deciding whether the Speaker can withstand the scrutiny of this democratic project and standard in this matter, you must divorce yourselves of any considerations that are not reconcilable with this litmus test. And of course, I take comfort in that this House is well aware of that, this Committee is well aware, but I thought it bears mention nonetheless. I must humbly submit that this Committee will be faced with considerable difficulty justifying why it took a decision to sanction my clients for comments they made that were deemed unparliamentary by the Speaker in relation to the President. And at the same time, no sanction follows for some other party members, who called Mr Floyd Shivambu, a VBS looter and a murderer. They are not in front of this Committee to answer for that. You will have, I respectfully submit, difficulties in litigation, justifying what I will call an unfair and unbalanced response to party members for the same conduct, i.e. uttering unparliamentary words in the House. And I must make this point, the fact that only EFF members are disciplined for unparliamentary language towards the President, and the ANC members are not disciplined for unparliamentary statements is a difficulty you will have to contend with should this matter go to court. By Mr Xaso’s own concession under cross-examination, it is unparliamentary for any Member to call a Member of this House a VBS looter or a murderer. Mr Xaso made that concession in unambiguous terms. And I submit that the concession was properly made. And his justification for why those ANC members who made those statements were not sanctioned by the Speaker is simply that it was not brought to the attention of the Speaker in the House. We then took him to the text in the Hansard that shows not least the president of the EFF bringing that to the attention of the Speaker. He then was prepared that it was raised in the House that Mr Shivambu was called a VBS looter and a murderer, and the Speaker made no ruling on it. He accepts that happened. He then recalibrates his response in defence of the Speaker. He then says that maybe the Speaker did not hear. It struck me as strange that he is prepared to make that assumption on behalf of the Speaker, but at all times has always refused to speculate when the answer would have been inconvenient for him. It simply is improbable that someone who was on the stand allowed to address the Speaker says ‘Speaker, someone is calling Mr Shivambu a VBS looter and a murderer.’ It strikes me as strange that if someone on the podium makes that comment, the Speaker would not hear it. But coincidentally every time someone is on the stand and they make disparaging remarks about the President, suddenly, the Speaker can hear it, and she can make a ruling on it. It strikes me odd that that is probable, that she heard none of the comments in relation to Mr Shivambu. I would submit that you should reject that evidence. With respect, it is especially improbable. But even if you assume the Speaker did not hear, Mr Xaso then says, ‘Well, then what did you do about it?’ The first difficulty is, why is it that when it comes to EFF members, no one does anything, the Speaker just sanctions? All of a sudden, when the problem is with an ANC member, something must be done by someone else before action is taken. That is a double standard, which is unfair on the EFF members. We then said we will provide you with letters that shows that they raise these concerns in the letters we spoke about the last time we met. And the only reason those letters became relevant was because this issue came up when the Initiator was asking questions. It is not an issue we wanted to take up, we simply took it up because the Initiator asked the question. And then we were saying if that is the Initiator’s position we want to show that the EFF actually did something about it. To this day, despite raising those issues, there has been no response from the office of the Speaker or anyone for that matter. All these issues were raised; the double standards and all the issues about the points of order which were given to some Members and not some Members, all of them are raised, there has been no response to date. So even if there was credence to the argument that they did something, well, they did nothing about it. We have shown that they, in fact, did something about it. In any event, even if they had not done something about it, before we sit in this Committee to debate the issues of whether these members must be sanctioned or not, Mr Xaso was at pains in cross-examination to explain the elongated process of how we get to the charges and to us sitting here today. He says various structures, not least the Rules Committee, as well as this Committee sit and decide these issues or consider these issues. And then this Committee decides whether the charges should be brought or not. Mr Xaso then said she has confidence that all those structures viewed the Hansard as they must, because then how else do they apply their minds without having regard to the Hansard? He also confirmed that they watched the videos because how else do they apply their minds without watching the videos of the 9th and the 10th? And if then this Committee and the Rules Committee did that exercise and they would have seen that Mr Shivambu was called a VBS and a criminal, which Mr Xaso’s own evidence says is unparliamentary, what then did you do? You must be able to answer that. So even if it was not raised by an EFF member, and I have dispelled that notion – they raised it. But even if they did it, when you yourself applied your minds and you decided to bring these charges, what did you do when you saw that Members that are not EFF members equally conducted themselves in a manner that was sanctioned against EFF members? What did you do? Did any of you make the decision that they too must be in front of this Committee? Assuming of course, you would have read the Hansard and you watched the video and you would have seen him being called a VBS looter, a criminal, and a murderer, not least by his fellow comrade. What then did you do? One of two things must have happened. One, you did not watch the videos, or you did not read the Hansard, which is a problem in itself. Alternatively, you read the Hansard, you watched the videos and you decided to turn a blind a blind eye to it, which in itself is a problem. You must then be able to answer why it is that the EFF members are here to answer for an alleged unparliamentary statement when there are other Members who are from a different political party who made the same statements and are not in front of you. That is the question you will have to answer if you find these Members guilty. I must make this point. The last time we sat on Tuesday, there were six Members that were not EFF members, but ANC members. For whatever reason, Mr Tambo, who is a charged person here, is added as a seventh member of this Committee. That is on record, in public, from this House, from this Committee. We know that Mr Tambo is not a member of this Committee. We also know that this Committee must have at least seven Members to decide today's matter. They did not have seven the last time we sat. For whatever reason, and I am not imputing any unlawfulness or criminal conduct to anyone, at least not at this stage, Mr Tambo is added as the seventh one. This House knows he is not a Member. How do we know? Because he is not a Member. And secondly, because he was reprimanded for addressing this Committee when he is not a Member but simply charged. Yet the record of this Committee sitting, at least on the last time we met here, he is recorded as the seventh member, which is the number you are required to make decisions in relation to these procedures. That for me is something that would warrant this Committee to satisfy us at why that happened. We now sit here [and] we have got far more Members than we had in the last sitting on Tuesday. Why? What would inform that decision here today? They were not sitting here observing the testimony by the various witnesses, posing questions, getting clarity. Yet, they sit here today to come and assist and make the decision. How can they possibly make the decision if they have never been part of the process? These are issues that will be taken up should this matter go to court. How can they possibly rationally and fairly and earnestly make a proper decision if their own involvement, at least as far as this sitting and these charges are concerned, their only involvement is today and never before? I make the statement again, neither of the EFF members would have been in a position where they are kicked out of the House, they failed to obey the instructions as alleged, they are evicted by PPS, had they been treated the same way as other Members. In other words, the only reason the ANC members who called Mr Shivambu a criminal and a murderer or not before this Committee is because the Speaker did not take issue with it, which was unparliamentary conduct. Had she done the same with EFF members, they would not have been here. So all these other charges that permeate as a result of their conduct, because of the statements they made, would not have arisen if they were treated the same way as the other two ANC members who behaved in a similar manner. That is the only reason they are here is because they were treated differently, which is in violation of Rule 12(4), as I have suggested earlier on. And what I must point out is this: in the last sitting, disciplinary sitting, you exonerated Mente MP, and I submit you did so properly which is why I have got faith that this Committee will do likewise here. The reason you exonerated Mente MP is because she was treated differently to Dr Mkhize, who is an ANC member, for the exact same conduct. That was the reason you exonerated her. And I am saying if you did so then what stops you from doing it now? You cannot be consistent in saying Mente MP must be exonerated because she was punished for something that was done by Dr Mkhize but Dr Mkhize was not punished, therefore she must be set free. I am saying the exact same thing has happened here, where EFF members made unparliamentary statements – we do not accept that they were unparliamentary, but for current purposes let us accept that they were. If they were then unparliamentary and so were the statements against Shivambu, that is similar conduct and different punishments are meted against Members relative to which parties they belong. If you then approached the Mente matter as you did, why should you not in this instance? And I have got faith that you will apply the same discretion and the same principle you did in Mente in relation to EFF members that made unparliamentary comments as alleged. I then move to the issue of Tambo MP. The basic tenets of any trial or disciplinary hearing, is that when they are disputes of facts, he who alleges must prove, that is the basic tenet. It is delictual concept, it is a trial concept, it is a concept you apply in any dispute that has legal implications. In other words, the Initiator must prove what she needs to prove for the finding of guilt. I suggested to you that for Tambo to be guilty of obstruction, what the Initiator must show is that she did so intentionally; she cannot be obstructive negligently. In other words, it is not enough that he stands and he so happens to be standing in between Ms Chirwa as well as the Sergeant-at-Arms, that is not enough. To the extent the Initiator says that is enough, then she has not discharged her obligation. We then sought to make her task easy by saying let us do what ought to be done for you to discharge your function, which is to have two witnesses who come with your versions of facts, because on Mr Xaso’s admission, Mr Tambo was not interviewed about what he said, the Sergeant-at-Arms was not interviewed about what was said to by Tambo. And if Tambo MP is correct in saying, ‘I simply said to him, the Speaker said no member of staff of Parliament will remove a female.’ If then she gives that order, on what basis do you have a Sergeant-at-Arms removing a female Member of Parliament? He says that is what he said to the Sergeant-at-Arms. He expected the Sergeant-at-Arms to relay that to the Speaker, with the hope that the Speaker would say, ‘Oh, yes, now I remember. Actually, let us send someone else to remove Chirwa.’ We do not make this submission for the sake of making a submission. I took you to the provision in the Rules that says the Sergeant-at-Arms has got the power to even use physical means to remove Members. And then Tambo says, ‘I had no guarantee that the Sergeant would not use physical means, which is why he was apprehensive about the Sergeant-at-Arms removing Naledi Chirwa MP; which is then, for that reason, reminds the Sergeant-at-Arms that ‘Remember, you are not allowed to come here, as per the order of the Speaker herself.’ And he expects him to relay that to the Speaker who would then make a decision. But what happens? The Speaker then says ‘Despite us suggesting and referring you to the rule that says as a starting point she must ask the Member to leave. And if the Member fails to leave she must call the Sergeant-at-Arms. And if that fails, she then must call PPS as a third option.’ But what does she do with Tambo MP, immediately she says Tambo MP must leave. It is unprecedented. It has never happened in any of the Committee and of this Parliament in a democratic era where someone is just unleashed with the PPS services: it has never happened. That is why I say what was so special about Tambo MP, that he was not granted all those courtesies that are provided for in terms of the rules. That then again speaks to the procedural unfairness at least in respect of him. We then asked the Initiator to invite Mr Tebello, that is the Sergeant-at-Arms, to come and testify that Tambo is lying. Tambo was so convinced about what he said to the Sergeant-at-Arms and the bona fides of what he said to him, that he was prepared to remind the Initiator that she has got the right to call him and testify. I then said to him, ‘What will he testify to? Why are you so confident? He says, ‘Because I know what I said to him. The Initiator chooses not to call the Sergeant-at-Arms for whatever reason. What we are simply saying is that you must accept the test, which is called the Plascon-Evans Test. You must accept his version then, because it has not been controverted. You must accept, absent any testimony to the contrary, that is what he meant to achieve, and that is what he said to the Sergeant-at-Arms. And if you accept that is what he said, and he was acting in good faith to just remind the Speaker not to send males to evict female Members, then you must accept that he had no intention to be obstructive. If you accept that he had no intention to be obstructive, then he cannot have breached the rules by being in contempt, because contempt requires intention, obstruction requires intention, not good faith. It is simply not enough that he stood up, if we do not know what he said. We know what he said in his version, and it has not been contradicted. In any event, it is a principle of our law that you may not duplicate charges. In other words, if someone is guilty of unlawful conduct, you cannot, from the same conduct, impute another punishment and another punishment and another punishment, and then you end up with 5 charges, which then justify the Committee going to town about the sanction, because the impression that is created is that from the same conduct, there is this charge, there is this charge, and if there are so many charges, then you can have extensive sanctions as a result. I will not go through the whole list of the charges. I will presume that this Committee has read the charges and you know them. And if I was to do that exercise, then I would end up with 45 minutes going through those charges. I will not do so, save to make a simple submission that when you look at those charges, there is a duplication of charges stemming from the same conduct. It cannot then be that based on the same conduct different charges emanate. And that, with respect, I submit, is one of the legal fallacies that have been committed by the Initiator. We then deal with the question of Ms Naledi Chirwa, who had raised issues in the House about the treatment of female Members. And a criminal case, as I understand, has been opened as a result. And the criticism of her conduct is that she raised issues that were not on the agenda list. Let us accept for a second that that is so. Be that as it may, the rules allow for points of order. Points of order relate to the conduct of the House. In other words, you are allowed to raise a point of order albeit it is not on the list. Points of orders are not intended to be on the list. Similarly, an issue of when mics are switched on or off is an issue of a point of order; it does not have to be in the list to be raised. It is legal nonsense with respect to suggest that you can only raise a point of order if it is on the list of the items to be addressed on the day. It goes and it is inimical with the very notion of what the point of order is. And to the extent then, someone raises the point of order that is not on the list, it is permissible. We can all accept that the Speaker is entitled to make decisions, but if the concern about Members being muted on the virtual platform, that is tantamount to saying that… postulate a scenario where we are sitting in a physical House as Members of Parliament who debate the Budget Vote or Report of the President, we are sitting in a physical House. For some reason, there are two people who are making noise on the west wing in the physical House. The essence of the Speaker muting everyone who is on the virtual platform is the same thing as saying, I hear two three people making noise in that west wing in the physical House, therefore, that entire wing must be kicked out of the House. That is the sum total of a decision to mute everyone who is on the virtual platform. Her defence will of course be ‘Well, I did not know who was making noise, therefore, I had to mute everyone.’ It still does not address the nub of my contention, which is to say in a physical House you are saying because there is noise there everyone must go. There is, of course, a rational response that the Speaker, with respect, could have employed in that scenario, which is empowered in terms of the Rules, which is to say ‘Let us adjourn. I have got a problem here where there are people who are making noise on the virtual platform. I cannot identify them. How do you solve the issue?’ That is less draconian than the step that she took. And I respectfully submit it was not a rational and appropriate response, which is why then you had some of the members of the EFF raise that objection. But more crucially, you also had an ANC member raising the same issue, but for one reason or the other, the only people who are sanctioned for raising that objection are EFF members. Which then again takes me to that seeming disproportionate and biased response to Members of Parliament. I will be quite blunt with this Committee and say this without any fear of reprimand; it is not lost on myself. It is not lost on EFF members, and hopefully, it will not be in the courts, that the Speaker of the House is an ANC member. It is not lost on me and hopefully will not be lost in the courts, that the people who wish to sanction these Members are predominantly ANC members. It is not lost on me that it is no coincidence that unparliamentary language that is used in a House is only punishable when it is an EFF member, and I have shown that it is not punishable if it is an ANC member. I respectfully submit that this is not a coincidence. And I say this, come the time if it comes to litigation, those are issues we will ventilate. I then come with a proposed solution to the problem we are faced with, having hopefully shown you that there have been innumerable instances where unbalanced reactions were met by the Speaker relative to who she was addressing. The proposal is this, before we even get to a question of mitigation, which I presume will at one point or the other, if you do not exonerate my Members, is to then self reflect, as the Committee as to how do we address these issues going forward, assuming of course, you are with me, when I suggest that at least insofar as Mr Shivambu being called a criminal, something should have been done – you could have done better in that respect. And I say you by that I mean, the Committee, the Rules Committee, Mr Xaso and everyone who was involved. I suggest you could have done better in that respect, and you failed to do so. I am inviting you to then take stock of that and own it, and ask yourself, how do we deal with this situation going forward so that you do not have it again. And my suggestion is this, there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying we could have done better. And the solution to it is to not punish the EFF members, and at the same time exonerate the ANC members. They must be found not guilty, at least as far as that charge is concerned. Otherwise, you face the problems that I have suggested. I then say, what then do you make of the balance of the charges that do not relate to these alleged disparaging remarks made against the President? I then invite you to have consideration of what you did with Mente, which by the way, I must place on record, was commendable on part of the Committee to have that maturity, where they say, because Mente has been charged not only with saying something unparliamentary which the Speaker did not hear, but she is also charged for failing to leave the House when she was instructed to, and PPSA to be called in when she had failed to leave when the Sergeant-at-Arms asked her to leave. You did not in that case, say, ‘Well, we will exonerate you because we did not hear what you said, but we will still charge you and find you guilty for failing to leave the House. That is not the approach you took. The submission I have made is that she would not be in a position where she disregards the instruction of the Speaker to leave the House, had she not been asked to leave from the beginning because Dr Mkhize himself had not been asked to leave. You then say because all these charges stem from unfair conduct from the start, we will exonerate her of all the charges. That is the proposal. It is not my suggestion; it is what the Committee itself did the last time. If you are with me in saying, ‘We accept that we punish some of the EFF members for saying the President is criminal, and everything else follows from that, and we should have done the same in relation to ANC members who called Mr Shivambu a criminal and a murderer. And we failed to do so. And that is the inconsistency as in the Mente matter. As we said in the Mente [matter] that because you were treated unfairly, every other charge should fall away.’ I am suggesting that you follow the same line of reasoning in relation to Members that have been charged with making disparaging remarks against the President. And I think that is the crucial point to underpin. And I am asking that if you fail to follow the same line of reasoning, the difficulty you will face is, ‘Well, then why did you do it in Mente and not do it here? Again, what is the difference? And I pose that question rhetorically. I am told that I have 15 minutes left and my attorney says I should not address any other issue. Maybe then what you can do because I know that I have got 15 minutes to field questions from the House, maybe you can add these 15 minutes as well, perhaps to take us to 30 minutes, if they are so inclined, because ultimately, I am not just here to monotonously speak to you. I would rather we engaged and I am happy to take questions for the next 30 minutes, to the extent there might be any clarity questions that may come from the Committee. And I thank you, Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you, Adv Ka-Siboto. Hon Members, I have a problem with my network, pardon my video, but I am still here. At this point, I would like to thank you for the generosity of the 15 minutes. I will allow the Hon Members of this Committee 15 minutes to ask clarity-seeking questions to the legal representative of the affected Members. I am mindful that you gave them an extra 15 minutes, but they are allowed to use the 15 minutes allocated to them also. Hon Members, you have the platform. I do not see any hands.

Committee Secretary: Yes, Chair. There are no hands.

Chairperson: Okay, thank you, Hon Members. This means that Adv Ka-Siboto was also clear. At this point in time, Hon Members, let me indicate then the Initiator presented her evidence by way of video footage of the incidents that occurred on 9 and 10 June 2022, and the testimony of the Secretary of the National Assembly, Mr Xaso. Similarly, Adv Ka-Siboto presented evidence by way of testimony of Hon Tambo. We have just heard the closing arguments. It is not the time for us to deliberate on the evidence presented and to make findings on whether the affected Members are guilty as charged. If the Members are found not guilty, it is the end of the matter. We will then table a report to the House to that effect. If, however, the affected Members are found guilty, we will then proceed to the next step. Let me also indicate that before we deliberate on the evidence and make a finding of guilt or not, I need to allow Members 30 minutes to consult individually. At this point, Hon Members, it is just three minutes before 13:00. Our lunch break is at 13:15. I would suggest, Hon Members, that we take a break now to allow you to individually consult as I have indicated and include that into your lunch break so that we reconvene at 14:00. We will continue after your consultations, if that bodes well with the Hon Members of the Committee.

Ms G Tseke (ANC): Agreed, Chair.

Chairperson: Thanks, Hon Tseke.

Mr N Xaba (ANC): Agreed, Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Members. Let us adjourn for lunch, and we will resume at 14:00.

The Committee adjourned for lunch.

Chairperson: Good afternoon, Members. Can you hear me?

Mr Xaba: Yes, we can.

Ms Tseke: Yes, we can hear you.

Chairperson: Thank you.

Committee Secretary: Thank you, Members. The Members, the Chair and Mr Xaba are struggling to connect, so they are going to try and look for a place where there is internet because of load shedding. So they have asked us to give them a moment to connect. Thanks.

Chairperson: Hon Members, I am back. I do not know what the brief from the staff is. I just managed to get connected again.

Mr Xaba: You are welcome, Chair. I also had challenges with connectivity, but here we are. Thank you, Chair.

Mr Z Mlenzana (ANC): You are welcome; we have been waiting for you

Chairperson: I have never seen something like this, but thanks for your indulgence, Hon Members. Let me check if everyone is around at M46.

Committee Secretary: Chair, the legal teams are here. We can proceed.

Chairperson: Okay. Hon Members, as and when we were breaking for lunch, I indicated that you will have, amongst other things, to consult individually so that we come back and deliberate on the evidence and make a finding of guilt or not. And just to recap, in a very summarised form, Hon Members, the affected Members are charged for having deliberately created and took part in a serious disturbance, disorder and disruption in the House, and acted in a way that was seriously detrimental to the dignity, decorum and orderly procedure of the House. I now open the floor for Hon Members of this Committee’s inputs. Hon Mlenzana?

Mr Mlenzana: Thanks, Chairperson. Once more, welcome back from your struggle of connectivity. Chairperson, having listened to the presentations, of course, also influenced by the cross-examination which was there before, I feel that for now, I will not be long. As I am saying, having listened, I am persuaded by facts that the charge which is laid against these Hon Members is justified. Thanks.

Chairperson: Thanks, Hon Mlenzana. Hon Van der Walt?

Ms D Van der Walt (DA): Chairperson, thank you. Am I audible?

Chairperson: You are, Hon Member. Continue.

Ms Van der Walt: Thank you, Chairperson. I think the question here is the charges that were laid against these Members, referring to the rules of the NA in Parliament, gives us no choice but to find them guilty of not adhering to the set of rules that we all have as Members of Parliament. I am not going into any other thing because I think whether the Speaker this or that, or what happened, that is not the charge, the charge is whether Members adhered to the Rules of the NA. They did not. And therefore, we agree to the charge that these Members are guilty of transgression. Thank you.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Van der Walt. Hon Tseke?

Ms Tseke: Thank you very much, Chair. Greetings to all the people who have connected in the House. Without wasting any time, Chair, I think I would want to agree with the two Hon Members who said they would not repeat even the charges that were brought forward to the affected Members. I also want to support that they have a case to answer. Therefore, they are found guilty. Thank you, Chair.

Chairperson: Thanks, Hon Tseke. Hon Xaba?

Mr Xaba: Thanks, Chair. Once more, greetings to all Members and staff and the legal teams that are connected to the hearing. Chair, I think that much has been said and I would like to align myself because I have been listening attentively, and have heard many arguments happening and so on. I think Members must be Hon Members. Indeed, out of what has been presented here, I would like to support and join other Members to say, indeed, Members are guilty. Thank you, Chair.

Chairperson: Thanks, Hon Xaba. Hon Dlakude?

Ms D Dlakude (ANC): Thank you, Hon Chairperson. Good morning to all Hon Members on the platform and everyone. Hon, Chairperson, my apologies. I am at the airport. I hope I am loud and clear, Hon Chair. I want to say, Hon Chairperson, that the Hon Members are guilty as charged. Rules are made to guide the proceedings of any institution, like we have the rules to guide the proceedings of the House. So the Members violated the rules. I will not go back to that but I will say they are guilty as charged. I agree with my colleagues on this one. Thanks, Hon Chair.

Chairperson: Thanks, Hon Dlakude. Hon Members, is there any other Member that I did not [recognise]? Okay, those were the hands. Hon Members, the finding, therefore, of the Committee, according to the deliberations of Hon Members of this Committee, are that Hon Tambo, On Ntlangwini, Hon Yako, Hon Matumba, Hon Montwedi, Hon Chirwa, Hon Mathulelwa, Hon Marais, and Hon Mafanya are each guilty as charged. Having listened to the deliberations of the Committee Members, as I have indicated, we will now move to the arguments in aggravation and mitigation. At this point, we will now proceed, Hon Members, to hear arguments in mitigation from the legal team of the affected Members. I now request Adv Ka-Siboto to present his arguments to the Committee, and proposals regarding appropriate sanctions. Advocate, Ka-Siboto, you have 30 minutes to do so.

Adv Ka-Siboto: Thank you very much, Chairperson. I would just like to make a point on my notes. My apologies, it caught me off guard. If you could just give me 10 seconds to complete this thought, and then I will address you in 10 seconds, Chair. My apologies.

Chairperson: Granted. Thanks, Advocate,

Adv Ka-Siboto: Thank you so much, Chairperson. If I can record the following first, before I deal with the issues of mitigation. The first is to request the Chair to, if the Committee is so inclined, provide us with written reasons for the decisions taken, or we are happy to accept that the deliberations we have had now are the decision and the reasons this Committee relies on. So we would like to get that confirmation at some point today. We would really appreciate that. The second issue I want to record is this, I had at the start of today's proceedings taken issue with individuals who do not hear the evidence that was presented here, being present to date, and making a decision and contributing to the deliberations. Which of course, I would imagine, should be clear to anyone that no rational and lawful decision can stem from someone who was not in this sitting duly present and noted as present, suddenly coming in at the tail end and having had no benefit of being in front of this Committee to observe what happened, to suddenly have an opinion about people's guilt or not. We would appreciate a response in that regard. Equally, you have an individual who was not present when argument was made today as to how the evidence is to be weighed suddenly being present now having had no benefits of what the arguments are, whether they could have been persuaded one way or the other, making a decision about people's guilt or not. We would like to be addressed in that respect. And I will be fair to this Committee and just put it up front that these are issues we will certainly, if the instruction comes, to go to court for review. We will take those issues up. We will certainly also take up the issues about the inconsistencies we are dealing with today, which is why I was interested in a written judgment of the Committee. But of course, I am not directing that you do anything. We are happy to take the recording of the deliberations as the basis of your decision. With that being said, Chairperson, let me say this in mitigation in light of the findings that were made by this Committee. The first is that it is quite abundantly clear to me that you cannot get away, as I have submitted earlier, from the fact that this Committee knew or ought to have known, the Speaker knew or ought to have known that unparliamentary language, which Mr Xaso accepted and conceded to, was used by two Members who are not in front of this Committee, not charged, not sanctioned, not removed from the House. You know that for a fact. You know for a fact that some of the Members that have been found guilty today have been charged for use of unparliamentary language. That is clear and consistent. And in my submission, it is abundantly clear. In light of that submission, I say in mitigation – and by saying in mitigation, it is not a concession that we are wrong on that point. We insist that we are right on it, and for that reason, you should not have found them guilty. But in light of the fact that you have found them guilty, we are saying… I am waiting for Hon Dlakude to be muted, please. We are saying in light of the fact that you have found them guilty, there cannot be any democratic or constitutional reason why you should sanction some people for the same behaviour that other people are not sanctioned for. It is wholly incompetent to have such a situation. For that reason and as a matter of principle, albeit that the Members are found guilty, it is a discretion of this Committee to say, ‘We will not punish them for the reasons I have given.’ I will make further submissions about alternative penalties you can impose, if you are so inclined to punish them, notwithstanding what I have just said. I am also saying to this Committee, I believe that they are well aware of the issues that I have raised about this process. What would have been appropriate for me is for this Committee to acknowledge that there were shortcomings, unless it insists there was no shortcoming; there is absolutely nothing wrong that the Speaker did, there is absolutely nothing wrong with people coming it when they did not hear the evidence, people coming in making decisions when they did not hear arguments… If you say that there is absolutely nothing wrong with any of that, then, of course, you must punish [them]. But if you are sincere with yourselves and acknowledge these shortcomings, this Committee, and I have been at pains to make this point, along with the Rules Committee, could not even identify that a charged person was not even in Parliament – if you are saying there is nothing wrong with that as well, and Mr Xaso insists that nothing was wrong, then, of course, you must punish them. But if you are earnest and sincere with yourselves, you will acknowledge his shortcomings. Perhaps, this is a lesson going forward as to assisting the Speaker in the fulfilment of her functions. Where my clients are not sacrificed at an altar in instances where we know that there were shortcomings. It could be enough at the discretion of this Committee to say, notwithstanding our reprimand of your Members, that is the alternative penalty I am suggesting, that you reprimand the Members, where, on the one hand, you acknowledge your own shortcomings, which you do not have to do it in writing. I am just saying consciously you acknowledge it, and outwardly say, ‘We will nonetheless reprimand your Members for their conduct.’ We would be comfortable with that. And we are saying that once the Committee accepts these shortcomings that I have referred to, they can then say it is a lesson to us as well as to what we can do better going forward. And it is my undertaking, I have no instructions on it, but I am pretty sure I will be able to persuade my clients that if you are inclined to merely reprimand them, then there will not be a review of these proceedings. The last alternative that we are providing to this Committee is this. The first prize for my clients is merely an acknowledgement of the shortcomings, and nothing is done. If there must be sanction, a reprimand is enough. If this Committee is so inclined to take it even a step further, I understand it is my instruction that my clients are willing to apologise in writing. And we are saying in light of all the facts that the Committee is aware of, and these challenges I am talking about nothing could be further than that. Nothing could justify punishment further than that, with respect. We submit – it is a submission. I am not dictating to the Committee – anything beyond that would be draconian. And those are our submissions in mitigation, Chairperson. And I thank you very much for lending your ear. And I am grateful to the Committee as well as the Initiator for the cordial manner in which she has dealt with the matter, and of course, the staff of Parliament. Thank you very much, Chairperson.

Chairperson: Thank you, Adv Ka-Siboto. Hon Members, we will now proceed to hear arguments in aggravation from the Initiator. I now request that Adv Magona-Dano put to the Committee arguments in aggravation and proposals regarding appropriate sanctions. You also have 30 minutes to do so. Adv Magona-Dano?

Adv Magona-Dano: Thank you, Chair. In respect of the aggravating factors, I would request the Hon Committee Members to remember that Section 12(5) empowers them to look at where they have found a Member guilty of contempt, what penalties they can consider to find the Members liable under the Act or any other law and they can impose such penalties. I will not read that on record. I will take it that the Members certainly know of the section that is in the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act. Further, I would like for the Committee Members to consider the circumstances of this case, to determine an appropriate penalty for the Members. The seriousness of the charges of contempt of Parliament, which the affected Members have been found guilty of, I need not repeat them, as well as the nature and severity of their conduct. When they do so, to also consider whether there was any acknowledgement of wrongdoing or remorse on the part of the affected Members, or any cooperation with the work of this Committee. Also, whether there were any previous incidents involving the affected Members, and the interests of Parliament. In short, of all the four points I have just raised, the Hon Committee Members would recall that this is a serious offence, a contempt of Parliament and its rules, the complete disregard and the authority of the Speaker and the disparaging remarks that were made by others, as well as the interactions that they have had, commotion caused within the House as well as the interaction with the PPS members, and so forth. During the two day trial, the country or Parliament was held to ransom, at least the House, as well as, I will take it, the South Africans that were watching. The President could not even proceed until the Members were removed. Further, there was no acknowledgement of wrongdoing. There was no remorse shown by any of the Members of the affected Members before, and there was no cooperation with them, as far as the work of this Committee is concerned – we had to dig it out through a number of days, a period of time, in order to get where we are today. There are previous incidents involving just a few of the Members that I would mention as repeat offenders, from the information I have received. We have Hon Ntlangwini, who was then Ms Low, as well as Hon Tambo and Hon Montwedi. They are repeat offenders.

Adv Ka-Siboto: Sorry, hold on. My apologies, Chair. I had to interrupt the Initiator because now she is stating as facts, issues that are not debated here. My clients were never put or furnished with these claims. For all you know, they are true, for all you know, they are not. And they do not have an opportunity to respond to them. The question was put to Mr Xaso, and he refused to answer the question as to whether they are repeat offenders or not. We are now furnished with alleged facts of repeat offenders when all of that evidence has not been tested. I would therefore suggest, Chair, that you rule that it is impermissible to introduce these facts when they have not been unchallenged, and they were never put to my clients up until this point. Thank you, Chairperson.

Chairperson: Thank you, Adv Ka-Siboto. Adv Magona-Dano, can you take that into consideration?

Adv Magona-Dona: Thank you, chair. May I just make a reply to what my learned colleague has just indicated with regard to repeat offenders? Chair, when coming to sanctioning persons who are accused before an inquiry of this nature, previous incidents it was something that the accusers had to give instructions to their legal representatives. What needs to be done is they must be proven, which I am stipulating before the Hon Inquiry, and obviously the Committee will then make that decision. But if the Chair feels that such evidence or other such submissions should not be made, I will leave it in the Committee's hands. It is just the three offenders that I have just mentioned. So is the Chair’s decision for me not to mention the repeat offending as part of the aggravation circumstances by the Initiator, just to be clear? Will the Chair give such a ruling, so that it is clear to the Initiator?

Chairperson: Adv Magona, as Adv Ka-Siboto said, his argument is that Mr Xaso did not want to use the word 'repeat' offenders. I see the hands of Hon Mlenzana and Hon Xaba. In that order.

Mr Mlenzana: No, thanks, Hon Chairperson. Let me just clarify the session about this seemingly bone of contention, which it is not. It is myself, Chair, who raised this question of repeat offenders. And the manner in which Mr Xaso responded to me, hence I had to wholly withdraw, was such that there was nothing that was conclusive of whether we are dealing with Hon Members who have been declared or not, at the time. Hence, I had to withdraw. Not necessarily that. It was putting a close into the fact that these Hon Members once appeared and were then charged as such. Thanks, Chairperson.

Chairperson: Thanks, Hon Mlenzana. Hon Xaba?

Mr Xaba: Thanks, Chair. Chair, I think that I know it is the legal representatives that are talking before us here, but in the bone of contention, I will propose to you, Chair, and the Committee, that we are yet to discuss these matters as raised. It will be a Committee decision. It cannot be of either the Initiator or advocate. We are listening to what is happening, and then the Committee will decide. Thank you, Chair.

Chairperson: Thank you, Hon Xaba. Adv Magona-Dano, can you please continue as advised by the Committee Members, that they will speak to the issues as and when the time arises? So I am not forced to make a ruling or decision before they come in and deliberate.

Adv Magona-Dano: So would that be can I then address the Committee and when I want to mention repeat offenders the Committee will then make a decision at the end? I am trying to really understand. I am not challenging the decision. I want to be clear about that.

Chairperson: Yes, please proceed.

Adv Magona-Dano: Alright. Thank you, Chair. Then that was Ms Ntlangwini, Hon Tambo and Montwedi, those are the three repeat offenders. Hon Members, the first time offenders are the rest of the affected Members. And I would like to make a submission that, as I have said, there was no remorse and none of them had testified after a lengthy process of disputing the allegations pleading not guilty. And then we were left with actually deciding to remain silent. The proposal that we would like to make as the Initiator in terms of ascension is as follows: with regards to, I would use the word and forgive me, repeat offenders, the Hon Committee should consider Section 12(g) of the Act, where it states that the suspension of the Member with or without remuneration for a period not exceeding 30 days, whether or not the House or any of its Committees is scheduled to meet during that period. This would be without remuneration – just to be correct, the suspension of the Member without remuneration. That would be for those of repeat offenders. In addition to that I would propose the Committee to consider Section 12(c) as well, that we appreciate the proposal as well from their defence counsel, that there be an apology. Ours is that if an order is made for an apology, it must be made to the President, the Parliament and the South African public, as this offence was done publicly. This would regain the confidence of South Africans. Similarly, with regard to the first time offenders, if I were to call them that, there are two categories I would like to propose, Hon Committee Members. There are those who walked out independently when the PPS was called. We would like to really acknowledge this, Hon Members, and we went to applaud it and encourage, perhaps, in the future, if anything of this nature would happen, that there is no need for any commotion or anything being created when there is an order made by the Speaker. Hon Yako and Hon Mafanya immediately stood up and walked out when the PPS was called in. They did not have to be pushed out or experience any of the issues that took place with the rest of the Members. So in our view the Hon Committee should consider that they be lenient. And we suggest that with them, in terms of Section 12 (f), that there be a fine imposed on them not exceeding the equivalent of half a month's salary and allowances payable to the Member’s concerned by virtue of the remuneration of public office bearers. That is Section 12 (f). Half a month beginning from the 1st of April to the 15th of April, Hon Committee Members. This is just in respect of Hon Yako and Hon Mafanya, for the reasons I have stated. With regards to the rest of the first time offenders, we propose the following: that the Hon Committee Members consider imposing a fine, in terms of Section 12(f), not exceeding the equivalent of a full month's salary, one month's salary and allowances payable to the Member concerned by virtue of the Remuneration of Public Officers Act. This would begin from the 1st of April until the 30th of April. That would be our proposal with regards to the three criteria I have just described of the affected Members.

Chairperson: Are you done, Adv Magona?

Adv Magona-Dano: Apologies there, Chair. I was just taking a final instruction in the matter. Chair, I would like to also remind the Committee Members when it comes to Section 12(g), which I have recommended for the repeat offenders, that it must be read with Section 12(9). I will quickly read it, “A Member may not be suspended under (5)(g), unless the House has found that; (a) the Member is guilty of a serious or repeated contempt”, which was done here, “and none of the other penalties set out in (5) would be sufficient”, which is my submission that a reprimand in these facts and the circumstances before you would not be sufficient. There are serious charges against the Members, serious misconduct and their conduct over the two-day period are serious enough that they deserve to be sentenced accordingly as to Section 12 (g). In that regard, if I am not misunderstood, an apology must be proposed to all Members that are before you. I think those are all the proposals I have before the Hon Committee. Thank you, Chairperson.

Chairperson: Thank you, Adv Magona-Dano. Hon Members, you have heard the arguments in aggravation and proposed penalties. It is time for the Hon Members to deliberate on the appropriate penalties, taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors put to the Committee. Before we deliberate on the appropriate penalties, I will once again allow Members 15 minutes to consult individually. It is 15:37. The staff will advise we will have to be back from the 15 minute consultation. Can we take 15 minutes, Hon Members?

Committee Secretary: Chair, the Members should be back with their reports by 15:52.

Mr Xaba: Thank you, Chair.

The Committee adjourned for 15 minutes.

Chairperson: Hon Members, are we all back? Is everybody back in M46 and on the platform?

Mr Xaba: Yes, we are back, Chair.

Chairperson: Let me indicate that we had the arguments and mitigation and aggravating circumstances and proposed…

Adv Ka-Siboto: Chairperson?

Chairperson: Sorry?

Adv Ka-Siboto: Chairperson, sorry, it is Ka-Siboto.

Chairperson: Is there anybody?

Adv Ka-Siboto: Yes, Chair. Sorry, I was going to ask for your indulgence before you address us. Can I just make a quick point because it has a bearing on the sentencing?

Chairperson: I am struggling to hear you a bit, Adv Ka-Siboto. We are at the time of the Committee Members, but I hear that you want to speak.

Adv Ka-Siboto: Well, I am happy not to speak, Chair, if you decide I should not at this point. But I thought I would ask for that indulgence because it has a bearing on the sentence itself. But I am happy to speak at a later stage if you prefer that I do not speak now.

Chairperson: Okay, let me hear you, Advocate, so that we give Hon Members [the space] to deliberate.

Adv Ka-Siboto: Thank you so much, Chairperson. Before we adjourned I had raised an objection about evidence being led from the bar. We were criticised for not taking instructions as to whether we have got to repeat offenders or not. And what is ironic is that Mr Xaso, himself, had not taken that instruction, which is why he could not answer the question, but we would have been penalised if we did not do likewise. Be that as it may, had the process run properly, that evidence was led, and my clients had an opportunity to respond to an allegation of repeat offenders, then we would not have this misrepresentation of facts. We do not even have a record of them having been found guilty before. It is my instruction that Ntlangwini has never offended and been found guilty before by this Committee. My client, Montwedi, says that he has never been convicted by this Committee, yet they are labelled as repeat offenders here. And that is something that this Committee will take into account and punish them. And again, I reiterate the problems we are having with the procedures in this Committee. I want to place that on record, they are not repeat offenders as alleged. We could not put this to this Committee because that allegation was never made when they were asked to testify. And insofar as them choosing to keep quiet and not apologise, again, had they been given an opportunity in terms of the rules to then make submissions in mitigation – they were not given the opportunity. We do not know whether they would have apologised at that point or not. The rules say they must be given that opportunity – it was not given to them. And they could not bring these facts to account because that opportunity was not given. I want to place that on record, Chairperson. And in your determination of the punishment, I restate that they are not repeat offenders. Thank you, Chair. And just on the last point, Chair…

Chairperson: Thanks, Advocate…

Adv Ka-Siboto: Sorry. Just as a last point, Chair. I do not want to appear as if I am being difficult to the Committee. We have had a problem where people have been misidentified, Mkhonto as an example. We would have thought much more would have been done in terms of the refined facts before they are presented before this Committee. If that had been done, we would not have issues surrounding Montwedi and Ntlangwini MP being accused of being repeat offenders. Again, I restate the difficulties of the processes of this Committee and how facts are verified, where people are hung on facts that do not exist. Thank you, Chairperson.

Chairperson: Thanks, Adv Ka-Siboto. Hon Members, we have heard the arguments in mitigation and aggravation.

Adv Magona-Dano: Apologies, Chair?

Chairperson: Yes, Ma’am?

Adv Magona-Dano: Apologies, Chair. May I have an opportunity to have a second bite at the cherry as my learned colleague?

Chairperson: Okay, because I gave Adv Ka-Siboto, I will also give you [the opportunity]. I must reiterate that this is the time for Hon Members. I have given the legal team their time. Let us hear you, Adv Magona-Dano.

Adv Magona-Dano: Thank you, Hon Chair. I will not be long. Chair, to be fair, and for the Hon Members at any stage if they want to even provide these copies to my learned colleague, for the defence to prove the alleged repeat offences. I will just give the numbers for what is before me, ‘Parliament of the Republic of South Africa Announcements, Tablings, and Committee Reports.’ Chair, I am sure the Hon Members are familiar with those. I have their numbers to save time. You will find the repeat offence by Hon Tambo on Committee Report 171 of 2023, Fifth Session of the 6th Parliament. It is dated Friday, 1 December 2023. That is with regards to Hon Tambo, where you will find the specific offence I am referring to. With regards to Hon Ntlangwini, as I have mentioned then, she was referred to as Hon Louw. This is the same Committee Report 91 of 2014 – it was a while back, perhaps that has been forgotten now – 4th Parliament, dated Tuesday, 11 November 2014. And lastly, with regards to Hon Montwedi. It is Committee Report 62 of 2021, Third Session of the 6th Parliament, dated Monday, 17 May 2021. It is in the Powers and Privileges Committee reports that were submitted on these announcements that you would find these three previous offences that were imposed as well as penalties imposed on the three Members. Thank you, Chair. That is all I wanted to say. We are not creating this.

Chairperson: Thanks, Adv Magona-Dano. Hon Members, as I was saying, we have heard the arguments in mitigation and aggravation and proposed penalties. Let us now deliberate on the appropriate penalties. I am opening the floor to Hon Members. The floor is open.

Committee Secretary: The hand of the Deputy Chief Whip, Ms Dlakude, is up.

Chairperson: Hon Dlakude, followed by Hon Mlenzana and Hon Xaba. In that order.

Ms Dlakude: Thank you very much, Hon Chairperson. My sincere apologies, I was struggling to unmute. Hon Chairperson, let me start by dealing with an issue which I was accused of, that I was not in a meeting. I have been in the meeting since morning. And I was cut off when everyone else was cut off. I logged in again. So I was there from the beginning of the meeting. Thank you very much. Hon Chairperson, I am glad that the Initiator pointed to the issue of the repeat offenders. I was going to talk about that because I do have the facts. Thank you very much to the Initiator for presenting that to the Committee. So I want to say that we support the penalties, the sanction, as proposed by the Initiator, that one, Mr Tambo, Mr Montwedi, and Ms Ntlangwini, 30 days suspension without remuneration. Then two, Hon Matumba, Marais, Chirwa and Mathulelwa a fine equivalent to 30 days salary. Three, Hon Yako and Mafanya a fine equivalent to 15 days salary. These, Hon Members, are the sanctions befitting the guilty charge of these Members. They violated the rules and failed to obey the rules of the House and also the instruction of the presiding officers. Hon Chairperson, if I may add to this. Hon Chairperson, we are whips of political parties. We have the chief whips forum where we consult each other. And also, we always talk about holding up the decorum of the House. So it cannot be that some of the Members found guilty here are whips. They know the rules of the House, that if you are not satisfied about any ruling of the presiding officer, you have another opportunity to take this matter up. Lastly, this issue of saying this Committee is made up of ANC members is neither here nor there. The Committee is a multi party committee. We will keep on saying this until it sinks in other people’s heads, that we are a multi Party committee of Parliament. We have a responsibility that is bestowed upon us by the Powers and Privileges Act. So we cannot allow any disruption to the proceedings of the House to happen. If a matter is referred to this Committee, we will deal with the matter accordingly. Thank you, Hon Chair.

Chairperson: Thanks, Hon Dlakude. Hon Mlenzana?

Mr Mlenzana: No, thanks, Chairperson. I will try to avoid what has been raised by the Deputy Chief Whip for the benefit of time. Chairperson, let me start by saying, yes, Adv Ka-Siboto, we know, is a legal representative, and has to end the deuce that it gets. Hence, he has to try by all means to spin whatever. I am starting here. Actually, before that, Chair. Let me start by saying that fortunately the manner in which I listened throughout the proceedings of these hearings, Adv Ka-Siboto, while representing the affected Members, was, in fact, though unknowingly, saying to us that whatever actions done by his clients were justified. Instead of him saying they are not guilty, he stressed on why they had behaved in the manner in which they did. My colleague indicated earlier that the behaviour of the Speaker was neither here nor there. We were more interested in the contempt of Parliament that the Members engaged in. Now, let me come to my second point. This one, which was somehow mitigation, whilst at the same time I see it as negotiating through the barrel of the gun at the back of our ears, where Adv Ka-Siboto has said more than three times that whatever we decide as the Committee, he will be taking it for review; hence, I feel that was more of a threat to us. But we will not be threatened, as such. Let me pass on to say that I fully agree with the proposals as stipulated: a 30 days suspension, a fine equivalent to 30 days and a fine equivalent to 15 days. I must stress the question that it is important for there to be an apology, as indicated by Adv Ka-Siboto. You know, I listened carefully as he was articulating his mitigating facts. He raised that his clients are prepared to apologise, which means his clients, himself and the team are aware of the fact that the actions that took place on the 9th and 10th are actually worth an apology. Hence, we have to stress that we will welcome the apology and it must happen before we rise. Chair, that is that. I am also covered on this question of the repeat offence. Thanks, Chairperson.

Chairperson: Thanks, Hon Mlenzana. Hon Xaba?

Mr Xaba: Thanks, Chair. Chair, we have heard how the matters have unfolded. But, Chair, the issue was that the Members could not show any remorse. The commotion that took place did impact the decorum of the House. Surely, Parliament needs to give confidence to the public so that we earn the trust of all South African citizens. The other thing I wanted to raise, Chair, is that I agree with the sanctions as proposed earlier by the Chief Whip, and supported by Hon Mlenzana. I also join to support them. Also, we will urge Members going forward on how Parliament. I think, Chair, mine is today I support the sanction as raised by the Initiator. Thank you, Chair.

Chairperson: Thanks, Hon Xaba. Hon Tseke?

Ms Tseke: Thanks very much, Chair. Without wasting any time, I think Hon Mlenzana has covered me with regards to the apology which is supposed to be presented in the House by all the affected Members. And I think in terms of the timeframes we have to be specific to say the apology to the President of the Republic of South Africa, to the Speaker of the National Assembly, and the people of South Africa. They must present it before the 29th of March this year, before the House rises. And then on the issue of Hon Yako and Mafanya, I think the sanction is to be supported. I think I am covered, Chair.

Chairperson: Thanks, Hon Tseke. Is there any Hon Member I may not have recognised?

Ms Dlakude: Hon Chair?

Chairperson: Yes, Hon Dlakude?

Ms Dlakude: My sincere apologies. I forgot to mention that the sanctions, other than the public apology in the House, must start on the 1st of April to the 30th of April 2024. Thank you.

Chairperson: Thanks, Hon Dlakude. Is there any other Member? I am checking my register. It looks like that was the last hand. Hon Members, if I have captured you correctly, you say the penalty with respect to Hon Tambo is 30 days suspension without remuneration; penalty with respect to Hon Montwedi, 30 days suspension without remuneration; penalty with respect to Hon Ntlangwini is also 30 days suspension without remuneration. The penalty with respect to Hon Matumba, is a fine equivalent to 30 days salary. The penalty with respect to Hon Marais, a fine equivalent to 30 days salary. The penalty with respect to Hon Chirwa, is a fine equivalent to 30 days salary. The penalty with respect to Hon Mathulelwa, is a fine equivalent to 30 days. With respect to Hon Yako, the penalty is equivalent to 15 days salary. And the penalty with respect to Hon Mafanya, is also a fine equivalent to 15 days salary. Further, the Committee agrees that all Members must apologise physically to the President, the Speaker and people of South Africa, before Parliament rises on 29 March. All other sanctions must start from 1 April. Hon Members, having alluded to those penalties, I will therefore, request the support team to submit a draft report to the Committee for its approval, which, if approved, will be tabled in the House for consideration. At this point, Hon Members, I would like to thank all the Committee for the work and time they had to put on this matter, our Initiator and the legal representative for the affected Members also for the sterling work they have done, including our support staff. This hearing is adjourned.