Hansard: NA: Unrevised hansard

House: National Assembly

Date of Meeting: 07 Dec 2021


No summary available.






Watch video here: PLENARY (HYBRID)

The House met at 14:02.



The Deputy Speaker took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayers or meditation.


The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Makgau, please mute your microphone.




The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon members, before we proceed with today’s work, I wish to announce that the vacancies which occurred in the National Assembly owing to the resignation of Ms P Faku, Ms G T Mukwevho and Mr T D Khalipha had been filled by the nomination of Mr M Basopu, Ms M R M Mothapo and Ms S T Maneli with effect from 24 November 2021, respectively. [Interjections.] [Applause.]. The members had made and subscribed the oath in the Speaker’s office. Welcome, hon members!

Lastly, in the interest of safety, as we always do ... [Interjections.] Hon members, they want to see you. [Applause.]




Ngoba niyabazi nje, yazi niyaganga.





Hon members, as we usually alert you – we should do it every day, it is not only for us in the House, but it’s for everybody back at home – out there in the public. We should keep to the protocols that will keep us safe from the spread of this pandemic. Let’s comply; let’s be exemplary in every way possible. Thank you very much.






There was no debate.



The Chief Whip of the Majority Party moved: That the Report be adopted.


Motion agreed to (Democratic Alliance, Freedom Front Plus, Inkatha Freedom Party, African Christian Democratic Party and Economic Freedom Fighters dissenting).



Report accordingly adopted






(Second Reading Debate)



Dr M S MOTSHEKGA: Your Excellency, President Cyril Ramaphosa, Deputy President, David Mabuza, the Speaker of Parliament, the Deputy Speaker of Parliament, Ministers present and Deputy Ministers, directors, leaders of political parties and all distinguished members of this august house. Today we have an ample opportunity to remind all South Africans, both black and white, that the principal object of establishment of an ad hoc committee to amend section 25 of the Constitution was to eradicate the original sin in the best interest of all South Africans, not a section thereof. It is therefore important for South Africa and the world to be reminded of the nature of this original sin to aid its understanding of this inhumane crime against the African humanity.


Indigenous African people were violently dispossessed of the land and its natural resources by the Dutch and British settlers. The Dutch settlers who occupied the Cape in 1652 enslaved the native population and used it as the source of chief labour. The British settlers who occupied the Cape from the beginning of the 18th century introduced abolished slavery and introduced liberal policies which denied the Dutch settlers slave labour and limited their access to African land and cheap labour. Thus, during the 1830s, the Dutch settlers migrated to Natal, Free State and Transvaal in search of land and its natural resources, as well as cheap labour.



The African majority waged wars of resistance against the Boers in defence of their land and dignity. That happened from the first half of the 19th century. The Dutch settlers violently dispossessed African people of their land and its natural resources in this three colonies. The discovery of gold in 1886 and diamond in 1866 created a scramble for the soul of South Africa between the Dutch and the British settlers. The scramble led to the first Anglo-Boer War in 1880 and 1881. African people supported the British settlers during this war, hoping that in the event of victory, they would regain their land and its natural resources. The British settlers and their African allies were defeated by the Dutch settlers under Paul Kruger at Majuba


Hill. The British and the Boers entered into an agreement which excluded the African majority.



The African condition was worsened by the Berlin Act of 1885 which legalised the partition of Africa into colonies which were shared amongst the European powers. The resulting Scramble for Africa and the discovery of the minerals deepened the conflict between the Boers and the British settlers, which led to the second Anglo-Boer War of 1899 and 1902. The British persuaded Africans to support them during this war on the ground that in the event of victory, the British will restitute the land with the natural resources which were violently taken away from them. Thus, African participated in the second Anglo-Boer War and that changed the balance of power in favour of the British who were led by Lord Milner.



At the end of the war, the British once again betrayed the African people and concluded the Treaty of Vereeniging, which legalised racism and forged closer unity and co-operation between the Dutch and the British settlers. The British colonial authorities disarmed the African people and allowed the Dutch settlers to return to the land which they have violently taken away from the native population. The British also carried over


the native resources or locations, which were labour camps created by the Dutch settlers during the 18th and 19th centuries.



The question which faced the British colonialists after the second Anglo-Boer War was characterised as the “native question”. This question confronted the British with the choice between their simulation of Africans into the new order or to keep them imprisoned in the native reserves or locations and to create a separate native administration for them. To address the “native question” which was two-legged, Lord Alfred Milner established the South African Native Affairs Commission and appointed Sir Lagden as its chairman. The commission was mandated to conduct an investigation into the territorial segregation of black and white populations and to establish a separate native administration for black people and African people in particular.



The betrayal of African people by the British people, after both the First World War and Second World War catalysed the birth of the Congress Movement. This congress movement, which was rooted in the Ethiopian Movement, opposed these racial and territorial segregation and called for the creation of the Union of South Africa - which was inclusive of all the people. But Cecil John Rhodes, the founder of the British Secret Society and author of


British imperial plan declared in a speech in Parliament that the native is to be treated as a child and denied the franchise. He further said that they must adopt a system of despotism such as workers in India in their relations with the barbarism of South Africa.



So, Cecil John Rhodes made it clear from the outset that Africans do not belong to this country. He also, under Lord Milner, began the process of uniting all the four colonies which convened a national convention which met in Durban in 1908 where a draft Constitution was adopted – South Africa Act of 1909. But African people did not accept the draft Constitution and they convened their own meeting in Bloemfontein where they decided that they would send a delegation to Britain to oppose this draft Constitution. During that time there were two South African lawyers in Britain, that was Alfred Mangena and Pixley Ka Seme. Sir President Sefako Makgatho of the Transvaal Native Congress instructed them to make submissions to the British government that African people do not accept the South Africa Act and that it should not be ratified, but the British, contrary to the will of the people of South Africa, ratified the South Africa Act. That means that this Act was not based on the will of the people of South Africa and was therefore illegitimate. Therefore the Union of South Africa itself was illegitimate, but this ...


[Interjections.] ... illegitimate Union of South Africa adopted the Natives Land Act 27 of 1913.



Now, interestingly, as the colonial authorities themselves accepted that, that Act was based on the report of Sir Lagden, which authorised the territorial and racial separation and also adopted the creation of these native reserves and locations. At the time of the adoption of this Act, black South Africans only had access to 7% of the total surface of South Africa. The Constitution had stated that a commission will investigate a further allocation of land to African people, but when that was done by Judge Beaufort, they only increased that to 8% until 1936 when it was increased to 13%.



It means therefore that this original sin shaped the land occupation by African people and it also shaped the administration the affairs of African people. So, we can see that there was a grave injustice done to the African majority in particular, and the black people in general. Now, the amendment Bill that is before us seeks to address this inhumane crime or this crime against the African majority. Those who unfortunately have to vote with us on this matter are the beneficiaries of this crime against the African humanity and they have the support of a coalition of some Africans who do not


know the history of this country and they are supporting this because they hope that through their unholy coalition in 2024, they will gain power and do what they like. But we want to assure them that the ANC is still in power and the ANC has other instruments that it will use to ensure that the people of South Africa get access to the land.



We are not worried about those who are not supporting this Bill, but we are quite confident that with or without them, the ANC is going to make the land available to the people because without making the land available to the people, we have a situation where the triple challenge of poverty, unemployment and inequality will continue. Without making land available to the people, we have a situation where the current deepening moral degeneration and social ills will continue. Those who don’t want to support this Bill are saying that the suffering of the African people, in particular and black people in general, should continue until some time in the future when they will be in power – something that will never happen in our lifetime.



They think that the power that they acquired through unholy coalitions will last. [Interjections.] These unholy coalitions are going to collapse before long and the people of South Africa will come back to the only organisation that will liberate them


from poverty, unemployment and inequality. The people of South Africa will come back to the ANC which will ensure that we reverse and arrest the deepening moral degeneration and the social ills. Our people are suffering from femicide, gender- based violence, teenage pregnancies and so on, and it is not because our people have no values; it is simply because the effects of the original sin is still with us.



We have to eradicate this original sin which is a crime against humanity - which is a crime against our people. Those who don’t want to vote with us on this matter, are simply saying our people deserve to suffer until some time in the future when they dream that they will be in power and that is not going to happen. There is no South Africa that can be run by unholy coalitions and make sure that we have sustainable development.



We want to call on all South Africans to listen carefully to the speakers that will come here. Some of them even said during local government elections that they will return land to the people and create jobs. If you don’t vote for this Bill, how are you going to return land to the people? It is only through this Bill that land can be returned to the people. So, all South Africans who respect the will of the people of South Africa will vote with us today so that this Bill goes through. Some political


parties forget the fact that our constitutional democracy is both representative and participatory, and participatory democracy places the will of the people above the selfish interests of political parties.



So, today we want to the people of South Africa to see those people who are voting against their will because during the public hearings, South African people have spoken. They said that they want us to amend this Constitution so that they can have their land back. Now, those who voted against this Bill are voting against the will of the people of South Africa. [Interjections.] Therefore, they cannot claim to be democrats. All democrats will vote in favour of the will of the people, not in favour of their selfish interests. [Interjections.]



So, your days as democrats are numbered. If you have come here today to bury yourselves because you cannot vote against this Bill and still go out and call yourself a democrat – you can’t. And there are some peacetime heroes and heroines, and today they say that they can’t support this Bill. If they can’t support this Bill, what revolution are they pursuing? Because a revolution is about changing the lives of the people for the better. And there is no piece of legislation before us that can


achieve that – it is only the amendment Bill that we have tabled today that can change the lives of our people for the better.



So, your days are numbered as the democrats and your days are numbered as peacetime revolutionaries because the ANC is determined to return the land to the people and the ANC has various instruments that it will use to make sure that the land goes back to the people. If there is anybody who thinks that by withholding their votes they are going to frustrate the ANC and the people of South Africa, you are wasting your time.



We are forging ahead. We are going to make the land and its natural resources available. We are going to make sure that we combat the triple challenge of poverty, unemployment and inequality. We are going to make sure that we arrest the deepening moral degeneration and social ills. And our women and children will be safe and will have an opportunity to develop in a safe environment with or without the votes of the unholy alliance that we have seen emerging - which is cheating itself and suggesting that they will get power by default. Good luck as you go down into your grave that you dug for yourself. Thank you very much. [Interjections.] [Applause.]


Dr A LOTRIET: Hon Deputy Speaker, it is very ironic that this year, where we are celebrating the 25th anniversary of the adoption of our Constitution, that we are debating an amendment to this Constitution that will have dire consequences for this country.



Chapter 2 of the Constitution states: This Bill of Rights –


and maybe it is important for the ANC to listen –



This Bill of Rights is a cornerstone of democracy in South Africa. It enshrines the rights of all people in our country and affirms the democratic values of human dignity, equality and freedom.



It further states that: “The state must respect, protect,


promote and fulfil the rights in the Bill of Rights.”



Although section 25 forms part of the Bill of Rights, the founding provisions as stated in Chapter 1 of the Constitution cannot be ignored, specifically the rule of law. It is within this framework that this Bill must be assessed. There are two questions: Firstly, we have to answer whether it is necessary to amend section 25? and lastly, does it comply with the values and rights enshrined in the Constitution?




Agb Adjunkspeaker, om te bepaal of ’n wysiging van artikel 25 nodig is, moet daar gekyk word na die motivering van die wysiging.





Yes, the motivation for this amendment ...





Die motivering wat voorgehou is vir die wysiging is dat dit wat implisiet is, eksplisiet gemaak moet word, nie soos wat nou vantevore gesê is deur die agb Motshekga nie.



Die werklikheid is dat hierdie motivering bloot ’n rookskerm is om regverdiging te verskaf aan ’n proses wat selfs nie eens deur almal in die ANC ondersteun word nie.



Die Grondwet is nie ’n stel regulasies nie. Dit bied riglyne en norme waaraan handelinge en wette moet voldoen en gemeet kan word. Die wyse hoe dit in die praktyk gedoen moet word, word hanteer deur die algemeen-geldende regsvoorskrigte. Dit is waar die implisiete eksplisiet gemaak word, nie deur die Grondwet te wysig nie.


Wetgewing is die meganisme waardeur grondhervorming móét plaasvind - en dit móét plaasvind - ...





Mr M A TSEKI: On a point of order, hon Deputy Speaker.






[Onhoorbaar.] ... met die nodige politieke wil en kapasiteit







The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon member, just a moment. Hon Tseki.



Mr M A TSEKI: Hon Deputy Speaker, there is no interpretation on the gadgets.



The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Okay, let’s call them to please sort that out. Interpretation, please do that. Hon members, please do things orderly. You can’t be ruling from the floor. Just allow the Chair to do that. Hon members, keep your voices lower. The public and everybody else would like to listen to the debate. So, I would appreciate that all of us ... [Interjections.] ... Please switch off if you are not given the space to speak. Hon


members, check your gadgets, please. Thank you very much. Go ahead, hon member.



Dr A LOTRIET: Thank you, Deputy Speaker.





Grondhervorming moet plaasvind onder leiding van ’n regering met die nodige politieke wil en kapasiteit om dit te doen. Die Grondwet – en spesifiek artikel 25 – is nie die struikelblok in die grondhervormingsproses nie.





For example, in section 25(4), the Constitution places a specific responsibility on the state to give effect on the nation’s commitment to land reform. Section 25(5) is very clear that the state must take reasonable legislative and other measures within its available resources to foster conditions which enable citizens to gain access to land on an equitable basis. It cannot be more clear.



The proposed amendment changes the specific obligation of the state and substitute it with a vague reference to certain land to be placed under the state’s custodianship. In other words, custodianship is included for the mere sake of winning the


support of radical populists. The addition of custodianship also goes beyond the mandate given to the ad hoc committee by the National Assembly and can therefore not be included in this Bill. [Applause.]



To address the question of whether this Bill complies with the founding provisions and values of the Constitution, we have to look at what the status of property rights is in our Constitution.



A primary element of the rule of law and human rights, two of the founding provisions, is that it should include respectful property rights. This is in line with international law and specifically Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UDHR, to which South Africa is a party. This Bill creates uncertainty regarding property rights and will have an adverse effect on investment and land improvements.



The proposed amendments that states that land and any improvements on it may be expropriated with nil compensation is precisely the type of situation that will cause this uncertainty. This is not what the country needs now in the times of economic devastation during the pandemic.


It is therefore beyond belief that there was no socioeconomic impact assessment done on this Bill. The Bill itself states that there will be no financial implications. This is to say the least, madness. We cannot allow any amendment of the Constitution that will flex property rights and economic prosperity at risk ... [Interjections.]



Mr Z MLENZANA: Hon Deputy Speaker, on a point of order.



The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, hon member. Hon Lotriet, just a moment. Who is speaking?



Mr Z MLENZANA: Mlenzana.






Mr Z MLENZANA: I wanted to ask if the member is ready to take a question?



The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Lotriet?



Dr A LOTRIET: No, Deputy Speaker, we can talk afterwards. Creating uncertainty regarding property rights goes counter to the rule of law.


Our further concern is that the Bill states that national legislation must set out specific circumstances where a court may determine that the amount of compensation is nil. National legislation is a much lower threshold for approval and it opens the door for arbitrary circumstances to be determined for when the compensation must be nil.



The Constitution as it stands, provides for specific circumstances and any legislation should be measured against that. To answer those questions that I put at the start, there is no need to amend section 25 ... [Applause.] ... and this Bill falls foul of the constitutional test ... [Applause.] ...





Die Grondwet is juis daar om die balans tussen regte te handhaaf en om die burgers van ’n land teen die vergryppe van die staat te beskerm. Hierdie Wetsontwerp versteur daardie balans en beskerm nie die inwoners van hierdie land nie. Dit maak ook die deur oop vir enige toekomstige wysigings aan die Handves van Regte.



As dit nou met so ’n gebrekkige proses aanvaar en deurgevoer word, skep dit die presedent vir enige verdere wegkalwing van die menseregte van die burgers van Suid-Afrika.




Die DA ondersteun nie hierdie Wysigingswetsontwerp nie. Dankie.



Mr J S MALEMA: Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. Deputy Speaker, when the EFF introduced the motion for the amendment of the Constitution to allow for land expropriation without compensation in 2018, we had an absolute clarity of mind on what needed to be done to correct the anomalies in land holding created by the colonial land dispossession and apartheid fostering ... [Inaudible.] ... Our original motion in 2018, called for the establishment of an ad hoc committee to do the following: Review and amend section 25 of the Constitution to make it possible for the state to expropriate land in the public interest without compensation; and in the process conduct public hearings to get the views of ordinary South Africans, policy-makers, civil society organisations, and academics about the necessity of and mechanism for expropriating land without compensation; propose the necessary constitutional amendment with regard to the kind of future land tenure regime needed taking into account the necessity of the state being a custodian of all South Africans ... [Inaudible.]


It is now common cause that the ruling party proposed an amendment to the motion which took us along winded road and ask the Constitutional Review Committee to investigate the necessity of and mechanism for the expropriation land without compensation. This ought to not have been the guiding question because in our original motion we had laid out in great detail the need for the amendment of section 25 of the Constitution. When the Constitutional Review Committee completed its work after talking to thousands of our people across all corners of this country it recommended to this House that the section 25 of the Constitution must be amended to make explicit that which is implicit in the Constitution with regard to the expropriation of land without compensation as a legitimate option for land reforms so as to address the historic wrongs caused by arbitrary dispossession of land, and in so doing ensure equitable access to land and further empower the majority of South Africans to be productive participants in ownership, food security and agricultural reform programmes.



Hidden from the recommendation of the Constitutional Review Committee was the frustrations millions of African people in this country felt at the slow pace of land reform. The report could not find ways to correctly communicate the frustrations of farm workers who are still victims of legal and illegal


eviction by farm owners and their desperation for land they can call their own. The report could not correctly put into words the desperation of the elderly across the country who have been waiting for years to have their land restored and the failure of the democratic state to ensure that there’s a thorough going resolution on the land question. Despite this, we allowed the process to go through because we thought that as black people we’re collectively victims of colonial land disposition and apartheid land removals we will be able to find each other when amending the Constitution.



We are here to report to the people who have entrusted us with the responsibility of amending the Constitution to ensure a swift return of their stolen land that the dominant black political parties could not find each other on this question. The EFF made cogent submission on the amendments needed to have far reaching effects on the reposition of land by the African majority. All these submissions were out rightly rejected by the ruling party which has preoccupied itself with maintaining the status quo and protecting the interest of white land owners. We submitted the section 25(2) of the Constitution must be amended to explicitly state that land may be expropriated without compensation. We also submitted that section 25(3) which provides for compensation for


expropriation should be removed completely and be replaced with a positive provision allowing for state custodianship of the land. We also initially submitted that the section that provides for land restitution must be removed in order for the country for focus to on redistribution land reposition program not one with limited scope as land restitution is currently.

All these submissions were rejected by the ruling party.



The Bill that this House is asked to approve today will take African people’s struggles for land repositions many steps back. The Bill which was rammed through the committee by the captured legal services of Parliament placated even the compromise position of the Constitutional Review Committee. According to this Bill compensation for expropriation will remain a default position, but provides for up score circumstances in which amount of compensation may be nil. The concept of nil compensation was never there when Parliament resort to adopt the EFF motion in 2018, and when it adopted the report of the Constitutional Review Committee. The nil compensation vocabulary was introduced by the legal office of Parliament in collaboration with and at the insistence of lobby groups that captured this process for their own selfish interests.


We rejected the assertion of nil compensation simply because it is vague and will in essence provides for extra limited instances in which compensation could be at below the market value of the land. We now know that the process of expropriation Bill which ran parallel to the constitutional amendment process has defined conditions under which land can be expropriated at nil compensation. These conditions include abandoned land, land that possess health and environmental risks, state land, etcetera. This do not constitute the type of land needed to comprehensively deal with the land question in this country. We’ve also made substantial submission for state custodianship of land as the only land tenure arrangement that will allow for a broad-based redistribution of land and for ensuring strong security of tenure for the majority of the people.



The current Bill makes meaningless provision for the state to be a custodian of certain land and does not define what this certain land is. If this Bill is allowed to pass it will significantly sell-out position and it will undermine the struggles of black people. The practical implications of this Bill will be far worse than the current property clause of the Constitution. we have tried to reason with the ANC on several occasions and it has become very clear to us that the ruling


party does not represent the interests of the dispossessed masses of our people. There are hell-bent on protecting the interest of the settler minority and oppressive and exploitative system of land holding as represented by the current free hold arrangement to title.



We reject this Bill and call on millions of our people to do whatever it takes to get their land back. We tried, but the parliamentary process was hijacked by the ANC and their handlers and unless we have overwhelming majority in Parliament, black people stay landless in this country. Our people must take it upon themselves to ensure that they return what was stolen from them. This process is a failure, and the ANC is completely captured by white monopoly capital and it will not do anything in its power to return the land to the rightful owners. It is led by cowards who don’t want to offend their handlers because majority of those who lead the ANC today were themselves spies and they were captured when they were young. Therefore, they can’t offend those who handled them when they were young because their files will be released. We are dealing with a complete bunch of sell-out who are scared to deal with the land issue decisively.


We call on South Africans to know that it is now in their hands, they must stop trusting that the ANC can do anything in its power to give them the land back. They must take it upon themselves to reclaim that which was stolen from them and the EFF will be fully behind them when they engage in that struggle of taking back the land that was stolen from them by children of criminals.



Deputy Speaker, the EFF rejects this Bill because it’s a complete departure from the radical proposal that we have made. Ours remain and will never change, expropriation of land without compensation, not even with nil compensation. We don’t want compensation at all and we want the state to be the custodian of the land.





Ke fet?a ka go realo. [Tsenoganong.]





The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order, hon members. Let’s give hon E M Buthelezi a chance to speak. Hon member at the back there, can you stop shouting. This is repeated, you are not hackling. Now, you’re making your fulltime job to speak with everybody else in the House. No, no. Can you stop, please


man? Hon Mashego, have some order, Ntate. Please man, jaa! And you’re doing it badly when you have a mask on, it’s impolite for that reason too, please. Go ahead, hon Singh.



Mr N SINGH: Hon Deputy Speaker, let me at the beginning say that I have not been at Home Affairs to change my surname from Singh to Buthelezi, but hon Buthelezi, who serves on this committee is having network problems. The position of the IFP on this Bill is as follows: We are told that the Bill amending section 25 of the Constitution, the property clause, is the product of the will of the people. What we have been told is simply smoke and mirrors. It cannot be further from the truth. This Bill, if adopted will not change land ownership patterns.



The process has been used as a political tool to manipulate the ordinary South Africans who are not legal experts into believing that the Constitution, not he government, is at fault for the complete failure to advance land reform. [Applause.]



The reason for slow progress is simple: The government is corrupt. The government has abused land reform projects to benefit the elite and cadres of the governing party for decades.


Less than two weeks ago, an Eastern Cape official in the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development was found guilty on charges of fraud of more than R2,6 million relating to a land distribution grant. While some government officials are stuffing their pockets, hardworking African farmers are waiting desperately for government assistance.



The IFP has always remain resolute that land reform and restitution must take place urgently. There is a desperate hunger for land claims to be settled and for financial and business assistance to be given to emerging farmers. Sadly, there is no will.



It has all been a political game, at the cost of the people of South Africa. The fact that the committee kept on asking for extensions to finalise this Bill is evidence of this political game.



The IFP strongly believes the last-minute amendments made to the Bill, to introduce, and I quote, “state custodianship of certain land” in section 25(5) did not fall within the mandate of the committee and was just a political move. The committee was mandated to, and I quote, “make explicit that which is implicit in the Constitution with regard to expropriation of


land without compensation”. How is the introduction of state custodianship of certain land making explicit that which is implicit regarding expropriation? Why should the people have any trust in government to act as a custodian of certain land? How on earth will this land be returned to the dispossessed?



The committee not only ignored its mandate but it also went against the advice of Parliament’s legal services. The team cautioned that the committee should seek the House’s approval for amending further provisions for the 2019 Draft Bill. It did not do so.



We are told that the Bill represents the views of the people, however committee members only saw a report of about 150 000 public submissions received in July 2021. Is that the will of the majority of the people? The process followed raises many, many questions.



The IFP believes that section 25, as it is currently framed is certainly broad enough to justify that it may be just and equitable in a specific case for nominal compensation to be paid on expropriation.


Our Constitution has never endorsed a market-value approach. It may even be just and equitable in a specific case that nil compensation or zero Rand is justified. However, this should be in very limited circumstances and we believe the court should always act as arbiter in this determination. There is absolutely no need to amend the Constitution to test these constitutional powers.



What we desperately need is the will of the government, the will to act, the will to use the Constitution to advance land reform. This Bill is not the solution. An efficient, dedicated and corruption-free government is the only solution.



Let me say, from 1998, when land claims were opened, there are still thousands of claims that have still not yet been processed just to find out whether the prima facie evidence of those claims. That is the biggest problem that we are having here. The administration is just not up to the task of ensuring that legitimate claims are brought before the Land Claims Court or the Land Claim Commissioner to deal with them.



Hon Minister, hopefully, when you speak later, you might say that the Bill that you have introduced about the new Land


Claims Court ... [Time expired.] The IFP rejects the Bill. Thank you. [Applause.]



The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Go ahead. [Interjections.] Hon Chief Whip,







Ons sê nie so nie. Dirks het ’n manier om dit te sê.



Dr C P MULDER: Deputy Speaker, I would like to start off by reacting to the speech of hon Motshekga. The one point that hon Motshekga made throughout was that the ANC truly represents the will of the people. You felt very strongly about that. My question would then be: What happened on 1 November? On the 1 November, it was clear that you did not truly represent the will of the people; you got below 50%.



The second point I would like to make, hon Motshekga, of cause, with regard to history, and you gave us a lesson, you are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts, when it comes to history.



Lastly, with all due respect, you did not refer in one single word to the Bill itself.


If you want to change the Constitution or an entrenched section of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, you cannot make a single procedural error, not one. In this process, many errors were made. It started with the Constitutional Review Committee. Three different ad hoc committees followed. Most procedural mistakes were made during the Constitutional Review Committee process and the other two ad hoc committees.



Then we had the public participation process. We had public hearing in the provinces. Thirty-three were held originally. Let us say 1 000 people attended. Approximately 33 000 people expressed their opposition to not amending. They wanted to amend, but 630 000 plus written submissions were received, of which 75% were against amendment. They had oral submissions at Parliament and of the 53 submissions that were heard, 41, 77%, were against. Those were policy-makers, civil society organisations and academics.



What are the consequences of land expropriation without compensation? Amending section 25 of the Constitution to provide for the expropriation of land or property without compensation will make all property rights null and void. The erosion of property rights in South Africa will create uncertainty and it will inevitably divert potential investment


away from the country and will ultimately result in economic failure and the collapse of South Africa.



Section 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as contained in the International Bill of Human Rights clearly states, one, everyone has the right to own property, alone as well as in association with others. Two, no none shall be arbitrary deprived of his property.



The implementation of land expropriation without compensation is in contravention of the International Bill of Rights. It is also in conflict with about a dozen treaties that South Africa signed in the past.



What does the Bill actually say? First section, “where land and any improvement thereon are expropriated for the purposes of land reform, the amount of compensation payable maybe nil”. This is completely unacceptable. Whenever provision is made for a nil compensation, we are dealing with confiscation. Nil compensation as a term is being used by the ANC because they are too embarrassed and too shy to tell the international community that the democratic government of South Africa is prepared to take people’s property without any compensation.

Nil compensation means exactly the same as no compensation.


The second provision says that “national legislation must provide circumstances where the amount of compensation is nil”. The right to own property is a fundamental right entrenched in the basic international principles of the rule of law. That is why the rule of law is entrenched in the South African Constitution in the founding provisions on section 1(c). It can only be amended with a 75% majority. So, don’t be under the impression that you need two-thirds; you need 75% today and you will not even get two-thirds.



It is absolutely disingenuous to try and undermine these principles by way of all the legislation where only a 50% majority of the NA will be sufficient. This will be unconstitutional and in direct conflict with the current provisions of section 25(2)(b) and 25(3) of the South African Constitution.



The ANC has gone through this process. It took almost three years in which we have been creating political uncertainty in terms of what is going to happen with property rights in South Africa. The ANC has gone through this process until today.

Today, it is quite clear that you do not represent the will of the people in terms of this, because the majority is not supporting what you are trying to achieve.


Can you please then come to the reality and look in terms of international best practice. What do countries that grow do? They guarantee property rights; they guarantee the rule of law. What you are trying to achieve is not going to succeed. It is going to be a failure today. The FF Plus will definitely vote against this proposal. Thank you very much.



Mr W M THRING: Deputy Speaker, allow me to theologically correct the hon. Motshekga. The original sin was man turning away from God. This was perpetuated by 27 years of the current administration, failing to properly and legally restore dispossessed land. The ACDP has always acknowledged the need for reformation and restitution of the land. The question however, is not in the why, but how? We have consistently said that, expropriation without compensation, is not the ... [Inaudible] ... to the land question. Property rights must be protected, because a failure to protect property rights and to issue title deeds to property owners or domestic business will not invest where there is no security for their assets.



The ACDP agrees with former President Kgalema Motlanthe, who when he spoke in July 2019, at a dialogue on agricultural development, said:


If property is not protected by law, society as we understand it today, will disappear because the kind of anarchy and chaos that would ensue is difficult to imagine.



We cannot allow this to happen.



It is the view of the ACDP that from a legal and constitutional perspective, it is not necessary to amend section 25 of the Constitution, as the Constitution is existing restitution of the act. It protects property rights and also recognises the need for the restoration of rights to those who have been dispossessed of their land.



The problem was the failure to implement the existing policy and legislation, mainly due to incompetence, mismanagement and corruption, particularly in the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, as highlighted by both the Kgalema Motlanthe High Level Panel Report, as well as the Special Investigation Unit report into the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform.



From an ethical perspective, the ACDP supports orderly land reform and the restitution of land with compensation,


understanding the need for fast resolutions to the land issue as land grabs escalate around the country. We must support as many South Africans as possible, to gain access to land, with title deeds, while protecting all property rights and ensuring that just and equitable compensation is paid for any land that is expropriated.



The ACDP commits to strengthening access to security of tenure, as well as the freedom to acquire, utilise, rent and sell property, including land. We must prioritise rural and agricultural development, guarantee food security and assist small and emerging farmers to become commercially viable, by having better access to finance and markets.



We support a just, equitable, transparent and corrupt free, land restitution process, believing that when we unite, build and grow together, it is possible to enjoy a safe, healthy, and prosperous South Africa. The ACDP does not support this amendment Bill. I thank you.



Mr B H HOLOMISA: Mr B H HOLOMISA: Deputy Speaker and hon members, the new SA Constitution was written as our societal and moral compass. It is however good that Parliament has finally taken time to consider the amendment of section 25


which had caused so much hurt to the majority of South Africans and that, the National Assembly votes on it today.



From the UDM’s point of view, we are satisfied that our voice was heard and that the Bill in its current form does not put a time limit on the unfair dispossession of land. Should 1913 have been used as the initial cut-off date whilst many indigenous people forcibly lost their land long beofre then, it would have meant that this entire process was doomed to fail. In fact, that date should never ever be brought up in this context again.





Mandize kuwe ke lungu elihloniphekileyo uMotshekga. Inyaniso mhlekazi ilapha, ...





... the liberation movements ...





... ziye zalwa ngaphambili. Kodwa ke njengoko kudla ngokuthi kuliwe kwamanye amazwe esilwelwa inkululeko kubakho ezi ndawo zibizwa ngokuba zii ...




... liberated zones ...





... kuthiwe le indawo yeyenu ukuze uthi usiya etafileni usiya kuxoxa ube unendawo onayo. Ingxaki esinayo thina yile yokuba asikhange sibenabo obo buncwane. Akukho ne ...





... square inch of the land. There is not even one liberation movement that can say, we liberated this piece of the land in South Africa.





Ngoko siye etafileni siboqoza iminqwazi sisiya kucela. Siye sathi nalo Mgaqo-siseko sele siwufumene kwaye sine ...





... two thirds majority ...





... sahlala phantsi asaguqula nto kuMqaqo-siseko, kwatyiwa imali, njengokuba isatyiwa nangoku. Lilonke intom endinokuyicebisa yile ithi, i-ANC mayikhe ihlale namanye


amaqela opolitiko la abantu bakuthi sikhe siphunge ikofu. Okwesibini masikhe sizame ...





... to approach Britain and the Dutch for them to assist us with finances of relocating...





... umhlaba wabantu ukuze uye ebantwini. Abo bafuna ukuba ngamafama bakwazi ukuncediswa. Le into yokuba simana singxolelwa ngapha nangapha kule Ndlu ngabantu ...





... that are protecting the privileges that they have ...





... ayizukusisa ndawo.



USEKELA SOMLOMO: Ingathi njengele selikuphelele ixesha.



Mr B H HOLOMISA: All right bye-bye. [Laughter]



Mr V ZUNGULA: Deputy Speaker, as the ATM we want to express our utmost disappointment in the ANC and its collaborators for


misleading the people of South Africa into thinking that, today is a historic day to mark the amendment of section 25 of the Constitution to effect expropriation of land without compensation. The problem started in this House where the amended motion was converted into a resolution. The resolution adopted by the House betrayed the fundamentals as contained in the amended motion.



In short, substituting expropriation without compensation with expropriation with nil compensation is the essence of the sham. The sham continued in the public hearings countrywide until COVID-19 disrupted that programme. Despite the overwhelming mandate by the people of South Africa in the initial public consultations, in the second public consultations is where the sham was propagated. The Parliament Committee did not explain to the people of South Africa that the second consultation was meant to provide input into the Bill. People were confused why they were being asked about what they had already given mandate for, and some wishy-washy answer was given and the Bill was not even circulated, explained or discussed.



Therefore, to come here and claim that public hearings to the Bill were conducted is pure lies and misrepresentation. As the


ATM, we hold the strong and uncompromising view that, passing this Bill would be the biggest sell-out action that this Parliament could have done. Passing this Bill needs five things:



1. The principle to compensate continues to be entrenched.


2. The market value consideration continues to be entrenched.

3. Courts decide if a case has been made or not for the so- called nil compensation.

4. Section 25(7) of the Constitution which sets out the cut- off date for land redistribution and restitution as at 19 June 1913 onwards remains intact. Meaning all of the land that was robbed form our forefathers in the 1700’s will remain in the hands of the land robbers. Section 25(7) of the Constitution in its current form sanitises land looting.



In our written submission as the ATM we have proposed that 19 June 1913 date be backdated to 06 April 1652 when Jan van Riebeeck first set foot in South Africa.



In conclusion Deputy Speaker, the ATM is pleading with the ANC to withdraw the Bill and go back to the drawing board. This


Bill must be withdrawn and sent to the people of South Africa for their input and for them to achieve the mandate they have been given. As the ATM we are offering our votes and our support on a Bill that is genuine, a Bill that would benefit the people of South Africa not ...





... le nto siyifunayo. Umhlaba mawubuyele ebantwini balapha eMzantsi Afrika. Enkosi.



Mr S N AUGUST: Hon House Chairperson, our country has a painful land history. Colonial and apartheid laws were the weapons of land dispossession for the majority of land enrichment for the minority. That is a pattern of land ownership that persist today. It is an immoral and unjust pattern. Good agrees that there is an urgent need to accelerate land reform and to address the spatial and economic injustices of dispossession and landlessness.



Good agrees that expropriation is a legitimate tool to fix these injustices. Expropriation is nothing new. Expropriation of farms, homes, land and movables went on for decades. It was enabled by the laws of hateful regime who created a system that was declared a crime against humanity.


Expropriation by the state continued under the current 1975 Expropriation Act. The states right to expropriate property for public purpose and in the public interest was included in the new South African Constitution.



Expropriation by all three spheres of government has continued throughout the democratic era. In practice, political parties who today oppose expropriation as a legitimate tool to achieve land reform, continued to expropriate land where they are in government.



The question of expropriation without compensation is already settled law. Section 25 of the Constitution already provides that no compensation maybe paid, if it is just an equitable. There is therefore no need to amend the Constitution to achieve a just equitable and an accelerated land reform programme that includes no compensation when appropriate.



Hon House Chairperson, the 18th Amendment Bill is intended to make explicit that which is implicit. However, the interpretation of the section 25 of the Constitution, has already been confirmed by the Constitutional Court 2002 in the case of the First National Bank of SA Limited v the Minister of Finance, and the Constitutional Court said that there are


appropriate circumstances where it is permissible legislation in the broader public interest to deprive persons of property without payment of compensation.



The Minister of Public Works and Infrastructure, recently published the Bill to amend the law of general application. The Expropriation Act to excessively provide for the circumstances under no compensation would be just an equitable. We must adopt that Bill and get on with it. Our failure to adequate address land reform is not a failure of the Constitution and in particular section 25.



Good supports the need to urgently to speed up our land reform programme. We do not support amendment of the Constitution, because it is unnecessary, for expropriation with no compensation is already provided for in section 25 of the Constitution as it is now. Thank you.



Mr N P MASIPA: Hon House Chairperson, the tabling of the report to amend the Constitution to allow expropriation without compensation comes at a critical time in our country’s agricultural sector. Both black and white farmers are concerned about their security of tenure because of the proposed amendment of the Constitution. The financiers are


already taking a cautious approach in their support of farmers because of the ill-conceived proposed expropriation without compensation’s threat to security of tenure.



The investors have already left the Land Bank because they could not withstand the uncertainty created by this constitutional amendment amongst other things. It is house to let at the moment. At the moment the institution is clueless with no strategic direction.



The gross ineptitude of the ANC has progressively led to many


black farmer’s failures in the agriculture and land reform. Today the same organisation is leading this country towards poverty and hunger. Let us call a spade, a spade.



When the EFF actions its radical fantasies in this House, the whole of the ANC follows without question. [Interjections.]



We are debating the amendment of the Constitution, because the President of the country is caught between increasing fractions party from the disintegrating and appeasing an intransigent EFF.


It was clear in our committee deliberations on this Bill that the ANC comrades did not have a clue as to what is wrong with the Constitution. The real problem faced by black farmers, under the failing ANC-led government, is the ANC corruption. [Applause.]



Crime and poor unco-ordinated farmers support, farm inputs inflation, lack of the market access, failing agriculture state-owned entity, SOE, and the lack of customised financing institutions.



The corrupt ANC-led government’s problems are being compounded by a need to appease a quarter of upstarts from the EFF, Good and ATM who now seek to call the shots through scare mongering policies.



Mr President, appeasing these political babies and the radical economic transformation, RET, forces in your party, is going to lead to the destruction of food security and commercial agriculture in this country. [Applause.]



The section 25 Constitution is not the problem. The problem is the ANC corruption. The litany of problems faced by the black farmers can be summerised as follows: Poor financial support,


the bankrupt Department of Water and Sanitation, the unco- ordinated farmers support, poor biosecurity corruption in the agricultural SOE, the demise of the Land Bank and the land reform failures.



In conclusion, the emerging farmers are faced with a litany of problems. It took the DA to secure Mr Rakgase a farm, after the ANC-led government spend years trying to disposes him of his land. [Applause.]



To the red beret, it is broken and unequal education system that is perpetuating poverty and inequality. To the failing ANC, it is your corruption and your inability to realise and enforce the rights set out in the Constitution and not the Constitution.



The inability to issue more water licenses has failed the land reform dismally. There is absolutely nothing implicit in the Constitution that needs to be explicit to make the government to do what it needs to do.



The DA reject this amendment and calls on all members in this


House who value the rule of law and this country’s economic


future to join us in rejecting this amendment. I thank you, hon House Chairperson. [Applause.]





very much House Chairperson. Hon members, the President the Republic of South Africa and the Deputy President, fellow South Africans, today, we continue to set in motion a process to consolidate and complete a journey that was initiated by Solomon Plaatjie, the first Secretary-General of the African National Congress... [Interjections.] ...



The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T FROLICK): Hon Minister, hold on. May I just request the hon Deputy Minister of Home Affairs to switch of his microphone please, it is disturbing your speech. Please proceed, hon Minister.





first major campaign of the South African Native National Congress, the predecessor of the ANC, was against the Glen Grey Act of 1894, which was consolidated into the Land Act of 1913, a measure that drastically dispossessed and curtailed the right of Africans to own or occupy land throughout the union.


Today, we stand to complete that which Inkosi uBhambatha died for. We stand to complete the fight against the original sin of land dispossession which left 87% of the population to be living under 13% of the land. The forces on the extreme left and the extreme right who stand opposed to progressive policies, their entanglement will be exposed today. When forces in the extreme left and the extreme right converge against the people, it is a counter revolution.



In this entanglement the EFF, DA and the FF Plus pretend not to be in the same bed. They behave like couples who have celebrated Lobola, yet they tell the whole world they’re not married. How ironic that they vote together in local government. They have pronounced that they will vote together today to oppose the Bill, yet they continue to tell the people of this country that they are not coalition partners. It is clear that this entanglement has graduated into a coalition.

They are agreeing on everything including opposing land reform.



From the African claims, the Freedom Charter, Ready to Govern and the Reconstruction and Development Programme, RDP, the ANC always advocated for equitable distribution of land to the people of this country.


Our land reform policy is anchored on three pillars: The restitution of land rights that has been dispossessed in terms of the colonial laws, improvement of security of tenure for those whose land rights were weakened by apartheid laws; and Land redistribution.



Presently, data from government and academia presents a wide gap, with the government suggesting that the land transferred from white South Africans to fellow black between 1994 to 2020, is roughly 11%. While some economists suggest that we have made progress to around 20%. Government has recently released an additional 700 000 hectors of land to beneficiaries of land reform. While the land reform programme has been slow, there has been some progress.



Some of the challenges experienced during the implementation of the land reform programme since 1994 are the following: Exorbitant land prices and protracted negotiations to settle claims, complexities of settling rural land claims in the absence of documented evidence, fraudulent claims, non- disclosure by claimants, and completing claims on the same piece of property. It is against this background that expropriation without compensation must be one of the policy


instruments which must be availed to the state to accelerate land reform.



At its 54th National Conference, the ANC resolved to expropriate land without compensation in order to give effect to land reform and redistribution. The expropriating authority performing an expropriation exercises, exercise public power and by that virtue, is bound by the rules of administrative laws. Issues of procedural fairness, reasonableness, legality and proportionality are applicable.



The process of arriving at the amount of compensation must be rationally connected to the purpose. The courts have timeously remarked that the means must justify the end. The essence of the ANC’s 54th Conference Resolution is to expropriate land without paying for it under certain conditions. The International Property Law, which binds South Africa, recognises nil compensation. It is against this background that we support the wording on the Bill of “nil compensation.” If it is in practice it will mean the same as expropriation without compensation. And it is accepted across the globe.



The ANC advocates for a multiple land tenure of ownership system where the state will own land for its own use or to


lease. Natural and juristic persons will equally be afforded an opportunity to have free hold or title deeds. Communal land will also be recognised to ensure security of tenure.



South Africa is a mixed economy hence our land tenure ownership system should mirror our social and economic construct; it should also facilitate economic or social participation by any land holder. One form of land tenure would not suite our unique social construct. Hon members, in fact, most countries across the globe have multiple forms of tenure on land ownership. Including China which has got ownership by the state and also by communities. China is also developing towards protecting private rights. That was done in their Constitution in 2004.



In order to create an egalitarian society, to speed up land reform, restore the dignity of our people and redress the injustices of the past, the ANC supports the report of the Adhoc committee and the proposed Constitution Eighteenth Amendment Bill. The amendment Bill is line with long held ANC historic policy positions on land reform. We support the Bill as it will add into the arsenal or in the tool box for our land reform legislation.


The Eighteenth Amendment Bill in section 25 of the Constitution will make explicit that which is implicit in the Constitution. All jurisdictions across the globe have an expropriation instruments. In the United States of America, USA, they call it the eminent domain or the taking law and many other jurisdictions call it expropriation. I hope hon Steenhuisen is listening. In all these jurisdictions, the issue of compensation, just, nil or without, has been debated by legislators, jurists, economists and society at large.

Therefore, as a country, we are not barbarians in debating this matter.



To the DA and the FF Plus, expropriation is even in those countries you admire, like the USA and the Great Britain. All countries of the world have an instrument of expropriation. In all jurisdictions, land reform policies evolve. In some of the countries where the revolution came through war or a violent take over like China and Mozambique, they expropriated land without compensation during the transition period. But today in both countries any expropriation is accompanied by compensation.



Zimbabwe was a negotiated settlement on the land question, they later expropriated without compensation. Today, they are


in the process of compensating the farmers from whom they expropriated the land without compensation.



As South Africa, in 1994, we chose a path of a negotiated settlement, where land reform will go through a due process. Therefore, our policies on land reform must be transparent and be based on the just and equitable principles. There must be a due process to arrive at nil compensation and that is what the Bill is doing. Due to land hunger, which is more pronounced in urban areas, due to rapid urbanisation, the land must also be distributed to those who need it.



Hon members, we, want to warn against an opportunistic approach to land reform. The coalition partners of the DA and the EFF want us to believe that custodianship is the silver bullet to land reform. In the context of expropriation without compensation, the AgriSA case is important. The case dealt with the question of whether “certain deprivations caused by a regime change in rights in certain resources, amounted to an expropriation?” The Constitutional Court found that, on the specific facts in front of it, such a deprivation of property does not amount to a compensable expropriation, since the state does not acquire any property.


From the AgriSA judgment, we now know that it is possible to vest custodianship over minerals without passing ownership because there are no title deeds to begin with. But that is not the same with land, which is regulated by title deeds or free hold. With the land, you will need to first deprive the land owner to vest custodianship to the state.



The ANC led government has a practical understanding of state land ownership or custodianship as government has administered land on behalf of the state in various spheres of government, state-owned entities and communal land which is under state custodianship. Therefore, the state custodianship is nothing new to us nor a res nova as claimed by the EFF.



The government has also transferred land ownership from the state to beneficiaries of land reform. We have also leased land to beneficiaries of our land acquisition policy and we know the challenges our people faced in this regard. Majority of beneficiaries of the redistribution programme prefer freehold as it facilitates economic participation and does not render them perpetual minors at the behest of the state. Like the Tafelkop Community who fought for 25-years to receive their titles.


The Freedom Charter calls for land to be shared amongst those who work it, not the state. Land reform is meant to restore the dignity and the economic power of those dispossessed by the apartheid and colonial governments to change ownership patterns. State custodianship would be a hollow victory as it still denies the disposed the full economic benefits and dignity of owning their land. It also does not change the ownership patterns. Disconcertingly, we will have to explain to future generations why instead of unravelling the Glen Grey’s legacy, we chose to endorse and implement it.



We will be called upon to answer why our actions mirror the words of colonialists like John Scott who styled himself as Lieutenant-Governor of Natal who said and I quote:



An uncivilized person is not easily brought to understand the value of written titles; rightly to comprehend such a question requires an experience only obtainable by a considerable amount of social progress on his own part, and until he acquired such an improved status, no title could be given to him which did not contain provisions necessary to guard him against his own ignorance, and the superior knowledge of those around him.


This was closed by this governor. So, the EFF wants to take us back to the upheaval ages of the 1800s. The road that the EFF want us to walk on is not only dangerous it is backward, it is the anti-thesis of economic freedom and democracy.



Our land problem is not characterised by a lack of state ownership, it is compounded by the lack of security of tenure for the majority of our citizens. Our people during the public hearings, demanded to own their land. We cannot as this House respond by giving them less secure forms of tenure.



In reality, even those who are beneficiaries and the black people who have succeeded in buying land on their own means in the open market through the fruits of their labour would be deprived of their land under EFF’s model.



With a stroke of a pen, people in the townships like Soweto, Atteridgeville, KwaMashu, Lekazi, Seshego, to name a few, will wake up being tenants of the state. They will have to lease their land like they did under apartheid thereby being rendered perpetual minors of the state.



Those who worked hard over years to get free hold who were under the Bantu Administration Act, will surely feel betrayed


by government for taking them back into apartheid and for rendering them perpetual minors and that their assets must be administered for them by the state. The community of black people who hold title deeds, are not an insignificant minority.



The lease hold system has already been declared by our courts as unconstitutional in the Ingonyama Trust matter.



We will not be fooled by the EFF’s revolutionary sounding rhetoric that is counter revolutionary. The cult of the EFF can only fool its members who believe everything that comes from their supreme leader as gospel truth. They will flood Twitter to concur even if he can tell them that the township of Soweto is in Mpumalanga and it no longer in Gauteng.



Hon members, all progressive forces must support the Constitution Eighteenth Amendment Bill. The state must ensure that access to land is equitable. Some of us have not being shouting from stages, we have been working to create the policy framework for Expropriation with nil compensation.

There is no silver bullet or one legislative instrument that can solve our land reform challenges, we need a myriad of policies and legislation to resolve this challenge.


For us to create or facilitate the growth of the working class to a rural middle class, or to grow the black middle class, the forms of tenure must link both of them into mainstream of the economy. This House has in its midst the Expropriation Bill. The Expropriation Bill, 2019, sets the circumstances under which land may be expropriated with nil compensation, for instance where land is occupied by labour tenants, where land is unused but only kept to generate income from its appreciation, where land is abandoned and pose a health and physical risk to the people. The circumstances can be expanded. You also have in your midst the Land Court Bill which will help us to resolve land disputes and develop land jurisprudence.



The Department of Rural Development will also soon process the redistribution Bill. The high level panel report has shown us that for us to accelerate our land reform programme, we need to promulgate a redistribution Bill that will help us resolve land hunger. The department is also processing the Communal Rights Land Act that will guarantee security of turner for people under communal land.



Financial institutions should be able to give access to money or resources when security of tenure is guaranteed on communal


land. In this way, we can unlock the economic potential of land held under communal systems. All the above Bills will be adopted by this House, hon Steenhuisen with or without your support, and your coalition partners, the EFF and the FF Plus.



We call upon all South Africans to join hands in the land reform program for equitable redistribution of the land. It is in the interest of everyone black and white that land reforms succeed. The skewed patterns of land ownership are not sustainable. They are not a benefit to anyone. To South Africans, the ANC support the Constitution Eighteenth Amendment Bill which is anchored on giving people the land. As per the call of the Freedom Charter.



As mama Afrika, Miriam Makeba sang:





Kudala sinyamezele Lifikil’ixesha Lenkululeko yethu

Manyanani ngoku alisekho ixesha lokulila


Mayibuye ngok’iAfrika



Silwel’izwe lakowethu


Elathathwa ngabamhlophe


Sesifun’inkululeko. Ndiyabulela.



Mr A M SHAIK EMAM: Hon House Chair, allow me to start off by extending our condolences to the family of the farm worker who was gunned down allegedly by the farm owner offside Paarl a few days ago. House Chairperson, let me start off by saying that we must agree that the current legislation does allow for the Expropriation without Compensation. Let me also add that if there is anyone in this country who is the rightful heir to the land of this country, then it has to be the Khoi, San and the Bushmen. The first indigenous nation in this particular country.



Now, what has given rise to come here to debate this Bill? It is as a result of our failure or a limited progress that we have made because section 25 of the Constitution provides for Expropriation without Compensation. But House Chairperson, why are we debating what happened many years ago? Currently, as we speak, people’s rights have been violated. People are being evicted mercilessly and very little or nothing is being done about it.


Prime land is being sold to ensuring that we give back the dignity and identity of our people by providing them with land in this country. If you talk about the Khoi and San, the people of District Six and you talk about the people in the rural land under the Ingonyama Trust, all these people continue to have their rights violated.



The NFP will never support the nationalisation of the land in South Africa. So, for those political parties that are talking about nationalisation, they will not get our support. We believe that this would affect the rights of the individuals to own their own land and their property. Having said that, we must be very careful as to what Bills we pass in future as we know there is a lot of instability in this country, currently. The decisions we make today may come back to impact negatively on house owners and land owners in years to come.



House Chairperson, let me go one step further. We talk about compensation. Yes, indeed, there was no talk about compensation many years ago when our people had their rights violated and were forcefully removed from prime land on the length and breadth of this country. Suddenly, we are talking about giving no compensation and in my understanding it is exactly the same thing as the Expropriation without


Compensation. We believe that in right of the fact that one’s identity and dignity dictates who you are that land should be provided to all citizens of South Africa. Chairperson, we must not take the land from one and give it to the other for the sake of giving. [Time expired.]



Mr W M MADISHA: House Chairperson, land restitution is extremely important. In fact, land and land tenure transformation ought to have happened more than a quarter of a century ago after the adoption of the country’s Constitution. Because that transformation did not happen, many South Africans are faced with, among others, the daily transportation of food that goes beyond R100 billion. Racism and torture continue and that the majority of South Africans cannot afford.



The question that we need to ask ourselves is that, who is responsible for that whole thing. The present government has not done that which was supposed to do. There is a lot of land, that is, the land that has not been used, land that has not been used to its full potential, land that was left by those who ran away when democracy arrived and massive land in the few hands even today. All these wrongs must be corrected given that many decisions are taken but never implemented,


like what we are here discussing today. Cope calls for an urgent land audit which shall be followed by a proper land redistribution but not theft and corruption. We assure that South Africans do not fall into the incorrect basket such as it happened wrongly in Zimbabwe.



Cope says a ten-point plan must be adopted. That plan will include the full audit of all the nine provincial land reform offices and the more than the 36 operational regions. The governing and functioning of the Land Bank and the redistribution for agricultural development for programmes which must be equipped to inter alia help all the previously disadvantaged people to become land owners and farmers so that they can play advantageous role for themselves and all the poor people in the country. The poor but new land owners must be helped with the capacity to participate in equity schemes so that they can be allowed to access grants to buy into the agricultural enterprise. More has to be done. I want to say that more was to be done by this committee which gave the report but more was not done. Therefore, more needs to be done by this committee. Please go back and do more. Thank you very much.





Nks T M MBABAMA: Sihlalo weNdlu, mandibulise kuwe nakubantu baseMzantsi Afrika jikelele. Ingxoxo yanamhlanje ingoMthetho oYilwayo onenjongo zokutshintsha uMgaqo-siseko ukulungiselela ukuXuthwa koMhlaba ngaphandle kweMbuyekezo. Siyi-DA asivumelani nalo Mthetho oYilwayo ngezi zizathu zilandelayo:



Xa kuthethwa ngokoxuthwa komhlaba kuthethwa ngomhlaba wonke walapha eMzantsi Afrika. Lo mhlaba uquka loo ndlu yakho yakhelwe kuwo nokuba usedolophini, ezilalini okanye ezifama. Lo Mthetho uYilwayo ufuna ukuba wonke umhlaba ubephantsi korhulumente baze abemi beli lizwe benze isicelo, kurhulumente worhwaphilizo, xa befuna indawo yokwakha okanye indawo yokushishina. Loo nto ithetha ukuba akusayi kubakho mntu oza kubanesiqinisekisi sobunini sendawo yakhe.



UKhongolose ke yena ebecace kwaphaya ekomitini ukuba ...





... the tail is wagging the dog.





Kutsho isiNgesi. Makhe ndibuze bahlali. Njengokuba le nkululeko yafumaneka nzima kangaka nje, ngegazi lezihlwele, ingaba niza kuvuma kusini na ukuba ilungelo lenu lokuba


ngoositandi noomasitandi loxuthwe yi-EFF ne-ANC? Kutheni ningasayi kubanazo iziqinisekisi zobunini nje phantsi kwalo rhulumente enithi ngurhulumente wenkululeko? Kutheni le nto kuza kuxuthwa wonke umhlaba, kuquka nalo wezindlu zenu enizisebenzele nzima? Kutheni le nto kuza kufuneka niye kucela imvume kurhulumente we-ANC xa niza kwenza nantoni na edibene nemihlaba? Lo ngurhulumente worhwaphilizo, urhulumente oqasha amalungu awo kwizikhundla eziphezulu (cadre deployment).



Abantu bacinga ukuba kuza kuxuthwa umhlaba wamafama amhlophe kuphela. Nokuba kunganjalo, nicinga ukuba lo rhulumente angakwazi ukuwahlula-hlula lo mhlaba ngendlela efanelekileyo neza konelisa wonke umntu? Aniyicingi into yokuba ezo fama ziya kunikwa oogxa babo njengesiqhelo? Vuka mhlali waseMzantsi, sisuka kwingcinezelo yorhulumente wocalulo kodwa ngoku nifuna ukuzifaka kwingcinezelo yabantu abafana nani kodwa abangenaxesha lenu namalungelo enu njengoko sibonile kule minyaka engama-28 sikhululekile.



Zifundeleni ngokwenu iCandelo lama-25 loMgaqo-siseko ukuze nizivele nani ukuba asikho isizathi sokutshintsha kwanto kweli candelo ukuze umcimbi wokulungelelanisa umhlaba ufezekiswe.

SiyiDA, sithi kuninzi okunokwenziwa kwakamsinyane ukulungisa izinto. Umzekelo, iKomishoni yamaBango oMhlaba mayinikwe


amandla awoneleyo okukhawulezisa amabango emihlaba yabantu. Urhulumente makanike bonke abantu abarenta kuye imihlaba iziqinisekisi zobunini zaloo mihlaba, njengoTat’uRakgatse waseNorth West.



Maninzi kakhulu amafama amhlophe anikezela ngeefama zawo njengo-Ellen Rigte waseMacleantown eMonti. Loo mafama mawabuyekezwe ngokwemiqathango ye-Valuer General karhulumente, abantu bafumane iziqinisekisi zobunini zezo fama. Musani ukuvuma, midaka yaseMzantsi Afrika ukuqhathwa ngabantu abafuna ukuqhubeka ngokuphatha gwenxa betyisana bodwa kuphela. Musani ukuva ngondiva, zifundeleleni uMgaqo-siseko phambi kokwamkela ingxelo eza kunenza nicinezeleke nangaphezulu kunakuqala.

Onendlebe uvile.



Mr M NYONTSHO: House Chairperson, the return of the land from colonial conquest is not a matter for debate. It is an imperative of the national liberation struggle. Land is synonymous with the dignity of the people. It is the territorial right of the indigenous people who in our case have fought with the foreign invaders to preserve their birth right and human dignity.


In the Act of 1909, the British government turn the African people into pariah in their own land, given the lie and falsehood that they found an empty land. The PAC and the African people cannot accept such injustice of a unserved land that continues to be in the hands of the settler community.



Land is not a commodity that can be owned by individuals. The expropriation of land without compensation grants white people and their blood stained title deeds, the ownership and the legitimacy to our land. We call for the return of the land. We call for the reposition of every inch of our land. We call for the land restoration. Azania deserves better.



Mr M G E HENDRICKS: Thank you very much, hon Chair. Hon House Chair, is sad and the ANC and the EFF did not show leadership on the eve of this debate. There cannot be a demand of the right in South Africa if 90% of property has been forcible taken so to white or given by King Edward and Winston Churchill and colonial powers to whites both English speaking and Afrikaners.



The ANC is the only substantial political party left over from the liberation movement and best placed to get forcible stolen land back. That’s why South Africans all over the countries


supported this 18th Amendment in large numbers, and that’s why


Al Jama-ah support the amendment as amended.



Al Jama-ah is grateful for the leadership of the Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee and future generations South Africans will forever be grateful to him or taking historical step to get their land back from whites who do not want to return one inch of land. For Muslims part of land and properties cannot be in the hands of the South African state and is best left in the control of the trustees appointed and recommended by itself.

Secret land like this for many cultural groups should not be in the hands of the state or entities like the contaminated land regime, CLR.



The Department of Public Works has control of secret land in past white areas and the signing of for the administration by white state urgency. Secret rituals cannot then be held at this heritage state.



The government must be ashamed for itself. Public Works must hang its head insane. Al Jama-ah cannot agree that all land must be in the hands of the state. Jan Van Riebeeck did not steal or forcible take land from Africans as we know them today. But violently took land from the Nama travel house the


Khoi and san. On Heritage Day, I joined the descendants of a Big Valley Bloubergstrand, the exact site where Van Riebeeck landed. Big Valley must be given back for rent paid for the land to the Nama nation. Whites did not pay the descendants for generations while they approved benefiting from apartheid. This stolen land some appropriated had legitimate low prices of confiscated in the best interest of justice.



And for starters, cut up in size of 100 square meters when no zoning restrictions and are located to voters as they turn 18 years with the title deeds.



Africans are in confiscated land and understand that the khoi and the san and slave descendants must be firstly in the queue for confiscated land. Al Jama-ah support the 18th Amendment.

Thank you very much, hon House Chair.



Adv G BREYTENBACH: Hon House Chair, hon members, the debate today on the Constitution 18th Amendment Bill is an incredible important debate must only be in the levels of so many reasons. The issue of land and the issue of land reform touches each South African. It goes to the very court that have be. It incaptudising essence all that had to be submitted as the American nations in 1994. This debate, the outcome


thereof in the process of dealing with this Bill has laid bare all of this emotions that we as a nation must be separately work through in the run up to the 1994 elections.



Today, hon members, we must remember how we felt on 27 April 1994. We must remember that we represent not ourselves with our narrow interest but every single person who is living in South Africa and their multiplicity ranges. We must today keep in only the best interest for South Africans. We must not lose sight to prepare that in 1994 we undertook to build a new South Africa, one in which human dignity was paramount and in which we wanted to enable a prosperous dignify life for all South Africans in which the Constitution was supreme and the rule of law upheld. Unfortunately, things had not turned out quite as we expected. The road to prosperity has been turned into the death trap of unfitted corruption, theft and greed.



A small group have been turning overnight billionaires while the rest are left to struggle hiccup a daily living and break under the massive burden of supporting a country with ever shrinking taxpayers. For 28 years, meaningful land reform has been ignored. Naïve it has been made to address this very pressing issue by the governing party. It has been kicked around like the preview of football hold out when its


political expedient to do so to score cheap points of the electorate and in trying to the back of the Cabinet immediately after elections.



This is a king to play with live ammunition. There cannot be good ending to it. This Bill we are debating today is still conceived the product of a deeply flawed process that would not stand up to the Constitution scrutiny. It has been made so about process itself was deeply flawed from the outset are suspect by design offered it back to the electorate. There was never defendable wall on the part of the governing party and some others to deal effectively, fairly and emphatically with the very complex question of land reform.



Public input was dealt within a perfectionary manner, subject matter expect were treated with suspicion and disdain while we had the opportunity to do a responsible with the matter that first each and every South African in a manner that will result in meaningful, effective and preserve of land reform that will impact positively on the latter of all South Africans.



Some parties use the opportunities to score cheap political points. This is nothing short of tragic. It is not what you


have been sent here to do. We must, hon members, oppose this flawed dangerous and superficial piece of legislation.



It does not in even the most implicit way address the needs for meaningful land reform in South Africa. It is not the answer to land reform question. [Interjection.] I am getting there. South Africans deserve so much better. We must as a matter of extreme urgency when this Bill has failed embark on a process that will address the land reform issue. Listen carefully ... [Laughter.] ... on an honest and fair basis that will result in fair and equitable land and redistribution therefore respect the Constitution, uphold the rule of law and meet the needs of their citizens and allow for increase food security, underpin property rights in rural economy and not destroyed. We must and we can develop a process by which all South Africans had attest to that and the dignity accompanies that but in a way that encourages investment by foreign and local and satisfies the desires of all South Africans.



The DA is very much luck to be part of such a process. The contribution of the ANC in this debate is the perfect explanation of why this process is fundamentally flawed. To entrust, Chairperson, it should be such a technical process to someone who is killing not living in sound reality as ordinary


South Africans like the hon Motshekga doom the process from the start. His unilateral decision to give fresh meaning to inputs by participants in the public hearings in itself fainted and wounded the process.



As to his statement today, that is, it is unfortunate that white members are allowed to vote in this debate and the value into lecturelism he pretends to way. This is a lie to the ramblings of an ailing for cadre whose present personifies the ANC is an outdated movement stuck in the past. The DA does not support this Bill. I thank you. [Applause.]



Ms K D MAHLATSI: Chairperson, Ministers, Deputy Ministers and Members of Parliament, when the late secretary-general of the SA Communist Party Comrade Christ Hani walk out of the Convention for a Democratic South Africa, Codesa, negotiations he said:



I didn’t go to prison, I wasn’t jumping around on the streets, I was in the forefront of the uMkhonto weSizwe, MK, soldiers, I was one of the first to cross the Zambesi River. I saw the blood of our people flowing like a river. They didn’t die fighting for a freedom of movement, but they died for the land. [Applause.]


Hon Chairperson, allow me to greet you in the name of the landless millions of fellow South Africans who were forcefully and brutally moved from their land following the formation of the whites-only Union of South Africa in 1910, which formalised the land theft and dispossession through the Native Land Act of 1913, in terms of which the criminal law against humanity, white people, criminally acquired 93% of the land while black people were given only 7%. Not only did the desperate and force removal of African people under colonialism and apartheid resulted in polarisation of South Africa society along racial lines, but also in extrema land shortages, insecure land rights and mass poverty for African people. This onslaught left millions of South Africans poor and landless.



We reiterate with renewed convictions that the land of our forbearers was stolen and it must be returned. As the ANC we are resolute on the amendment of section 25 of the Constitution in order to redress the historical injustice of the past with what President Cyril Ramaphosa has called the original sin.



The ANC since its formation has fought for the return of the land to its rightful owners. The resolution in South Africa is


central to the achievement of the national democratic society. It requires us to reflect critically and honesty to the impact of the transformative legislation. The mandate of the ad hoc committee to initiate and introduce legislation amending section 25 of the Constitution was made to make explicit that which is implicit in section 25 in order to allow for the expropriation of land without compensation,



Chairperson, land is a very emotive issue. It is delicate and must be treated as such. South Africa is rated the most unequal society in the world with poverty and landlessness bearing a black buttered feeds. The vast majority of black South Africans are land hungry and now land thirsty. In order to eradicate the vintages of colonialism and apartheid from our democracy, the ANC in its 2019 election manifesto recommitted itself to carry out sustainable land reform programme that will expand participation in an ownership of agricultural production, advance food security and help reverse apartheid spatial patterns. The ANC remains vigilant and responsible not to lead our people towards a process that will collapse the economy and the country.



Chairperson, in the spirit of unity and cohesion the ANC initiated and led bilateral with political parties to clarify


its position and find common grounds. There are different force narratives peddled against the ANC position. On the amendment of section 25 of the Constitution I will reflect briefly on them by giving the correct narrative of the ANC position on the and question. During the bilateral the DA and the FF Plus maintained their historical right-wing posture.

They continued to vehemently reject the submissions of the ANC. They careless about the people of Alexandre, Gugulethu, Khayelitsha, Caleb Motshabi and everywhere else where our people are subjected to vintages of colonial and apartheid legacy. Instead of contributing meaningfully to the democratic process, they choose to constantly threaten to take Parliament to court and challenge the amendment of section 25. They have no reason to challenge the legitimate and democratic process meant to atone the original sin. Theirs id to rule the country through the back door of threats. They threaten to take this process to court from day one.



The ACDP had no prayer for the original sin and choose to remain mouthpiece of the right-wing element. They were no different from the FF Plus even the words of Archbishop Tutu could not knock consciousness to their hearts when he said:


When missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said, let us pray. We closed our eyes. When we opened our eyes, we had the Bible and they had our land.



If the hon Rev Meshoe’s party cannot at least borrow wisdom from Archbishop Tutu the man of cloth, what more can be done. Even Isaiah 1:17 says:



Learn to do good, seek justice, correct oppression, bring justice to the fatherless.



Repeat after me, “Moruti” [Reverend). Correct oppression!



The IFP said nothing, hon Chairperson. Absolutely nothing! Their approach on the land question remain Ingonyama Trust and anything else doesn’t matter.



Chairperson, the EFF stands here and boldly lie to the nation that the ANC is not willing to implement its resolution on the land question. They have appointed themselves as spokesperson of the ANC on matters of national importance. The EFF has no clear policy direction. They have the slogan Azwigi: land and jobs, with a chorus of nationalisation of the land, but with


no clear policy. We met more with the EFF than any other political party during bilateral. We met more with the EFF more than any. [Interjections.] They just came to display their arrogance towards the resolution of the ANC on the land question. They came with demands heavily armed with rigid position and high level of unwillingness to negotiate even or when balance of evidence was not in their favour. They dislike anything progressive and they are very prone to anarchy.



The EFF is a victim of its own making, a result of their own misplaced ideological tool of analysis, a child concussion of what they have termed Marxist, Leninism and Fanonism. They have of recent dropped the Pan Africanism, Steve Bikoism, Thomas Sankarism from those tools. They move from one ideological theory to the other. Today, they don’t want the DA, tomorrow they impose themselves on the DA. These ones can never be trusted with the revolution. Amílcar Cabral had the lax of the EFF in his mind when he said:



Hide nothing from the masses of our people. Tell no lies. Expose lies whenever they are told. Mask no difficulties, mistakes, failures. Claim no easy victory.


To them we had nothing but cries of easy victory from the race circus.



We differed with the EFF in three issues, namely, state custodianship, nil compensation and the cut-off date on the Native Land Act. Let me clarify these issues. On state custodian the EFF maintain their position that the state should own land. We asked them about the security of tenure and frivolous title where each and every South African can have a right to total ownership of the land. They came up with a concept of quasi custodianship, an indication that the ideological tools of analysis are blunt. Fellow South Africans, quasi custodianship means that the state can allocate land to individual through contractual agreement.

However, it does not give guarantee to security of tenure. It therefore means that the state can remove anyone as long as it can justify its deeds. The quasi custodianship is nothing but a modern apartheid regime scam. This is what apartheid has done to our people. It removed them from the prime and lucrative land to barren land. We rejected their proposals and maintained the two spirit of our Freedom Charter precisely because the fundamental basis of all wealth and power is the ownership and acquisition of freehold title to land


The words of Dr A B Xuma, the elected president of the ANC in 1940, during the presidential address on 14 December 1941.

Fellow South Africans, you have a right to land as stipulated in the Bill of Tights. The ANC is not confused. We cannot continue to distribute tittle deeds to our people and still hold the land, the very same land on their behalf.



Hon Chairperson, on the compensation at no point did the ANC propose tax to the amendment section 25 speaks of compensation. Instead we speak of nil compensation. The ANC’s choice in the usage of words, nil compensation, is in line with acceptable global standards and informed by the international and the Constitution prescribes that we take such into consideration. I hope hon Thring is listening. Had they read the amendment carefully without emotions, they would have known that consideration or compensation is for improvements and not on the land.



Hon Chairperson, the ANC acknowledges that the Land Act of 1913 created a monster that formalised the land theft and dispossession in our country. However, in the spirit of equality given the shortage of land and land hunger, redistribution of the land remains the best alternative to anchor our land reform programme. The land has exchanged many


hands - numerous times for that matter. Based on the balance of evidence and the backlog on land claims. The removal of the Land Act of 1913 will regress the objective of our land reform programme. However, the ANC has not closed any further engagements on subsection 7 of section 25.



The realisation of expropriation of land without compensation does not end with the amendment of section 25 of the Constitution. This is one of the mechanism that will enable the state to realise its land reform policy objectives. For us in the ANC will forge ahead with the progressive land reform programme making effective implementation of its three pillars: restitution, redistribution and security of land tenure. We take this debate on land question as part of a continuous programme.



Hon Chairperson, allow me to speak to the caucus of the ANC led by the Chief Whip, Pemmy Castelina Pamela Majodina. I know how you feel, comrades. But I want you to remember the words of Thabo Mbeki when he said:



Gloom and despondency have never defeated adversity. Trying times need courage and resilience. Our strength as a people is ...





The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: House Chair, I was just wondering if the hon member at the podium would take a question about being part of the land as she owns two properties in the south ... [Interjections.]



The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T FROLICK): Hon member, I did not give you permission to ask her a question. There is no question.



Ms K D MAHLATSI: Absolutely not!



The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: So, two properties that ... [Interjections.]



The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon Chief Whip of the Opposition, you know the Rules. And you know that you are transgressing the Rules now.



Ms K D MAHLATSI: Gloom and despondency have never defeated adversity. Trying times need courage and resilience. Our strength as a people is ... not tested during the best of times.


Fellow South Africans there comes a time where slogan do not matter, and singing revolutionary songs do not matter. This is the time where numbers do matter. “Ba ahi ba Afrika Borwa”, [ South African citizens] no political party commands absolute two-thirds majority in this House. This is the time to see who are the true revolutionaries of our people. The 230 battalion of the ANC is here. The sons and daughters of John Langalibalele Dube, the first president of the ANC, are ready to handover the land of our forefathers to its rightful owners. To the DA and the FF Plus this is the time for you to be on the right side of history. To all other political parties let consciousness speaks to you. Remember the words of Solomon Kalusha Mahlangu when he said:



Tell my people that I love them and that they must continue to fight. My blood will nourish the tree that will bear the fruits of freedom. A luta continua!



The land was stolen, the land must be returned.



Hon Chairperson. Let me take this moment to respond to two issues. First, the DA and FF Plus, clearly there is confusion in terms of separation of powers. Payment of land would be executed by the executive, and not the judiciary. No court


will decide in terms of how much payment must be given to anybody in the process of land. Regarding the ATM and the FF Plus, the ATM and the EFF are sitting in the same bed. When we met with them they agreed on everything therefore we were not shocked with the views of the ATM on this podium. But unfortunately for the UDM, the general, you of all people.

When we wanted to meet with you, you refused. You never made any submissions on the amendment, however, you come here today and grand stand and speak of us selling out. Why didn’t you want to meet us while we are selling out? To the IFP, it is quite unfortunate, quite unfortunate, given the discussions and everything that have taken place. You come here and grand stand and speak about corruption in the ANC. Unfortunately, in your case yours is the Ingonyama Trust and nothing else. If we don’t speak about the Ingonyama Trust and nothing, you would not agree with us. Jon Mulder, maybe we must tell people of South Africa that you wanted ...[Interjections.]



Mr M HLENGWA: Hon Chairperson!



The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Take your seat, hon member. Why are you rising, hon member?



Mr M HLENGWA: Can the member take a question?


The MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT: Chairperson, I have been raising my hand forever.



The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Are you prepared to take a question, hon member Mahlatsi?



Ms K D MAHLATSI: No, Chairperson!



Mr M HLENGWA: I thought as much.



The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): The hon member is not prepared to take a question.



Mr M HLENGWA: Thank you very much.



The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): The hon member is not prepared to take a question, Please proceed, hon member.

Please proceed, hon member





check the sobriety of the hon Hlengwa?



The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Proceed!


Mr M HLENGWA: Hon Chairperson, on a point of order.



The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon Hlengwa, what is your point of order now?



Mr M HLENGWA: I would like the hon the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services to withdraw the remarks that he just made. It is out of order and quite frankly very childish.



The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): I didn’t hear the


remark, hon member.



Mr M HLENGWA: I would like you to study Hansard, but he knows exactly what he had said and if he has any honour he would withdraw it.



The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon member, I will look into the matter and I will deal with it if there was any transgression of the Rules. Continue, hon Mahlatsi.



Ms K D MAHLATSI: When we met with the FF Plus, while we were discussing about the cut-off date of the 1913, what they wanted asked us whether are we willing to give them a probond


Imagine in the democratic dispensation an organisation still believe that apartheid must still persist in this times.



With my 35 minutes that is left ... [Interjections.]



The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): No, hon member, I must disappoint you. Your time has expired. The officials at the Table did not restart the time. Unfortunately, your time has expired.



Ms K D MAHLATSI: We support this report.



The MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT: Chairperson, I have held my hand up for a long time. It is Minister Zulu.



The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Minister Zulu you are saying you have your hand up? I cannot see you hand from where I am sitting.



The MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT: Chairperson, I have had my hand up long before.



The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon Minister, it was not brought to my attention that you had your hand up.


The MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT: But that is exactly where the problem lies with the people working in front there. I am behaving in my best way. I was told I must raise my hand, and my hand is up. This is the second time where my hand is not seen.



The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Thank you, Minister. Hon members, that concludes the debate.






Debate concluded.



Question put: That the Bill be read a second time.



Division demanded.



The House divided.



The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): The Speaker had determined that, in accordance with the Rules, a manual voting procedure would be used for this division. Firstly, in order to establish a quorum, I would like to request the Table to confirm that we have the requisite number of members


physically present in the Chamber and on the virtual platform to take this decision. Party Whips would be given an opportunity to confirm the number of members present and indicate if they vote for or against the question. A member who wishes to abstain or vote against the party vote may do so by informing the Chairperson.



I have been informed by the Table staff that we do have a quorum and we will thus proceed.



Hon members, this Bill falls within the ambit of section 74 subsection 2 of the Constitution. A supporting vote of two- thirds of the members of the Assembly is therefore needed. This amounts to 267 votes in support of the Bill. Although a division has been called we would have put the matter to the House anyway. That’s the requirement of the Constitution.



A quorum being present in terms of Rule 98(1), voting commenced.








Question not agreed to in accordance with section 74(2) of the Constitution.



Bill accordingly not read a second time.









The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): You will recall that a point of order was raised by the hon Hlengwa and I undertook to the House that I will listen to the recording and look at the Hansard to see exactly what was said. It was not audible to me at that time. I sincerely had the opportunity to do so.



The Minister of Justice and Correctional Services said, and I quote: “Can we check on the sobriety of the hon member?” This was in reference to the hon Hlengwa. Therefore, the Minister was effectively asking whether hon Hlengwa is drunk. That is out of order and the Minister must withdraw.





Chairperson, I did not say he was drunk, but I was ... [Interjections.]


The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon Minister, you must withdraw the remark.





the remark, hon House Chairperson.






The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T FROLICK): Order hon members. There seems to be a Chief Whip of the DA gathering there at the back. We ask the members to either sit down or leave the chamber. Thank you.



Mr W T LETSIE: House Chair, before I table this report let me first start by passing heartfelt condolences to the families, friends, fellow students, the Orbit TVET community college on the passing of two student SRC, Student Representative Council, members who died by drowning in a pool of a hotel during an SRC retreat. Their death robbed this country of the


contribution they could have made to the future of this country. May their families and the college be comforted.



We would also like to thank the national leadership of SAFETSA, South African Further Education and Training Student Association, for informing the committee the following morning after the unfortunate incident happened and their willingness to help the police with the investigation.



Equally, let me take this opportunity to thank the Minister of Higher Education, Science and Innovation for deploying higher health to provide counselling to the college community and the families of the deceased. To the families and friends of these two young souls we say again ...





...ha meya ya lona e robale ka kgotso.





The NSFAS, National Student Financial Aid Scheme, 2019/20 annual report was referred to the committee for consideration on 5 February 2021. Accordingly, the committee complied with the referral and considered the annual report on 10 February 2021.


NSFAS is one of the entities whom the 2019/20 auditing financial statements could not be finalised and tabled in Parliament in November 2020 hence it was tabled in February 2021.



The NDP, National Development Plan, commits government through the Department of Higher Education and Training to increase the number of students enrolled at universities from 950 000 in 2013 to just over a million in 2019. The numbers enrolled at TVET colleges from 670 000 in 2013 to 1,2 million in 2019.



The NSFAS plays a critical role in ensuring that the expansion of access to education and training and thereby increasing the skills pool of the country to support an inclusive growth path. The NTT is very strategic when it comes to the development of the youth and the economy of this country.



Without it many young people we face a bleak future and there will be no meaningful investment in growing the economy of the country. We would not invest in replenishing the skills needed through ensuring that skills function optimally and are adequately funded.


As a legislature we have the responsibility of strengthening our oversight functions over this entity which was still under administration during this year under review. Therefore, ensuring ineffective and efficient governance and management of the entity should be central to the work.



NSAFAS received a qualified audit opinion from the AG, Auditor General, and that was the third qualified opinion from 2017/18. The AG identified more areas of qualifications compared to the previous financial year. This indicates the action plans developed to address the findings of the previous audit were not followed up which is a failure on management’s part.



House Chair, we are greatly concerned again about the increase on irregular expenditure amounting to R50,1 billion which was incurred during the failure to gazette criterion conditions for granting loans and bursaries to eligible students as required by the regulation. It should be noted that the regulations were a period of February 2021.



The NSAFAS recommends recommended the following; the NSFAS develops, implements and monitors an audit action plan to address the findings raised by the AG and that consequence


management be implemented against those who failed to implement the plan in their respective areas of work.



NSAFAS expertise the implementation of plans to address the current ICT systems capacity challenges. NSFAS should fill critical positions and develop in-house capacity to reduce over reliance on consultant. The committee will continue to monitor progress made by NSFAS in the implementation of its recommendations as contained in the report.



The committee noted the improved working relations amongst stakeholders and the commitment made by the board and management to around the entity. We propose that this report be adopted by all in the House. We wish all political parties were in deliberations on the report. We propose the adoption of the report. Thank you very much.



Declarations of Vote:


Ms C V KING: In August 2019, an administrator was appointed to take over the management, governance and administration of NSFAS. This included overseeing the 2019 application process, address the institution’s operation challenges and processing of all necessary forensic investigations.


Minister Blade Nzimande praised the administrator for vast improvements. The Minister went as far to say that those who laid complaints against the administrator are the same people facing disciplinary action and possible legal action.



Could it be that the Dr Carolissen was merely a victim of cancelled culture for speaking the truth? Was the parliamentary portfolio committee used to settle scores to the extent where the Minister and the then portfolio chairperson was in disagreement to the performance of the administrator?



The Auditor General’s report emphasized the NSFAS audit outcome has signated. The same qualified areas in the prior years have not been addressed and real curding areas such as contingent liabilities, amounts owing by institutions and bursary expenditure.



Challenges to formulate KPIs, key performance indicators, the slow pace to implement action plans to address internal deficiencies, failure to reconcile records with tertiary institutions dating back to 2017 and non-compliance with registration were all highlighted as concerns by the Auditor General.


For the year under the review, NSFAS’ total revenue was


R35,5 billion and total expenditure amounted to R28,4 billion resulting in a R4,47 billion in surplus earmarked for student bursary.



The Auditor General noted R5,85 billion reserves as favourable to the financial wellbeing of the entity to cover unforeseen expenditure. Five hundred and twenty-two-million-rand irregular expenditure was disclosed. However, the Auditor General identified an additional R50,1 billion due to inadequate process followed with revision to the bursary guidelines and regulations.



The two budget programmes, administration and student centred financial aid had 70 targets in total with NSFAS achieving 13 targets resulting in 76% achievement. An improvement from previous years’ performance of 12,5%. The Auditor General was unable to determine if programmes two indicators were reliable by alternative means due to the lack of technical indicated descriptions, poor performance management systems and processes with formal standard operating procedures that pre- determine how the achievement would be monitored and reported.


The committee’s observation was in line with the AG’s report. For the period under review, the fee free higher education policy was in its second phase and to date the Auditor General’s recommendation that the NSFAS to be assessed to be in line with the fee free higher education policy has not materialized.



The only conclusion for this is that policy is unsustainable in its current form. The AG recommended that the timeous gazetting of eligible criteria simply putting it as a blunder of putting the cart before the horse.



Eligibility criteria for returning students should be available before applications open to avoid unrest. The question is, did the administrator in the space of one year bring some notable changes? The answer is too false, to a lesser degree yes, in terms of investigations to rule those out defrauding NSFAS. And no, in considering the operational processes especially NSFAS’ ICT challenges.



This period under review highlighted the urgent need to reform NSFAS as an entity considering years of mismanagement which simply cannot be fixed if unionised political meddling persists and internal capacity is not developed to handle


operational challenges that would ultimately lead to mismatched student funding and disbursement.



A few years down the line and under new management, NSFAS’ slow pace of implementation is being overshadowed by the unquenchable terms for student funding from limited funds. The only way to solve this is through a national student fund with a centralized application process for multiple forms of public and private funding. There just needs to be political will to do this. I thank you.



Mr S TAMBO: Hon House Chair, the EFF cannot in good conscience endorse mediocrity, blatant corruption and hypocrisy. For these reasons, we reject this report. It is a report that reveals consistent, irregular and wasteful expenditure that goes without consequence and a hypocritical underperformance by an entity that today demands high-levels of excellence from neglected students to retain funding.



The National Student Financial Aid Scheme, NSFAS, today has an audacity to demand of students of what it cannot achieve itself. It has failed to disburse funds and in the reported financial year, underspend by R4 billion, critically in the Technical and Vocational Education and Training, TVET, sector.


This failure, coupled with poor information and communication technologies, ICTs, as at least to horrible financial accounting in NSFAS has led to students approaching Members of Parliament, MPs, with funding concerns regularly.



As early as last week, students from being hungry reached out to complain about their stipends being cut from R5 000 to

R2 000. Now these students cannot afford rent and are dropping out and this sanctimonious entity of so-called excellence demands the highest academic standards from them, while completely ignoring their cries.



This is the impact these reports we saw non shall we adopt on real people. There is consistent failure to be transparent and no checks and balances to ensure compliance to existing statues and laws.



The NSFAS is operated like a backroom shebeen. As a result, incurred irregular expenditure amounting to R522,3 million due to noncompliance to laws and regulations.



To further prove the rampant incompetence, of these so-called champions of excellence, they spend R45 million on consultants


in the 2019-20 financial year, exhibiting towards a complete lack of internal capacity.



As this NSFAS is led by the proponent of 75% that had claimed to have achieved 13 out of its 17 performance targets for the year 2019-20, only for the Auditor-General to deem their recording of these targets as unreliable placing them at an extra 36% of performance target nets.



Next year, our NSFAS of excellence has projected a budget shortfall amounting to R10 billion. The primary motivation of decreasing the pool of students in the higher education sector is this: In NSFAS, we are faced with people demanding excellence from students that they are failing to create a conducive environment to thrive.



We must therefore look at any proposal not only from NSFAS, but this socially ignorant Minister to increase pass rate to retain government funding as a means to accommodate budget cuts and corruption at an expense of enrolment of the poor in higher education.



So, we cannot keep adopting reports simply encouraging NSFAS to improve. The EFF therefore rejects this report. Thank you.


Mr S L NGCOBO: Hon House Chair, the IFP has consistently highlighted the shortcomings of the National Students Financial Aid Scheme, NSFAS, over the past few years. This approach was taken to be constructive and to help build some better institutions for our disadvantaged students who wish to change their future through education.



Unfortunately, NSFAS is currently embroiled in rampant irregular expenditure amounting to R50 billion. This amount of irregular expenditure could have paid for 50 000 students to complete a four-year-degree at some of the most expensive universities in the country.



Over the past few years, we have had promises from the government celebrating the incoming of the Fourth Industrial Revolution to South Africa, while the very institutions that will play a foundational role in supporting this development have not been capacitated.



In the NSFAS entity, we have the information and communication technology, ICT, systems that are so old and outdated that it affects the ways in which the simple data is captured relating to the institution and recipients.


It is completely unacceptable that simple traceable data cannot be properly managed. This problem has affected the NSFAS entity so badly that they are now embarking on a stay plea with universities to determine whether they have been paid.



With such damning levels of inefficiency and looting of public monies, it is no wonder that the students and the future of our nation are frustrated with this government’s administration.



They are called to the battlefield at every turn just to get a response from the government.



Over the election period, the IFP was inundated with requests to help student issues over NSFAS bursary payouts. Entire families who were promised that the students should be funded, have been left in the cold, with students often unable to graduate due to NSFAS not making its payouts. This entity must take its role seriously and work towards self-correction as it affects the livelihoods of many poor students who live amongst us in our communities.



The IFP accepts this report. I thank you.


Dr W J BOSHOFF: Hon House Chair, I notice that there is no clock around here. Thank you. The context of this report which we debate here today, is that it was announced that there is a 35% unemployment graduate rate in South Africa. Meaning that the degrees conferred with the National Student Financial Aid Scheme, NSFAS, bursaries actually do not comply what the world of work needs. That is quite a problem.



It is also against the context of the Minister who acknowledged that NSFAS is unsustainable in its present form. It makes one think of the collective funds in the old Soviet Union, where just nothing exactly arrived when it was needed. Therefore, it imploded.



Now the problem with this report is that it builds up a narrative of a period of an administration which was a kind of a disaster which took an institution in bad form and left it in even worst form which it is in fact not true.



The reality is that the institution was indeed ill-conceived and put in a planned crisis with the turning if from a loan scheme to a bursary scheme for everyone who would qualify.

Something which is a very nice idea, but very difficult to implement.


In the year of the review, the administrator informed the Auditor-General, AG, of some irregularities which the AG had not seen in the previous year and therefore it was added to this year.



In the final year of administration, the 2020-21 financial year, which we had the knowledge today which we did not have it in March when this report was tabled, the NSFAS entity in fact had a clean audit. The Ministerial Task Team which published its report in August 2021, in its number eight conclusion it says the situation at NSFAS was much improved in the period of administration.



This brings one to this question: What has happened and why is this narrative created. Now, things went sower against the administrator when there was a laptop tender which he cancelled because it was irregular. The AG has in the meantime established that it was indeed irregular. The question is: What has really happened and what brought the administrator into disrepute with the committee? I think the story has not ended. We are still going to hear more of it. Therefore, we do not accept this report. Thank you, hon House Chair.


Mr C H M SIBISI: Hon House Chair, protection please. The NFP has taken a close notice of the work that the National Student Financial Aid Scheme, NSFAS, new board and management has done. The new board and management have worked tirelessly to turn things around at the scheme. Though we recognise that things will take time to turnaround, but we do want to suggest a couple of interventions that may be considered.



Another issue that we would like to raise is the fact that every year, House Chair, there are student protests in South Africa which result to loss of lives and grave injuries when student protesters collude with the SA Police Service, SAPS.



Minister Blade Nzimande has already indicated that NSFAS will see a shortfall of R10 billion for the 2022 academic year.

Now, in the beginning of the current academic year, the shortfall of NSFAS resulted in some serious student protests which we would like to urge and call upon the Minister of Higher Education, Science and Innovation, to resolve before the new academic year commences.



We call on the department and NSFAS as well as Treasury to address the following issues before the 2022 academic year commences. Delay in student allowances and personal care


allowance is around R2 900 per annum. This work out as just under R250 per month. This is quite a small amount for students to take care of themselves. While it is good that the personal care allowance was introduced in 2019, the amount cannot be hailed as a huge achievement especially for our ladies.



Payment of registration and tuition fees must be done timeously. Improvement on NSFAS system to expedite the processing of student allowances, fees and personal care allowances and adhering to the turnaround times of student application.



We also urge the students and all stakeholders in the Post- School Education and Training, PSET, sector to engage and find solutions that would not lead us to mourning deaths and injuries sustained by our children in their fight for access to funding for higher education. We support this report. Thank you, House Chair. [Applause.]





Mna W M MADISHA: Ke re le ka feta. Re a leboga. Le t?e di latelago kamoka ga t?ona, akere. [Disego.]


Ms M T KIBI: Thank you, hon Chairperson, expanding access to the postschooling education and training sector is a critical apex policy position of the ANC in addressing the legacy of apartheid which underdeveloped the black majority. Since the democratic dispensation, the ANC has placed the education as an apex priority because we recognise through education we can realise social transformation. The ability of our people to self-liberate. This is pivotal for socioeconomic transformation for our nation to address triple challenges of poverty, inequality, and unemployment. Despite the expanded access to Higher Education, the experience of students varies with some experiencing challenges with the National Students Financial Aid Scheme, NSFAS, process, as it relates to issues such as unpaid fees, outstanding fees, delayed food allowance payment and other systemic challenges in its relationship with PSet sector institution. The portfolio committee has elevated the issue of the efficiency and effectiveness of NSFAS as a key area of focus. As part of enhancing our oversight of NSFAS, the portfolio committee undertook an oversight visit to engage with new Board of NSFAS and to observe NSFAS administrative processes in motion on the strategic direction of the entity to better serve the poor and the working class.





Sikhuluma ngezingane la okumele sizeseke njengamalungu ePhalamende. Kungabi ukuthi i-ANC yodwa. I-ANC phambili, izinhlangano zepolitiki, izingane zesikole, amalungu ebhodi kumele siyeseke ibhodi entsha. [Ihlombe.]



Nani ke zingane sebenzisani imali ngendlela efanele. Bazali musani ukwenza sengathi izingane zizosebenza laphaya. Yimali yokusiza izingane ukuthi zifunde. Siyesihlangane nezingane koma-Pick n Pay, Checkers bezokhipha imali ukuba kuyodliwa ekhaya – ayihambi kanjalo.





Hon members it is ... [Inaudible] ... to note that this visit


... of numerous interventions with the previous NSFAS administrator where we highlighted key areas of concern. As the ANC, we have gladly come to an appointment of a new Board and it has clearly outline its strategy and plan in responding to some of the systematic challenges impacting the entity.

NSFAS has begun to seamlessly intergrade their data sharing system through checking the status of applicants with Sassa, Sars and Home Affairs database to enable seamless allocation of financial support for the poor. The entity will be entering agreements with the Unemployment Insurance Fund and Companies and Intellectual Property Commission ...




... kafushane CIPC.





These are important control measures and they strengthen their system. Hon members, one of the challenges facing NSFAS is effectiveness which also rises due to inadequate management of data by institutions which are also critical in the overall value chains of NSFA. This contributes to a lot of queries and instability in the institutions as it creates uncertainty for students. It is concerned for us that NSFAS received a high volume of inbound calls of ... a month of R500 000. This reflects critical systematic challenges, which we recommend a comprehensive integrated system of NSFAS with all key agencies and the institutions in the Pset sector. The lack of the ICT strategy in the entity does indicate the lack of strategic for site in the midst of changing world.



As the ANC, we lift our voice with students and the poor to demand better, efficiency and effectiveness. The ANC will complement NSFAS on progress, whether entity faces challenges. We take a competitive approach in defense of the poor and working class for they are the receiving end of the inefficiencies. Another critical discourse we need to have in


the Pset sector is the courses and academic programmes. We should be funded. The reality is that the labour markets are changing and this requires us to have a skills development trajectory which prepares graduates for skills required by the economy and those required for the transformation of our society.



Hon members, such of the key recommendations which can respond to the challenges affecting the entity, and students are around expanding its present in all provinces to address queries timeously. An engagement with Treasury ... shortfall in the upcoming financial year. Development of sustainable long-term funding mechanisms to sustain the ANC policy of fee- free higher education for the poor and working class.





Siyahamba ke manje siyowela umfula ...





... led by the Minister ...





 ... ophuma kwi-ANC. Makube yibo phambili abazowela lo mfula ukuze kusebenze la. Sibone ukuthi asimuki nomfula. Yibona


abazosihola asisho ukuthi niyathula. Wozani nani zinhlangano zamapolitiki sizokweseka ukuze izohamba kahle le nqola. [Ihlombe.]





An area of inequality in the Pset sector which is an area of concern for the ANC is the equal support to Tvet students and university students received despite socioeconomic conditions. The ANC supports this Report which contains the tangible interventions the portfolio committee is shaping and ensuring our government entities serve their mandate to change the material conditions of the poor, to create inequality. Thank you.








Mr W T Letsie, as a member of the Committee, introduced the Report.



There was no debate.



Ms J Hermans moved: That the Report be adopted.


Declarations of vote made on behalf of the Democratic Alliance, Economic Freedom Fighters, Inkatha Freedom Party, Freedom Front Plus, National Freedom Party and African National Congress.



Motion agreed to (Economic Freedom Fighters dissenting).



Report accordingly adopted.






Ms N T MKHATSHWA: House Chair, hon members and citizens of the Republic of South Africa, the higher education sector needs to ensure that there's good governance and management of all institutions of higher learning to provide good quality education responsive to the socioeconomic needs of the country.



Good governance and management will ensure that the core enterprise of institutions, which is teaching and learning, research and community engagement, is well managed, but if the governance and management systems fail, so will the mandate to


ensure that all citizens of this country are given the requisite skills and knowledge to the active participants of our economy. Committed to ensuring that the lived experience of teaching and learning and institutions is as presented in committee meetings, the committee undertook an oversight visit to the Vaal University of Technology on the 26th of February 2021. This was essentially a follow-up to an oversight visit on the 7th of February 2020 and subsequent virtual meetings with the institution and all the stakeholders informed by a concern on the institution being under administration once again.



This follow-up oversight visit, was to assess the progress in a number of areas, including the implementation of the turnaround strategy to stabilise the institution, allegations of irregularities, abandoned infrastructure, preparation for the post-administration period, stakeholder relations and their readiness for the 2021 academic year, just to mention a few. During the visit the committee engaged with the administrator, labour, the Student Representative Council, SRC, and still communication challenges between the university management and the stakeholders exist, including a lack of engagement on matters like insourcing of staff, which continues to be a concern to labour unions in the institution.


The committee iterated its previous recommendation for the university to establish a multi-stakeholder forum consisting of the administrator, management, the SRC, labour unions that could meet regularly to resolve disputes and improve working relations. The committee noted that the university planned to de-establish some of the campuses such as Secunda, Upington and Ekurhuleni and was concerned and remains concerned about the impact of this on the quest to increase access to higher education. We are aware that despite our concerns raised on this matter, the Ekurhuleni campus was closed at the end of February 2021. And it's reported that students and staff will migrate to the main campus.



We do hope that no one got left behind in that particular process. Noting that the Secunda and Upington campuses are scheduled to close end of 2022, the committee continues to encourage the department to intervene on this matter and find innovative ways together with the stakeholders of the institution in mitigating any negative impact that the closure of these campuses has on the broader quest for access to higher education and in fact employment. And considering the investment that is already existing in terms of infrastructure, perhaps the sector should consider the


repurposing of this infrastructure, for example, Community Education and Training, CET, or TVET infrastructure.



The committee remains concerned about infrastructure maintenance and development at the university. The committee urged the university to expedite the outstanding disciplinary hearing cases against employees implicated in irregularities, consistent with the findings of the forensic investigation and as such, recommended that the administrator ensures that the recommendations contained in the independent assessor report be implemented.



Equally, we noted that these existing internal factions within the institution must be eliminated and that the stakeholders must disown this cultish behaviour that is at the institution and take on civic duty and apply their social consciousness, if they have any left, to contribute to good governance and effective management in ensuring the functionality of the institution.



Considering the ongoing challenges listed by the student leadership regarding how students’ experience the National Student Financial Aid Scheme, NSFAS, we recommended that NSFAS considers assigning an official to the Vaal University of


Technology to assist the students with various queries. We note that the university has since been out of administration, there’s a new council. There's a new vice-chancellor. These strides are welcomed and they will contribute to ensuring the stability of the institution for it to fulfil its core business. As such, we state unequivocally, that the committee remains unwavering and unapologetic on its intended commitment to continue to want to monitor the progress in ensuring that there's no regression in terms of the governance and management post-administration.



One must perhaps also thank members of the committee for their commitment to ensuring that we continue to play robust oversight on these institutions for them to fulfil their intended purposes to service all the young people of this country, in fact, all the people of this country from Thohoyandou to Idutywa. We note a tendency of some of these institutions to behave like untouchable ivory towers in our communities we must indicate to all of them that none of them is beyond reproach and accountability to this committee and the people of this county.



This report is tabled before the House for consideration. I thank the House Chair and the hon members and wish us a safe


festive season going ahead. Thank you so much, House Chairperson. [Applause.]



Declarations of vote:


Ms N I TARABELLA-MARCHESI: Chairperson, the Vaal University of Technology has been marred with acts of no accountability, irregularities and inefficiency over the past few years. It is said that the university suffers from multiple organ failures due to corruption, mismanagement, and sabotage which led the university to be placed under national government administration for the last two years.



One media house referred to the tendering process as the cash cow for the personal benefit to many at the university. Acts of theft, vandalism and sabotage are reported daily. This was made obvious during our inspection of the campus and student residence. Having not been maintained and allowing destruction of property under the watchful eye of the security company contracted to provide security to the premises and also the students.



The committee had concerns about the incomplete infrastructure projects that appeared to be due to a lack of consequence management against the companies that were involved in the


breach of contracts. The university had to redirect some of its resources for remedial work to be undertaken to complete this infrastructure project, placing more financial burden on the institution, bearing in mind that the budget cuts on this university have been 1,1%.



And also, for instance, the engineering building within the campus was vandalised, looted despite the institution's contracted security company monitoring the campus 24-7. There was a lack of disciplinary action against individuals responsible for the theft and damage to the building.

Furthermore, the number of vacancies was even more disappointing as they have been an exodus of personnel leaving acting personnel in charge while those suspended receiving full salaries at home for years.



I have to say the appointment of a new council and the newly appointed vice-chancellor came at a perfect time as drastic and urgent intervention is required, I would like to urge the vice-chancellor to tighten his belt, address these elements of corruption, mismanagement, and sabotage. We'd like you to perform a lifestyle audit, forensic audit and skills audit, remove cadre deployment. Cadre deployment has no place in any learning institution. The outstanding disciplinary hearing


cases against the employees implicated in irregularities should have been concluded before the term of the administration comes to an end. Vice-chancellor, we believe your era should come with transparency and collaboration, encouraging whistle-blowers to speak.



If it was not for the whistle-blowers, these interventions could not have been realised. We'd like you to consider the following; the days of inconsistent Wi-Fi connectivity while doing online studies in the COVID-19 era must come to an end. It is unacceptable. What was also jarring was the three-year suspension of SRC committee students, as the committee would believe that this will destroy their future and the university considers restorative justice.



The university must also, as soon as possible, review its organisational structure to reduce the 65% expenditure on the compensation of employees which may or may have adverse effects on its financial sustainability. And equally so, the NSFAS should consider assigning an official to the Vaal University of Technology to assist the students with queries related to the funding. Finally, with the new structure, with new management at the university, the university must return to its core business with its teaching, learning and research


and community engagement. And also, I would like to urge the Minister to try to compile a report that will be able to show evidence of the administration process that this university went through for two years if it was an advantage and whether it is a process that was necessary. Thank you, Chair.



Mr S TAMBO: Thank you, Chair. The EFF notes the report on oversight visit to Vaal University as a further re-emphasis of the dire state of the Universities in South Africa. We must depart from the point that the militarisation and excessive security presence at VUT represents steps in the strained relations between a university governance, students and workers, which requires decisive intervention. We therefore call for the de-escalation of security presence at the VUT and restorative approach, rather than activity approach towards being an activist, who sacrificed their own education in the interest of others.



We are pleased of the recent Student Representative Council, SRC, elections which took place at the Vanderbijl Campus of Institution, which the EFF Students Command won, as they have done away with a culture of permanent interim student governance, which was determined by the institution as reflected in the report. The student leadership must confront


immediate challenges at the institution such as the slow infrastructure development that is plagued by irregular expenditure and a lack of transparency



The observation that the institution is dependent on grants and transfers from the Department of Higher Education is valid, but we must tread cautiously in advising VUT to establish third stream income generation capacity and how this will be done, based on experience from institutions that are poorly managed and characterised by corrupt activity. At the Tshwane University of Technology, a third stream company was supposedly established for this purpose, known as TUTEH, and has a dark cloud of overpaying those in its employ, cronyism and tender irregularity, and actually being a liability to the institution through continuously sourcing funds from it, rather than adding value.



Service providers and property entities have as recent as last week emailed the Committee of Higher Education, Science and Technology, detailing failure of payments from this very

third-stream company towards student residences fees, yet having received these funds from government, something that has the potential to render students homeless and vulnerable to crime and gender-based violence, GBV. From this experience,


we must caution against this until such a point that there is a comprehensive framework set up on the establishment of third stream income entities in the higher education sector and how they are regulated.



There needs to be a deliberate monitoring of VUT as reports that there is unstable Wi-Fi connectivity is reflective of those who lead it not understanding the purpose and irony of a University of Technology that struggles with technological connectivity. The report gives a brief analysis of much deeper lying problems that will require constant oversight and the EFF suggests that the report be the basis of monitoring progress and implementation of recommendations, and as such, we support the report.



Mr S L NGCOBO: Hon Chairperson, the Vaal University of Technology, VUT, has a critical role as an institution that will usher in the next phase of South Africa’s development, in terms of jobs and boosting the economy. However, this university, like many other universities, faces the daily struggles of trying to work with the current government administration. As we have seen in this report, the institution suffers from many of the ills experienced in the


governing party, such as factionalism, lack of consequence management and major administrative shortcomings.



The issues within the National Student Financial Aid Scheme, NSFAS, further negatively affect the operations and learning of the institution and its students. Currently, there are about 217 outstanding cases involving students that had not yet received their NSFAS funding and allowances. The many students not receiving their promised funding is very concerning, as these students access NSFAS because they are poor and cannot afford the cost of tuition. While studying, they are dependent on these funds to complete their degrees and enter the workforce.



Government needs to intervene and get NSFAS in order, so that universities remain centres for excellence and learning. The VUT needs to be given greater autonomy and responsibility from government, to ensure its future sustainability. This is needed, as there is currently a shortage of space at universities to absorb the number of students who wish to further their studies. Universities rely on funding to sustain and expand their networks.


However, should the university operate using a business model, it could partner with other funders to ensure that its financial sustainability is secure. It must, however, remember that its business is to serve the students and any decisions must be made in the collective best interests of staff and students.





Inkatha iyawemukela lo mbiko. Ngiyabonga.



Dr W J BOSHOFF: Hon House Chair, it’s a little bit easier to support this report than the previous one, and the FF Plus will do so. But let me elaborate a little bit. After the next elections, after we have received more votes, I will be able to respond completely and comprehensively to the report. Now, I only have to refer to two aspects which I find very interesting. The first is about the whole idea of the third stream income, for which the University of Technology is extremely well placed. They are innovators and technologists, that is their job, that’s their scene.



But unfortunately, the actions and initiatives of staff members are frustrated in this area. Therefore, the potential is not realised. The director of innovation at the Vaal


University of Technology, VUT, has resigned out of sheer frustration, especially because he was able to give away some of his colleagues at the VUT and the other universities, to substantially contribute to South Africa’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, where certain innovations in the area of ventilators, but they were frustrated in doing this because management said no work must be done, not even the work that could alleviate the problems associated with the pandemic.



This is a huge potential being just thrown away. Now, there is another thing which is very important, and that is that the VUT decided that it has to get rid of city campuses, the one in Upington, the one in Ekurhuleni and the one in Secunda.

Now, Ekurhuleni and Secunda are within reasonable reach of other universities or Universities of Technology, but the same doesn’t go with Upington. In fact, the Upington campus is the only campus of the University of Technology in a very big area, and where the then facto language of instruction is Afrikaans, because that is the only language fluently spoken in the vicinity.



With another division of the department which says that the Northern Cape Rural Further Education and Training, FET, College, is not feasible anymore, we have very real chance of


having no good and organised training in the whole area of the Northern Cape. Well, one would like to expand a little bit more about the possibilities created by the Square Kilometre Array, SKA, and surreal, but that will have to stand over for the next time. Thank you, Madam House Chairperson.



Mr C H M SIBISI: Thank you, House Chair. The NFP notes the report of the portfolio committee on its oversight visit to the Vaal University of Technology.



We also welcome the recommendations made by the portfolio committee, particularly the following: The outstanding disciplinary hearing cases against employees implicated in irregularities to concluded before the term of the administration comes to an end. The administrator appoints an institutional forum before the appointment of the new council is concluded. A multi stakeholder forum consisting of the administrator, management, Student Representative Council, SRC, labour union be established and meet on a regular basis to resolve disputes between management and stakeholders and to improve communication. The university working in collaboration with National Student Financial Aid Scheme, NSFAS speedily resolve the outstanding cases involving 200 students that had not yet received their NSFAS funding and their allowances.


Vaal University of Technology is one of the previously disadvantaged universities in this country, serving a substantial number of students of colour coming from previously disadvantaged background. It is vitally important that all issues identified by the committee during oversight be addressed in a speedily fashion and to avoid any possibility of students to protest at the beginning of the academic year of 2022.



We welcome the report of the committee and we would like to call on students of Vaal University of Technology to also ensure that they work together with management and all relevant stakeholders to work on these issues together for better of the institution and its biggest stakeholders which are its students. If we are going to fight for fee-free higher education, we need to at least have functional and effective institutions. We cannot be fighting for fee-free higher education, yet institutions themselves are crippled with significant issues that leads us backwards. We support the oversight report. Thank you, House Chair.



Ms J S MANANISO: Thank you, House Chair. Let me start by thanking all the opposition for actually considering the report and making some declarations. However, one wants to


urge you one day to come to the committee and participate, also as well to go with us to our oversight.



Hon Chairperson, the ANC supports the adoption of the Report of the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education, Science and Technology oversight visit to the Vaal University of Technology. Vaal University of Technology as an institution of higher learning plays a vital role in ensuring that access to education and training to many young people whom without these institutions may not have had an opportunity to better their lives through education.



This institution serves South Africans in Gauteng, Mpumalanga and the Northern Cape where there are satellite campuses. The institution draws students from all the provinces and many other African countries. Therefore, if we let this institution fail, consequently we are responsible for the many young lives that would be negatively affected.



This committee has committed itself in ensuring that the institution arises from the current state it finds itself, as members of the ANC in this committee are the first ones to speak out on issues of maladministration, poor governance, allegations of factions, incompetency and inconsistency, poor


management of the many of the institutions where we exercise our oversight role.



Our role is not to protect wrongdoing, but to support interventions by the executive and swiftly addressing issues around poor governance and maladministration. Vaal University of Technology has found itself in a merry-go-round of poor governance and maladministration. Several independence assessments were conducted and administrators were placed since 2012. As the committee, we put our finger on the pulse by not taking our eyes from this institution.



Hon Chairperson, this is the second oversight we have conducted at this institution, in addition to the virtual briefings we had as alluded to by the Chairperson, hon Mkhatshwa. We monitor the work of the administrator, Prof Rensbeck, who is now of the competent and academic administrator leader in the country. We understand that at times they left and felt irritated but they understood that our role was to ensure the implementation of policies in addressing the challenges that the institution faced.



We have noted that the university is out of the administrative governance and management structures are in place. We are


aware of the existence of the factions that makes it impossible for management to manage the institution and we hope that they will be dismantled. When we commenced with our oversight over Vaal University of Technology, the institution was in the Intensive Care Unit, which is ICU, and it was not showing signs of life indeed despite these challenges experienced.



We hope the systems put in place by the administrators to get the institution to a place of stability will be protected by all stakeholders and hon Boshoff, we are speaking about all stakeholders to be hands on deck, and not individuals. So, I hope that your issue will be addressed. The new council has to exercise oversight over management without aligning themselves with any faction. Labour unions should make it impossible for the management to manage. The university should ensure that qualified and competent people are appointed.



Hon Chair, the ANC members of this committee takes their oversight role very serious. We conduct individual members oversight of this institution to assess progress and to ensure that we represent our people. Just to say this, yesterday hon Letsie was there and he has officially adopted Vaal University of Technology for robust oversight and accountability.


[Applause.] So, it is upon yourselves as Members of Parliament that you adopt these institutions that are close to your eyes so that you don’t come here and complain, but go and make sure that you go there and intervene. We know that they could not do everything as the administration period is short.



I would like to implore the Department of Higher Education and Training to ensure that it does not take a hands off approach on this institution, but ensure that there is post administration support provided until stability is restored and sustained. I would like to urge that the university work together with local structures, including the South African Police Service to ensure that those responsible for vandalising and for theft of property of the university face the full might of the law.



As we know, we are still dealing with the pandemic of gender- based violence and femicide, and those who are close to this institution must make sure that they play their part in ensuring that they protect our beneficiaries who are our students. As the portfolio committee we have given Vaal University of Technology ... [Inaudible.] ... continue assess, monitor their work as supposed to and we will make sure that whatever they have committed to is being achieved and done as


it’s supposed to. Proper planning prevents poor performance. I


thank you. [Applause.]



Ms J HERMANS: Thank you, Chair. On behalf of the Chief Whip of the Majority Party, I move that this report be adopted.



Question put.



Motion agreed to.



Report accordingly adopted.






Mr N F SHIVAMBU: On a point of order, House Chair.






Mr N F SHIVAMBU: I wanted to bring to your attention that if the report which is about to be tabled relates to members of the EFF, we have written to the Speaker of the National


Assembly, but also our legal representatives have written to the Speaker to indicate that we are going to subject this report to a judicial review and we have said very strongly that it must not be entertained here because it is still subject to judicial review. So, it will be unprocedural of Parliament to proceed and listen to this report before we have exhausted our legal options in terms of how this must be handled. You know that in terms of the Rules of the National Assembly you are not permitted to discuss issues that are before a court of law.



The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Okay, hon Shivambu, you will be responded to. The Speaker will take the seat, but we are going to call on the hon Peters to introduce the report. [Applause.]



Ms E D PETERS: Hon Speaker, hon members of this House on various platforms, on 11 July during the debate on the Budget Vote of Public Enterprises some members of the Economic Freedom Fighters, EFF, were physically removed from the chamber following their disruption of Minister Pravin Gordhan’s budget speech when he was prevented from continuing with his speech while at the podium.


On 11 March 2020 the Powers and Privileges Committee met to consider the allegations relating to the incident. The committee video footage of the affected members raising repeated points of order, objecting to Minister Gordhan participating in the debate on his Budget Vote. The presiding officer, House Chairperson Boroto, repeatedly ruled the points of order to be invalid, but the members persisted in raising the same points of order.



When the members stood up from their seats and crossed the floor to proceed towards the Minister, the presiding officer initially called up on the serjeant-at-arms to remove the members from the Chamber, and subsequently, the parliamentary protection services to assist in removing the members.



The committee concluded that on the basis of the information before it that there was prima facie case for members to answer. It resolved that the affected members be charged for contempt of Parliament and that an external initiator be procured to present the evidence.



The notification of allegations and charges preferred against the affected members were done in terms of the Rules of the National Assembly. The period of submission of written


representations was extended to 23 November 2020. No representations were received from the affected members or their attorneys.



The committee was informed that the affected members had decided not to attend the hearing as they were of the view that if the hearting continued it will be a gross procedural and substantive unlawfulness committed against them. The committee took the view that it had been properly constituted in terms of the Act and the Rules, and had followed the procedures stipulated.



On 25 November 2020, the committee proceeded with the hearing in the absence of the affected members. The committee found the evidence presented by the initiator persuasive and convincing. The affected members were notified on 12 March 2021 that the committee had found each of them guilty on all the charges preferred against them as set out in the charge sheet. They were also invited to present to the committee mitigating factors on appropriate penalties, either in writing or orally, before the committee reported to the National Assembly.


The affected members did not take up the opportunity to present mitigating factors and the proceedings of the committee took place without the affected members or their attorneys being in attendance or having made written representations.



The consequences of their decision not to participate was that they did not present any mitigating factors and circumstances to the committee for its consideration. In the light of its findings of guilty against the 16 affected members, the committee recommends to the National Assembly to impose the following penalties with respect to the affected members:



With respect to hon Matiase and Sonti who are repeat offenders, the committee recommends that the penalties set out in section 12(g) of the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliaments and Provincial Legislatures Act, that is, suspension of the members without remuneration for a period not exceeding 30 days, whether or not the House or any of its committees is scheduled to meet, be imposed.



With respect to hon Ceza, Chabangu, Langa, Madlingozi, Mohlala, Montwedi, Msani, Mthenjane, Paulsen, Shembeni, Siwisa, Tito, Hlonyane and Komani recommends the penalty as


set out in section 12(f) of the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliaments and Provincial Legislatures Act that is a fine not exceeding the equivalent of one month’s salary and allowances payable to each of the members by virtue of the remuneration of Public Office Bearers Act of 1998 No 20 of 1998, be imposed.



Hon members, the report is tabled for your consideration, and I thank you. [Applause.]



The SPEAKER: Order! A point of order having being raised, hon members, National Assembly Rule 89 states that, and I quote: “No member may reflect upon the merits of any matter on which a judicial decision in a court of law is pending.”



The justification for this Rule is that firstly that statements made by Members of Parliament may prejudice the administration of justice, and secondly, Parliament should, in terms of the doctrine of separation of powers, respect the independence and not use the authority of the courts.



The Rule, however, only precludes members from reflecting on the merits of matters before the courts. This means that a matter must be awaiting adjudication. According to available


information, this report is not pending adjudication in a court. As such, members can deliberate and consider the report. Now, I proceed to recognise political parties wishing to make a declaration, and of course the usual time for declaration of votes will apply. Thank you.



Declaration of vote:


The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: House Chairperson, we come here quite light heartedly and we say hello to friends that we haven’t seen for a while. But I think we can all agree that what happened on the day in the Assembly Chamber just above us, was one of the grossest atrocities of the breaking of the etiquette and of the decorum of the House that we have ever seen.



What we saw was a Minister trying to give a budget speech and nothing short of a group of fascist thugs approaching such Minister and attempting to attack and not being afraid to attempt to attack a Minister, calling him names and making threatening gestures. [Interjections.]



Dr M Q NDLOZI: Point of Order.


The SPEAKER: Take a seat, hon member. Point of order? Who is calling for a point of order?



Dr M Q NDLOZI: It’s Ndlozi, Ma.



The SPEAKER: Yes, hon Ndlozi?



Dr M Q NDLOZI: I think that it is inappropriate to refer to hon members as thugs and I would request that the hon member withdraw in light of precisely what she is busy going on about there. So, you can’t accuse people of something you are doing yourself. Do not call us thugs because it is inappropriate.



The SPEAKER: Okay, a point of order having being called for, hon Natasha Mazzone, will you please withdraw.



The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: I will absolutely withdraw the word thugs and I will just stick with fascist. Thank you very much Dr ... [Interjections.]



Mr N F SHIVAMBU: On a point of order, Speaker.





Mr N F SHIVAMBU: I think it is also out of order to say that Members of Parliament are fascists. I mean it is even rich coming from a fascist and racist organisation to say that. So, that must be withdrawn, please.



The SPEAKER: I didn’t hear the point of order.



Mr N F SHIVAMBU: The point of order is that it is out of order to refer to Members of Parliament as fascist and that must be withdrawn.



The SPEAKER: Thank you very much. Hon Mazzone, will you withdraw, please? And proceed now afterwards.



The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Hon Speaker, I will withdraw because I would like to continue with what I want to say.



Ms O M C MAOTWE: Unconditionally, you must withdraw unconditionally, please.



The SPEAKER: No, no no.



The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Hon member, on this platform I strongly suggest you keep quiet.


Speaker, what we saw was a group of people who decided that they were going to take the law into their hands




Ms H O MKHALIPHI: Hon Speaker, on a point of order. We are not a group of people we were Members of Parliament and we are still Members of Parliament.



The SPEAKER: Hon member, please. It is not really a point of order. Please take your seat. Hon Mazzone, will you please proceed.



The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Hon Speaker, what we saw was a group of MPs approaching an hon Minister while another group of MPs was waiting a debate and while the country’s cameras were on us. It was very clear, and I mean absolutely no offense to the hon Minister Gordhan, but he is an elder in this House and there is no way, and I am quite sure he could have protected himself, but as a young person myself I have always been taught to respect my elders regardless of what side of the Chamber they sit on. And to have a group of MPs approach an elder in an aggressive fashion to the point that other members — and I am looking around at brave members, hon Swart, I specifically look at you — who were willing to use


themselves as human shields to make sure that no harm would come to the member who was at the podium, is uncalled for.



We are disorderly, let us be honest. We have to be honest about the fact that we are a disorderly Parliament, but what we never ever do is come across the sacrosanct floor. It doesn’t matter how bad it gets, we never let it get to a point where we pass that sacrosanct knowing of who we are and who we represent and why we got here and who fought for us to get here. We never dare come on to the floor of Parliament, and that is what happened.



To think that a group of MPs would think that it is right to do that, to mock an elder of this Parliament, and aggressively try and attack a Minister is unacceptable. I am most pleased that Parliament is finally not just showing its muscle, but showing its teeth.



In conclusion, Madam Speaker, may I say that the only and I mean the only good thing about COVID is that I have not had to see this group of MPs for the last two years. Thank you. [Applause.]


Dr M Q NDLOZI: Speaker, we must categorically reject this report, welcome the legal action that will be taken should it be adopted. Because it was a result of a dubious kangaroo court process aimed simply to achieve political lens.



These Members of Parliament, MPs, that were charged were not only forcefully removed from the chamber, they were targeted as a political party and not as individual Members of Parliament. Even the charges were instituted to target all EFF members who were present in the sitting without any regard to the application of rules, particularly as it relates to the removal of members from the House.



Above all, despite the vast implications the sanctions would have on the constitutional rights and privileges of members, the committee refused MPs to have competent legal representation.



The committee also refused a matter of principle that upon receiving such a complaint from the Speaker, it should have appointed an independent legal counsel at the fact finding stage.


Courts have pronounced themselves in this regard, particularly in the most recent cases related to the Public Protector Inquiry. This would have allowed the committee to objectively realise that the rules were not properly applied, but above all, that members had already been punished by being forcefully removed despite the irrational and illegal Act itself.



An independent fact finding process would have also revealed the utter incompetence of the Presiding Officer of the day, Ms Boroto, who also admitted to have not properly applied the Rules of Parliament and also targeted all EFF members and not treated them in the strictest sense as the rules expect.



The entire process was a shoddy and desperate act to punish the EFF whilst undermining principles of natural justice.



An ANC-dominated committee, using ordinary committee rules of majority rule, cannot arrive or determine justice against members of an opposition.



It is this conflict of interest that made the selective application of rules targeting EFF MPs when many ANC, DA and


other members on the day engaged in a deliberate disruption of the proceedings.



Why punish EFF when you have already violently and forcefully removed them from the House? Why take their salaries when you’ve already denied them the right to represent the voters that have put them into the House? Why proceed when you’ve already punished them by violently removing them?



We reject this report with the highest contempt because it is part of a kangaroo process. Possibly pursued in the greatest lunacy ever seen when it comes to principles of natural justice. Thank you.



Ms Z MAJOZI: Hon Speaker, as we consider the Report of the Powers and Privileges Committee we must remind ourselves of the NA is a constitutionally elected and represents the people and to ensure government by the people under the Constitution.



It is a great duty, responsibility and honour to represent the people of South Africa. As Members of Parliament we are bound to uphold the integrity, dignity and independence of this institution.


It is, therefore, important to regulate conduct and ensure members act in accordance with their duties to protect the institution and its critical role in our democratic state.



The IFP has considered the report of the committee and we agree with the findings and recommendations made by the committee.



The IFP believes that the process followed by the committee was transparent and gave effect to due process.



The affected members were, according to the report, given the opportunity to present mitigating factors on the appropriate penalties to the committee but ... [Inaudible.] It is unfortunate that the affected members did not take up this opportunity but we do believe the committee acted appropriately and fairly in all regard.



The IFP, therefore, agrees with the penalties in respect of hon Matiase and Sonti, who are repeat offenders; and we also agree with the penalties handed down in respect of the rest of the other Members of Parliament.


In conclusion, the IFP wishes to stress that it is unfortunate that these events occurred and that these disciplinary measures had to be taken.



We do, however, believe that the integrity of the institution must be upheld and protected.



The IFP accepts the report. Thank you, hon Speaker. [Applause.]



Mr W W WESSELS: Hon Speaker, when somebody acts like a thug, he is a thug. When somebody behaves ...



The SPEAKER: Hon member, earlier on I ruled that you cannot use that language here. And therefore, please withdraw. There are no thugs here, there are hon members. Will you please withdraw?



Mr W W WESSELS: Madam Speaker, with respect, may I address you?



The SPEAKER: No, I don’t want to be addressed. I want you to




Mr W W WESSELS: But I did not refer to anyone ...



Ms H O MKHALIPHI: Withdraw ...



The SPEAKER: ... [Inaudible.] thug, please ...



Mr W W WESSELS: I didn’t call anybody a thug ...



The SPEAKER: No, you said when people behave like thugs they are thugs ... [Interjections.] ... [Inaudible.] ... withdraw thugs ...



Mr W W WESSELS: ... Madam Speaker, but I didn’t call anybody a thug. I said when somebody acts like a thug, he is a thug [Interjections.] ...



Ms H O MKHALIPHI: Don’t argue with the Speaker wena [you],


withdraw ...



Mr W W WESSELS: ... I withdraw unconditionally. I will continue.


Madam Speaker, when somebody’s behaviour is typical of a fascist that person is most probably a fascist. Because when somebody ...



The SPEAKER: I just ruled against ... hon member, I ruled against that! I said the member who was there should withdraw that term. And I repeat, withdraw.



Mr W W WESSELS: Madam Speaker, with due respect, I’m not


referring to any member ...



The SPEAKER: I am saying withdraw the use of that word ... [Interjections.]



Mr N M PAULSEN: ... undermining you, Speaker ...



The SPEAKER: Withdraw, please! You are wasting our time.



Mr W W WESSELS: Madam Speaker, I withdraw and I will follow the procedure.



The SPEAKER: Thank you very much, hon member.


Mr W W WESSELS: Madam Speaker, when people are attempting to completely collapse this Parliament, they are collapsing democracy. Because this Parliament is the influential aspect of democracy. This is the voice of the people. And what happened on the 19th of July 2019 was contempt of democracy, it was contempt of the voice of the people ...



Mr A H M PAPO: Speaker, on a point of order.



The SPEAKER: Point of order, yes?



Mr A H M PAPO: Speaker, when you were busy trying to make a ruling on that matter, member Mkhaliphi shouted on the virtual platform without her being recognised. She was actually making a ruling from the virtual platform and she’s not a Presiding Officer. We need to make a ruling on that because howling in the House is against the rules when you’re not given the platform.



The SPEAKER: Thank you, hon Papo. I’ve noted that. you may


take your seat.



Continue, hon member!


Mr W W WESSELS: Speaker, this House as an institution has a decorum and has rules for a reason, and the EFF on that very sad night completely destroyed that decorum and that cannot be taken lightly. And that is why we agree with this report, why we agree with the sanctions and the recommendations.



One of the classical, typical behaviours of the formation that I will not call because that is ruled out of order, but if you go and look at that then it is typical that facts are ignored, and we heard that just now, that facts are ignored.



What happened on the 19th of July cannot be dispelled with all


kinds of words saying that it didn’t happen, we can all saw


... we saw it, we were there, we were there when members stormed a Minister and physically threatened a fellow member of this Parliament; that happened, it’s a fact.



But that’s the problem with that type of typical behaviour, where facts are completely ignored for some other purpose and to destroy democracy. We cannot allow that. This should not be allowed.



I want to agree with the hon Mazzone that it is wonderful that on a virtual platform members can be removed much quicker and


we don’t have the disruptions and we don’t have the contempt.





Because, Madam Speaker, if we allow the EFF to do what they’ve done for the past seven years, we are threatening what a lot of people fought for, we are threatening our democracy. They, are here for one purpose, and that is to destroy this institution. I thank you. [Applause.]



The SPEAKER: Hon members, just a point of order from my side


... [Inaudible.]



*sound started to break*



*The House is muted for few minutes due to a technical error*



Mr S N SWART: ... for accountability and for decorum in the House and it is quite sad because ... [Inaudible.] ... recalls that we were with Minister Gordhan when he was a Member of Parliament, we all engaged in the Eskom inquiry and the EFF members were very vocal in supporting the Eskom inquiry, all of us together as team South Africa in exposing that corruption and then it was quite astounding to see that because we were all awaiting subsequently for the public


enterprises budget debate to take place and we wanted to hear what the Minister then would say ...



The SPEAKER: I’m sorry, hon Swart. We are off again. I’m


really sorry about this.



Hon members, just ...



HON MEMBERS: Madam Speaker, we can hear you. We are fine. We are connected.



The SPEAKER: Proceed, hon Swart.



Mr S N SWART: So, when one then considers the report and yes, if there were procedural irregularities then a court should look at that and should rule on that. But for the present purposes it is very strong in the view of the ACDP that a very strong deterrent should be sent out, a strong message should be sent out.



I must say I, for one, have a number of good relationships with a number of EFF members where we sit there. So, this is not personal, this is an issue relating to the decorum of Parliament and accountability for what we believe is


unacceptable action and unacceptable conduct. And therefore, we support this report. I thank you.



Mr A M SHAIK EMAM: Hon Speaker, the NFP will support the report tabled here today. This House, the National Assembly, has a responsibility, as one of the governing bodies in this country, which is at a very high level. What is very important is that if we have to instill confidence in the general public then, of course, we ourselves need to conduct ourselves in a professional and satisfactory manner.



Now, we must admit that the EFF has disrupted not just this one but many other sittings of the House. At times, we must learn to agree to disagree, but to go to the extent that you stop a Minister and become so unruly ... And, you know, hon Speaker, in this particular House there have been times that the very same furniture we are supposed to use, in order to be able to sit and provide a satisfactory service, the very same EFF members have been part and parcel of destroying, with very little or no respect for anyone in this House.



In order to protect the decorum and the dignity of this House, this House needs to set an example. [Inaudible.] ... taken the decision, okay, to sanction these ...


Ms N V MENTE: Point of order, Speaker.



The SPEAKER: My apologies, hon member. There is a point of order.



Ms N V MENTE: Yes, it is hon Mente. Speaker, the member cannot mislead the House. There is no malicious damage case attached to any EFF member. He cannot say Members of Parliament from the EFF are breaking furniture. He must withdraw that. That’s not true.



The SPEAKER: There is no point of order, hon member.



Mr A M SHAIK EMAM: Hon Speaker, I have been a witness myself. I have been in the House. I have watched ... [Inaudible.]



Ms N V MENTE: No, that’s not true. There is no police case


against an EFF member for malicious damage to property. No!



The SPEAKER: Hon Imam, please continue with your speech.



Mr A M SHAIK EMAM: Hon Speaker, what is very clear is that they have violated the code of conduct of the National Assembly. They have been unruly. They brought the House to a


standstill. They have affected the dignity and the decorum of the House. The NFP supports the report and the sanctions imposed. Thank you very much.



The SPEAKER: Thank you, hon member. The AIC?



Ms H O MKHALIPHI: This one is expelled from his political party.



Hon Mkhaliphi, I didn’t give you the floor. Please! Please


don’t do that. Don’t do that.



AIC? Not here. Cope? Not here. PAC? Not here. Al Jama-ah? Okay, not here. ANC?





today we are called upon by the National Assembly to deal with the misconduct of the 16 members of the EFF, which has been determined by the Powers and Privileges Committee as one of contempt of Parliament.



In terms of the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act, contempt of Parliament is a very serious offence. The ANC is determined


that the decorum of this House and respect for the integrity of others be upheld and that, where there are breaches of these, consequences must follow.



We, as public representatives, conscious of our actions, know exactly what we are doing and we gave undertakings when we were sworn in as public representatives on how we would conduct ourselves. How often have we not stated or restated in this House that robust and rigorous debate is welcomed, but that it must be within the Rules and procedures of the National Assembly? This is not the first time that we are speaking about these matters of the EFF. Why should we allow coercion, bullying threats and insults to be the indicators of debates in this House? This is not what we agreed to when we accepted being public representatives. Why should we allow those we have chosen to preside over meetings of the House to be ignored and ridiculed just because a minority wants things their way?



Who can forget 11 July 2019, when the nation and the National Assembly objected to scenes of thuggish behaviour just because the EFF did not want the member of the executive to deliver his budget speech? They are required to do so ... [Inaudible.]

... of Parliament. [Interjections.]


Ms N V MENTE: On a point of order, Speaker. Speaker, the member at the podium is repeating the word “thugs” and referring to members of the EFF. She must withdraw. [Interjections.]



The SPEAKER: Hon Mente, the member made a point about thuggish behaviour without saying “thugs”, so people have not been called thugs. Could we now proceed, please? Thank you.



Ms N V MENTE: No, Madam Speaker. She says thuggish behaviour of members of the EFF. That is the same thing.



The SPEAKER: Hon Mente, you were not called thugs. What I ruled against earlier on was people calling members thugs. Here, we are talking about behaviour; thuggish behaviour. That’s what she said. So there ... [Inaudible.]



Ms N V MENTE: Speaker, that determination vis-à-vis behaviour is the same thing. It’s the definition of thugs. [Interjections.]



The SPEAKER: Thank you, hon Mente. Hon Radebe? There is a point of order, hon Mente. Yes, hon Radebe? [Interjections.]


Mr B A RADEBE: Speaker, I am rising on Rule 92. When the presiding officer has made a ruling, it cannot be challenged on the floor of the House. So, the member of the EFF is out of order. Thank you. [Interjections.]



Ms H O MKHALIPHI: Hon Speaker, it is the hon Mkhaliphi here.



The SPEAKER: Wait, hon Mente. Hon Dlakude, I would like to caution you to be careful with your words. However, I will make a ruling later on the matter. Thank you. Proceed, hon Dlakude.





much, hon Speaker.



Ms H O MKHALIPHI: Hon Speaker ...?



The SPEAKER: I am not allowing you to speak now anymore. We proceed ... [Interjections.] [Inaudible.] Hon Mkhaliphi, if you are raising ... [Inaudible.] [Interjections.] Hon member Dlakude, I am sorry about this. Please continue.





much, hon Speaker.


Ms H O MKHALIPHI: Point of order, Speaker. Why are you not recognising me?



The SPEAKER: Hon Mkhaliphi, you still have your point of order? Yes, raise your point of order. Take a seat, hon Dlakude.



Ms H O MKHALIPHI: I’m calling a point of order on hon Papo. He must wear his mask correctly. He must cover his nose. [Interjections.] [Laughter.]



The SPEAKER: Thank you very much, hon Mkhaliphi. Proceed, hon Dlakude. Hon Papo, wear your mask properly. That’s not a point of order. Hon Dlakude, please proceed.



The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Notwithstanding presiding officer Boroto repeatedly ruling the EFF’s points of order – raised prior to the start of the Public Enterprises Budget Vote debate – as invalid, the members identified in the committee report not only continued but sought to physically stop Minister Gordhan from delivering the executive address.



The committee, following due process, offered the 16 members of the EFF – who were identified and removed from the Budget


Vote debate and subsequently charged in terms of the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act – the opportunity to be heard and make submissions to the Powers and Privileges Committee.



Hon Speaker, if I may clarify: the EFF tried its level best to stall the process. To prevent the committee from doing its work, they sent letters to the office of the chairperson – even their lawyers sent letters to the office of the chairperson – to say that they would be representing the members, but they wanted their lawyers to come before the committee, to which we objected in that the members themselves must come before the committee so that they could answer to their case themselves.



The fact is that those who were charged decided to boycott the hearings – claiming that the hearings constituted gross procedural and substantive unlawfulness and, when given the opportunity to put their case, opted not to do so – can hardly come to this Chamber and expect anyone to take them seriously. It was the actual hearing, however, that revealed just how gross the misconduct was on that day before the Public Enterprises Budget Vote debate could even start.


The initiator of the disciplinary hearings repeatedly submitted the serious nature and severity of their conduct ... [Inaudible.] ... intentional and deliberate. In the view of the committee ...



Dr M Q NDLOZI: Point of order, Speaker.



The SPEAKER: Yes, hon Ndlozi.



Dr M Q NDLOZI: I think Ms Dlakude’s time is up, really. We all


have three minutes for declarations. This is not a debate.



The SPEAKER: You are out of order, hon Ndlozi. Please don’t do that. You are wasting our time. Don’t do that.





much, hon Speaker.



The SPEAKER: Yes. Proceed, sisi.





their conduct which was both intentional and deliberate. In the view of the committee, there was no ambiguity with regard to the intentions of the EFF members and the committee stated


as such and this was recorded on 11 July 2019. Three of the EFF members listed in the hearings had previous findings of guilt for contempt of Parliament and had penalties imposed on them. They were found guilty of contempt in relation to an incident that occurred in August 2014 during questions to the President.



As public representatives, we constantly call for consequence management in our oversight work as we oversee government departments, their entities and other statutory bodies. This same principle applies to public representatives. Where a parliamentary committee finds members have a case to answer to, seeking to avoid providing an answer to the allegation is a very poor reflection on the individuals concerned.



The ANC stands in support of the sanctions provided by the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act and in support of the sanctions.



The retrogressive parliamentary relations are cause for concern. The political intolerance displayed on this platform will breed political intolerance beyond the corridors of this platform. We are leaders and role models for the youth out there. Our interest, as the ANC, is to focus on ensuring that


we build a united, nonracial, nonsexist, democratic country. Anarchists should not be allowed to hold this Parliament to ransom. I think that, in future, sanctions must be imposed on political parties not individual members, because some of these parties are good at redeploying their members. Hon Speaker, the ANC supports the report. [Time expired.]



The SPEAKER: Order! With declarations having been made, I now recognise the hon Chief Whip of the Majority Party.



The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Hon Speaker, I move that this august House adopt this report. Thank you.



Question put: That the motion moved by the Chief Whip of the Majority Party be agreed to.



Division demanded.



The SPEAKER: A division having been called, the bells will be rung for two minutes.



The House divided.


The SPEAKER: Order! Hon members, I, as Speaker, have determined that in accordance with the Rules, a manual voting procedure will be used for this division. Firstly, in order to establish a quorum, I request the table to confirm that we have the requisite number of members physically present in the Chamber and on the virtual platform in order for us to take this decision. Party Whips will then be given an opportunity to confirm the number of their members present and indicate if they vote for or against the question. A member who wishes to abstain or vote against the party vote may do so by informing the Chair.



A quorum being present in terms of Rule 98(1), voting commenced.



The SPEAKER: Order! Having confirmed that we have the requisite quorum, we will now proceed. The question before the House is that the report of the Powers and Privileges Committee on Allegations of conduct constituting contempt of Parliament by members of the National Assembly during miniplenary on Budget Vote 9: Public Enterprises on 11 July 2019 at E249, be agreed to. Voting will now commence.



Hon Chief Whip?


The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Thank you very much, hon Speaker. The ANC on the virtual platform is 145; here in the plenary it is 47; totalling 192. We vote in full support.

Thank you.






The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Madam Speaker, on the virtual platform we have 44 members; in the actual physical House we have 19 members; totalling 63 members voting in complete support of this report.






Mr N F SHIVAMBU: Speaker, we are 40 on the virtual platform. We are voting against.






Mr N SINGH: Hon Speaker, we are seven on the virtual platform; one in the House; eight members supporting the report. Thank you.



The SPEAKER: The FF Plus?


Mr W W WESSELS: Hon Speaker, we are three in the House and five on the virtual platform. So that is a total of eight voting in support.



The SPEAKER: Thank you. The ACDP?



Mr S N SWART: One in the House supporting the report. Thank you.






Mr V ZUNGULA: Speaker, there are two of us on the virtual platform. We are voting against the report. Thank you. [Interjections.]






Mr S N AUGUST: Speaker, we are two on the virtual platform and we are in full support. Thank you.






Mr A M SHAIK EMAM: Hon Speaker, we are one in the House, one on the virtual platform, and we support the report. Thank you.


The SPEAKER: The AIC? Cope? The PAC? Al Jama-ah?



Order! Hon Shivambu, will you please confirm the number of EFF members on the virtual platform?



Mr N F SHIVAMBU: I said 40.



The SPEAKER: Well, what is reflected here on the screens is less than that.



Mr N F SHIVAMBU: That’s fine. All of us who are on the


platform are voting against the report. [Interjections.]



The SPEAKER: Hon Shivambu, on the virtual platform ... [Interjections.] Order, please! Hon Shivambu, on the virtual platform you have 33 members, not 40. So we now proceed on the basis of what we have here – on the records. Thank you, hon member.



The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As we know, when we count it is done in a very ethical manner and, as Members of Parliament, we do so and we trust one another in an ethical manner. I would therefore like to rise and propose that the unethical behaviour of the EFF in


lying to Parliament as to the number of members they have on the virtual platform be referred to the Powers and Privileges Committee. [Interjections.]



The SPEAKER: Order, Mkhaliphi! Hon member Mkaliphi, order. I’m on the floor, hon Mkhaliphi. Hon member Mazzone, you do not say people are lying ... hon members are lying.






The SPEAKER: Hon Mazzone, please! Please! Will you withdraw that? [Interjections.]



The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Madam Speaker, I absolutely withdraw “lying”. I said unethical behaviour, and they misled the House.






The SPEAKER: Hon Mente, hon Shivambu ... I’ve called the hon Mente ... [Inaudible.] ... to speak. Can I say something: For now, I don’t believe you deliberately misled, so I’d like us to proceed. Hon Shivambu, what is the issue?


Mr N F SHIVAMBU: Speaker, this is quite simple, but the foolish DA Chief Whip would not understand this. It’s quite simple, but ... [Inaudible.] ... foolishness ... [Inaudible.]

... rejected with contempt.



The SPEAKER: Hon Shivambu ...



The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.



The SPEAKER: No. Sit down, hon Mazzone.



The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Madam Speaker, please. On a point of order ...



The SPEAKER: Hon Mazzone, I am addressing the hon Shivambu. Please take your seat.



The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Will you hear me afterwards?



The SPEAKER: Please take your seat. Please allow me to preside. Hon Shivambu, if I instruct ... [Inaudible.] ... direct you to take your seat, because you are out of order,


please do so with all humility. I plead with you. I really plead with you. Hon Mazzone?



The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Hon Speaker, those of you who know me, know that I don’t do this to disrupt the House. But, given the fact that I am not allowed to call the hon Shivambu a thug or a fascist, I think it is only right that he is not allowed to call me foolish. Because I think that everybody in this House knows that intellectually I run about

30 million circles around him. I therefore demand that he withdraw that statement. [Interjections.]



Mr V PAMBO: No, Mazzone, man. No, man. You’re a matriculant.



The SPEAKER: No, no. Hon Pambo ...? Hon Pambo ...? Hon Pambo, I will remove you from the platform I can assure you.



Mr N F SHIVAMBU: On a point of order, Speaker.



The SPEAKER: Yes, hon Shivambu. I was addressing you when Pambo intervened. Now, hon Shivambu, will you please withdraw the word “foolish” and do so unconditionally? [Interjections.]



Ms H O MKHALIPHI: Speaker ...


The SPEAKER: No, hon Mkhaliphi.



Ms H O MKHALIPHI: Speaker, what did I say? Why are you saying


... [Inaudible.] Please! Don’t be like Papo who just dreams


about me. I have never said anything here. [Interjections.]



The SPEAKER: Hon Mkhaliphi ... Hon Shivambu ... Hon Shivambu


... Hon members to my right ... Hon members to my right, you are loud. You are loud and you are making it difficult for me to preside. Don’t do that, okay. Now, hon Shivambu, I said please withdraw.



Mr N F SHIVAMBU: Speaker, I want to quickly understand: How are university dropouts more intellectually superior to us ... [Inaudible.] [Interjections.] I mean, that must be withdrawn first before we withdraw “foolishness”. It is, again, a demonstration of foolishness for a person to stand up and say they are intellectually superior when they are a dropout. [Inaudible.] [Interjections.]



The SPEAKER: You are not going to disrupt this sitting. You will not do that. Hon Dlakude, you have the floor.




much, hon Speaker. Hon Speaker, on a point of procedure: I request that we be protected as members of this House sitting here. We cannot be held to ransom by one political party, the EFF. Could you please request ... if I may, hon Speaker? I am not telling you what to do, but throw them out of this sitting so that we may proceed. Thank you. [Interjections.]

The SPEAKER: Order, hon members!



Ms H O MKHALIPHI: Hon Speaker, I am calling an order too.



The SPEAKER: Hon Mkhaliphi, hon Mente, what I expect now are the results of the voting. If you want to be thrown out, you will be thrown out after you’ve heard the results.



Ms H O MKHALIPHI: But I am calling an order. How can I want to be thrown out when I’m calling an order, Speaker? Don’t treat us like stepchildren, Speaker. We are Members of Parliament.

Dlakude can’t tell us how to behave because we are equals here. We are Members of Parliament like her. You can’t tell us what to do and what to say here.



The SPEAKER: Hon Mkhaliphi, please! Hon Mkhaliphi, you are an hon member. And hon Hlengiwe ... [Inaudible.] ... or


something, please! The same applies to you. Could you please


... I will not remove them before you have heard the results. Here are the results. Table, I want the results. [Interjections.] [Laughter.] [Applause.]



The SPEAKER: Thank you very much, hon members. Order! The ayes: 274. The noes: 35. Abstain: 0. Thank you very much, hon members. [Applause.]



AYES – 274: (ANC – 192; DA – 63; IFP – 8; FF Plus – 8; NFP –


1; ACDP – 1; Good – 1).



NOES – 35: (EFF – 33; ATM – 2).



Motion agreed to.



Report accordingly adopted.





Ms V S SIWELA: Hon Speaker, following a sitting of the state of the nation address on 13 February 2020, the Speaker of the National Assembly and the Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces referred “Allegations of conduct constituting contempt of Parliament” by members of the EFF to the Powers and Privileges Committee of the Assembly in terms of Rule 214 and the Privileges Committee of the National Council of Provinces.



The EFF raised points of order related to the presence of former President De Klerk in the gallery and the presence of Minister of Public Enterprises, Gordhan in the Chamber.



The presiding officers repeatedly ruled the points of order to be invalid, but the members persisted in raising the same points of order. While the presiding officers could have invoked Joint Rule 14G, which deals with ordering of a member to withdraw from the House, to deal with the members raising persistent and repetitive points of order, they elected not to invoke the rule and instead opted to invoke Joint Rule 14F that no further points of order on the matter would be taken.



The points of order and rulings/interventions by the presiding officers lasted for just over an hour, after which the


proceedings were briefly suspended. At the resumption of the proceedings, parties were given an opportunity to make statements. Mr J S Malema, made a brief statement on behalf of the EFF and following the statement all members of the EFF left the Chamber. On their way- out, bottles were thrown in the direction of the members sitting in the backbenches, apparently by EFF members leaving the Chamber. The members throwing the bottles could not be identified from the video footage as they were obscured.



The Powers and Privileges Committee could not reach unanimity on whether the conduct of the EFF members constituted contempt of Parliament, and resolved that the services of an external person with legal background be procured to investigate the matter and advise. A final determination on whether the members had committed contempt would require the members to be given an opportunity to put their version of events to the committee.



The committee observed that the Joint Rules on Order and Rules of Debate were not as explicit and developed as the National Assembly Rules, which provide that a ruling of a presiding officer is final and may not be challenged and that the tools


provided for presiding officers by the Joint Rules are inadequate to deal with the problems experienced.



In light of the findings, the committee recommends that, (a) The referral of the Sona incident of 13 February 2020 does not have a reasonable prospect of success and therefore should not be proceeded with, (b) Since the order for Ms Santi to leave the Chamber was not pursued it could be reasonably inferred that she was probably absolved from having to comply with the instruction, (c) The throwers of the water bottles could not be identified from the video footage as they were obscured, and therefore it is not possible to take that matter further, and, in view of the inadequacy of the Joint Rules to deal with challenges as experienced during the Joint Sitting of 13 February 2020, a process to update the Joint Rules should be embarked upon as a matter of urgency. The report is tabled for consideration. I thank you Madam Speaker.





The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Thank you Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I don’t often refer to the Bible. But, James 2:10 says:


For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.



And, in this particular instance, what we saw, was yet again an attempt to fail the House. Thanks goodness there are enough people who hold the rational centre within this Parliament, to stop the failing of the House. And I would like to thank those members who held the decorum, I would especially like to thank the members of the backbenches of not only the DA but other opposition parties, who refused to take part in the violence that persisted.



We had members arriving, wearing ... I don’t know if they were bicycle gloves or Kung fu gloves or that kind of thing. I was personally threatened with a little Kung fu well you know, it would have reached my ankle, so I don’t think it would have done much harm. But, this is what we had to deal with. And, I think that what we need as a Parliament to understand is if that we don’t all stand together against the one force, that is trying to cause disruption and cause disorderly behaviour, we are not adhering to James 2:10. Because, if one of us is guilty, we are all guilty. So, it’s no good that we scream across the counters and we shout at each other and we anticipate the throwing of the bottles – members if you


remember that night when we left, there was blood splattered across the outside areas, there was broken glass. It was a war room outside and I was horrified to be a Member of Parliament.



And I remember the first thing I did is I ran outside and phone my late father. And I said to him, no matter what you see on television, tv, I am safe, because there are enough people with integrity in this House to make sure that I am looked after. But no one should have to worry about their safety within the House.



And, that night was a terrifying display of exactly what can go wrong when you allow a group of people to try and take over the decorum of a House. So, what I am asking and what I am pleading, is that we set aside ideology, we set aside political differences and we stand together as a united Parliament and say; this has happened one too many times and it will never happen again. Because, Madam Speaker in English we have a very old fashion saying and the saying is:



If it walks like a duck, ... and it quacks like a duck, it’s certainly must be a duck.



I thank you.


Dr M Q NDLOZI: Thank you, Speaker. We welcome the Report and its recommendations, in particular, its recommendations and commend the Members of Parliament from the EFF benches that protested against the presence of the last leader of the murderers and criminal apartheid regime that day, F W De Klerk.



This apartheid lunatic leader had defended the apartheid system arguing that it was not a crime against humanity. His comments revealed De Klerk as an unrepentant war criminal who till his last dying days saw to sanitize the murderers’ apartheid regime. This act must still be dismissed to this day as an act of lunacy because anti-black racism is fundamentally a mental illness that many in society still suffer from, like the likes of Helen Zille. So sick and so similar in character, these lunatics both try each day to justify and sanitize the colonial apartheid systems. We must reiterate that under no circumstances can apartheid or colonialism not be a crime against humanity. In every historic era such systems will always be crimes against humanity.



In addition, it is important to state categorically that De Klerk and the entire apartheid white minority community did not do black people any favors. They, De Klerk and white


people did not end apartheid out of the goodness of their hearts. Racist heart has no ounce of goodness and they are filled with bitter hatreds that must be constantly exposed and opposed. On that day in these Chambers De Klerk learnt the truth that black people supported - by the peoples of the world - liberated South Africa from him, as the apartheid lunatic.



No one, black or white must ever arrogate themselves to perpetuate this brutal lie that De Klerk is our liberator. He was forced to negotiate and he was forced to relinquish power by the might of the masses of our people both here and abroad. Those who said he helped to avoid a terrible war and bloodbath, also live a lie. He had no choice but to concede even as many lives were lost under his watch. May his soul be eternally held accountable. May his name be added in the annals of history alongside that of Hitler, Mussolini and Leopold as unrepended criminals who lived for the hate and mass murder of community.



When he reaches in the beyond may all the spirit of the people who were killed in the Boipatong massacre haunt him eternally for all the crimes against humanity that he represented. We commend the EFF Members of Parliament on that day, who stood


against any false and fake decorum and hypocrisy to tell De Klerk to his face that he is a war criminal. Thank you.



The SPEAKER: Nontando, Natasha Ntlangwini and Mkhalipi, hon


members, please, don’t do that. This is ...





Mr N S MATIASE: ... a ba swe bana ba baloi ...



The SPEAKER: ... Matiase! Matiase, don’t do that, hon members.



Ms Z MAJOZI: Thank you, hon Speaker. From the outset the matter raised in the Report of the Power and Privileges Committee has been seriously delayed by the pandemic. It is unfortunate that the House is only now in the position to consider the Report of the committee. The matter concerning the conduct of Members of Parliament during the state of the nation address in February 2020 is an important matter as it directly reflects on the integrity and dignity of this institution.



The IFP maintains that it is a great honor to represent the people of South Africa and we need to ensure our conduct reflects this duty. Millions of South Africans watch the state


of the nation address and considering the importance of the matter. The interruptions and the impact of these interruptions on the public’s right to view the state of the nation has a great effect. On considering of the Report, the IFP agrees with the adhoc committee’s approach in requesting a legal opinion by outside legal counsel on the matter and we agree with the findings of the report. In specific, it is clear from the Report and from the video footage that was presented that the presiding officers had the right to enforce a Joint Rule 14(f).



It is, however, very clear that the enforceability of the Joint Rule needs to be stronger and we agree with the committee’s findings that the Joint Committee on Order who is on debate in joint sittings need to be urgently reviewed and updated. In conclusion, hon members, our duty to the people of South Africa should always be to ensure that we run Parliament with dignity, integrity and transparency. We need to protect its reputation and the work we deliver in its name. The IFP supports the Report. Thank you.



Mr W W WESSELS: Thank you, hon Speaker. Hon Speaker, we agree that there is clearly an inadequacy in the Joint Rules to deal with these type of situations and incidents. Nevertheless,


it’s actually a shame that there should be rules to deal with these type of incidents because none of Parliament should have to deal with these type of incidences.



Madam Speaker, this Parliament, this place is firstly here to serve the people of South Africa, secondly, it is a battle of idea, not a battle of fists, not a battle of bottles and not a shouting match but a debate to actually debate issues on a mutual and on an aspect of mutual respect. That is what is lacking with certain members in this House where there is no mutual respect. That is a serious problem. We cannot allow that this House deteriorates, that we don’t have a battle of ideas, that we can’t debate each other and actually come to conclusions and keep the decorum of this House.



Hon Speaker, that is the problem when we don’t ...


[Interjections...] ...



Ms H O MKHALIPI: ... hon Speaker!



The SPEAKER: Hon Mkhalipi, Yes.



Ms H O MKHALIPI: Can the member on the podium take a question, hon Speaker?


The SPEAKER: Would you take a question, hon member?



Mr W W WESSELS: I’ll take the question.



Ms H O MKHALIPI: Thank you very much, Hon member, are you aware that in Orania in the Northern Cape, there is a mayor of the EFF that is ruling there? How do you feel about that, hon Member? In Orania.



Mr W W WESSELS: You see, that is the irrelevance of the EFF. That is the problem, Madam Speaker, because when someone acts in that way and can’t debate issues and can’t actually say what is right and what is wrong they come with this complete ridiculousness ...



Ms H O MKHALIPI: ... hon Speaker, I am waiting for the answer. He said he can take a question. I’m asking him how does he feel that in Orania there is an EFF member. He must answer.



The SPEAKER: Hon Mkhalipi, please, man, don’t do that. He is responding to your question and you will not prescribe how he should respond to your question. Proceed, hon member. Please, don’t do that.


Mr W W WESSELS: Thank you, hon Speaker. Hon Speaker, at the end of the day facets, hearts and minds are clouded by hatred and that’s the problem. Madam Speaker, when someone acts like a red Teletubby, they most probably are red Teletubbies. When you want to fight and be a fighter, go outside and try to fight and I don’t think you’ll come very ... [Inaudible.] ... but don’t come into this House where it should be about intellectual debate and hide behind being members of Parliament should you fight because we don’t go anywhere.

Thank you.



Ms E N NTLANGWINI: No, that coward left, hon Speaker. Nevertheless, we will show him what red Teletubbies are. We will show him. That coward left.



Mr S N SWART: Thank you, Speaker. Speaker, the ACDP joins other parties in expressing our support for this Report and we too were deeply disturbed by the events out at that state of the nation address 2020. The nation was waiting to hear the state of the nation and the nation was waiting to hear the President Ramaphosa. We witnessed this disruption that took place and which was totally unacceptable.


However, what made the situation even worse was that it was not only the eyes of all South Africans that were watching on television but foreign diplomats sitting in attendance. What report would they then have sent back to their nations about South Africa and about the disruptions that took place? So, that conduct was totally unacceptable. This Report sets out a degree of accountability. Regrettably, we understand that the challenges face the committee as it observed that the Joint Rules on Order and rules of debate at the joint sittings were not explicit as developed as the National Assembly Rules, and therefore, that this inadequacy of the Rule resulted in the committee coming to this decision.



Then, I fully support my colleagues who have said that we need to stand together as united Parliament to say that this disruption and these forms of disruption should not take place again. I think it’s very important given the fact that we see a lot of violence, we see a lot of disruptions in our communities and youthful youths watch this and emulate the behavior of us as representatives. I think it’s hugely important that we maintain an element of decorum because people look up to Parliament to set an example as leaders in the nation. Each one of us will be accountable for our conduct. We’ll be accountable and so this is a form of


accountability. However, one day we will be accountable before the Almighty God. Dr Ndlozi, He will judge the conduct of Mr De Klerk, not us.



Ms H O MKHALIPI: Hon Speaker!



The SPEAKER: Yes, hon Mkhalipi.



Ms H O KHALIPI: Uh, that ...





... Moruti wa tsotsi ...





... left the podium, I wanted to ask him a question.



Mr V ZUNGULA: Thank you, Speaker, can you hear me Mama? Speaker, on the issue of De Klerk, it was very insensitive of him, particularly saying that apartheid was not a crime against humanity. Therefore, you can’t expect people who have lost loved ones on his hands to act as if life must continue as normal under those circumstances.


Parliament cannot make any determination that seeks to police how people should feel about how their loved ones who were brutally murdered under De Klerk’s rule. What Parliament must not do is to police members’ rights to express themselves on any political platform. We cannot have a case whereby Parliament cannot be engaged and be a space for contestation, particularly when it comes to ideas and approaches.



What this report seeks to do, in my view, is police and manage Members of Parliament. We, as the ATM, understand that Parliament should be a space of debate and contestation.

That’s what transpired on that day. Thank you.



Mr A M SHAIK EMAM: Thank you, hon Speaker, Speaker, when I read this report, two things come to mind. Firstly ... I have spoken to many people, victims who have had their cases withdrawn as a result of poor police investigations. Now, we find that there are weaknesses in our Rules and systems, which makes it unfortunate that people conducting themselves in this manner can get away with it.



Secondly, that many of the crimes committed in South Africa are committed by repeat offenders. The conduct of some of the EFF members clearly indicates that they are beyond


rehabilitation because they have been doing this again and again ... [Inaudible.] ... On the statement that was made by F W De Klerk, I think it must be condemned with the contempt it deserves in any case.



What is very important to note, let us as public representatives, no matter what the differences may be between us, we must agree to disagree but treat each other with dignity and respect because we have 59 million people in this country and many abroad who are watching what’s happening. In order for them to have the confidence in us, we need to be able to perform or represent them in a satisfactory manner, which does not happen. What is very clear is that as a result of the weaknesses - we are talking about video footage and the Rules – these are the things that we need to look at very seriously so that we can address them. Those that are beyond rehabilitation must pay the ultimate price. The NFP supports the report. Thank you.



Ms H O MKHALIPHI: Madam Speaker.



The SPEAKER: Hon Mkhaliphi, please, just say point of order, and I will listen.


Ms H O MKHALIPHI: Okay Speaker, on a point of order.



The SPEAKER: Thank you. Hon Mkhaliphi.



Ms H O MKHALIPHI: Speaker, I hope that the member who was speaking now had an opportunity to go and cry at his uncle, De Klerk’s funeral instead of crying here in this Parliament because we don’t have time for that here. We call a spade a spade. We don’t care about De Klerk here, Speaker.



The SPEAKER: That’s not a point of order, hon Mkhaliphi. Please don’t do that. Just raise a point of order when there is one. Hon Papo, why are you on your feet?



Mr A H M PAPO: I want to raise a point of order.



The SPEAKER: Take a seat, press a button and say point of order.



Mr A H M PAPO: That’s what I was doing.



The SPEAKER: Sit down. Take your seat.



Mr A H M PAPO: I wanted to raise a point of order.


The SPEAKER: Take a seat. Now, you can say point of order. [Applause.]



Mr A H M PAPO: The point of order I want to raise is what member Mkhaliphi said that I dream about her. I don’t understand what that means.



The SPEAKER: Please, hon Papo, take a seat. There is no point





Ms H O MKHALIPHI: Speaker, I can reply fast.



Ms C M PHIRI: No, Mkhaliphi, you are a spoiled brat.



The SPEAKER: Hon Phiri, please.



Ms H O MKHALIPHI: Speaker, I can assist.



The SPEAKER: Let’s proceed.





Moh G K TSEKE: Ke a leboga, Mmusakgotla o o tlhompegang. Maloko a Palamente, dumelang.




The report of any Powers and Privileges Committee should signify to all of us as public representatives in the National Assembly a moment to introspect and recommit ourselves to the values upon which this Parliament has been constituted. It does not adhere nor enhance the image of public representatives. When we have to sit through humiliating sessions in this Chamber of Parliament, where the Joint Rules of Parliament are reinterpreted to seek advantage of a particular political party or respect for the decorum of the occasion is trampled underfoot merely to seek political advantage. Further, where presiding officers rule that the repeated so-called points of order is not a point of order, we are subjected to watching presiding officers being undermined.



Hon members, what 1994 brought, amongst others, was the restoration of the dignity of another person. It cannot be that in this chamber, whether Joint Sitting or the National Assembly sitting, the dignity is abused by a minority who wants attention to be drawn to themselves and not give respect to the decorum of the occasion.



The matters that the committee had to preside over had nothing to do with the purpose of which the occasion was called –


being the state of the nation address. Hon Speaker, this is not the first time that we are debating this issue. Each time we have to come back and rearticulate what the occasion of the state of the nation address is meant for, who convenes it and how we engage on the debate of the state of the nation address thereafter.



The nation and its public representatives have to be abused with content that is self-seeking, subjective and designed to humiliate individuals as if we have never adopted a Constitution of the Republic and the Rules of Parliament that guides our conduct.



Hon members, the source of what the committee had to deal with had nothing to do with the state of the nation address of 2020, but because there those in this chamber - and they are connected virtually now – who constantly seek attention and resent that the focus of the nation address may not be on them, they disrupt, create havoc and waste the time of the nation and other public representatives. The fact that questions are used to argue a point instead of persuasions and that water bottles are thrown around the chamber instead of debating the merits of an argument is a reflection of political childness and immaturity.


Hon members, this is how the nation sees us as public representatives and it is not surprising that the gap between those who take time to vote and those who either don’t register or who don’t bother to go and vote is growing wider and wider. Tolerance towards ... [Interjections.] ...



Ms E N NTLANGWINI: No, it is because of you the ANC. [Laughter.]



Mr K CEZA: This is ludicrous. [Interjections.]



The SPEAKER: Hon Ntlangwini and hon ... please don’t do that. I will not give you another warning ... Dr Sbongiseni, please. Proceed, hon member.



Ms G K TSEKE: Thank you very much, Speaker. This is the behavior we are talking about. ... Tolerance towards misconduct in Parliament is adding to alienation that is growing and a lack of respect for public representatives. This is the damage - like disrupting the events of the state of the nation of 2020 - is doing to our representative democracy.



Hon members, turning to our Rules also. Whilst we craft Rules for the proceedings of both Houses and Joint Sittings, we do


so to facilitate order, procedural fairness and respect for relevant legislations. Rules were not designed to give due advantage to any political party, neither did they anticipate the disruptive behavior that would show little respect or regard for procedures unless they served the interest of the group concerned.



Hon members, it is both good and established practice that we should on a regular basis and no less than every five years review the Joint Rules, the National Assembly Rules and the National Council of Provinces Rules. The last time that substantive work was done was in 2016 with the current National Assembly Rules. It is now years on and the Rules of the National Assembly are showing signs of inadequacy.



Hon Speaker, on the Joint Rules, which is where the Powers and Privileges Committee ran into problems, the situation is worse. One amendment has been carried out in the last five years, but there has been no review of the Joint Rules since the Fourth Parliament. It is not surprising that when interpretation of the Rules starts and all the parties in this House claims to be the masters of the interpretation with little evidence of authority, we ran into problems.


Hon members, it is not surprising that the recommendations of the Powers and Privileges Committee reflects a situation of where the committee itself is conflicted because the enabling mechanism, which is the Joint Rules, have not been attended to for such a long time. Therefore, the recommendations that in view of the inadequacy of the Joint Rules to deal with the challenges as experienced during the Joint Sitting of the 13th February 2020, a process to update the Joint Rules should be embarked upon as a matter of urgency so that we can deal decisively with the contempt of Parliament. The ANC supports the committee report as it was tabled. I thank you, Speaker. [Applause.]





UMBHEXESHI OYINTLOKO WEQELA ELILAWULAYO: Somlomo ndiphakamisa ukuba le Ndlu yoWiso-mthetho yeSizwe yamkele le ngxelo.




Debate concluded.



Question put.



Agreed to.










There was no debate.



The SPEAKER: I am informed that after consultation, there is agreement that on these two Orders there will be no declarations taken. Once we have adopted the reports, I will proceed to issue the reprimand to the members concerned as recommended. I now recognise the hon the Chief Whip of the Majority Party from the Chamber.



The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Hon Speaker, I move that these reports be adopted by the House. Thank you.



Question put.



Motion agreed to.


The SPEAKER: Hon members, the charge of breach of the Code of Ethical Conduct and Disclosure of Members’ Interests for Assembly and permanent Council members which you have been found guilty of by this House is very serious. Members who have been found in breach of the Code and are present in the Chamber are to stand while we reprimand them, while members on the virtual platform, who have formally informed me of their specific challenges with physical presence, including those who did not have the courtesy to inform me, will be required to switch their cameras on for the reprimand. Any member not present will be formally written to by myself and that letter will be published in full in the Announcements, Tablings and Committee, ATC, reports document, which is part of the official public record.



Hon members, the House has now adopted these reports and I hereby issue the reprimand to the following members. Those who are in the House, will you stand please? We have an apology from hon Mkhatshwa — she is not here; hon L F Shabalala; hon T T Mboweni; hon M D Mahlobo; hon M M Ntuli; hon K B Manamela; hon M Gungubele; hon Z Majozi; hon N F Shivambu; hon M Nyhontso; hon C H M Sibisi; hon S Patrein; hon N G Tolashe; hon V Pambo; hon M Nontsele; hon B P Mabe. We are informed


that hon M M Tlou is in hospital — she’s not here; hon B S


Yabo; and hon M Zwane.



As members of this House, you undertook to uphold the Constitution and to act according to its principles when you took your oath of office. You also undertook to perform your functions as members of the National Assembly to the best of your ability. Parliament has created, amongst others, Rules and a Code of Conduct, which are intended to provide terms of reference for members when discharging their duties and responsibilities. The Code of Conduct sets out the minimum ethical standards of behaviour that South Africans expect of public representatives, including upholding propriety, integrity and ethical values in their conduct. The purpose of the Code of Conduct is to create public trust and confidence in public representatives and to protect the integrity of Parliament. In terms of the Code of Conduct, members are expected to adhere to certain principles, two of which are openness and honesty. Openness requires that members should be as open as possible about all decisions and actions, bearing in mind the constitutional obligation for openness and transparency. Honesty requires that members must declare private interests relating to public duties and resolve any conflict arising in a way that protects public interest.


As stated by the Joint Committee on Ethics and Members’ Interests in its report — see ATC of 7 June 2021 — the disclosure of financial and other registrable interests is the foundation upon which the public is able to hold Members of Parliament to account and it is through this process that the public gains insight into the integrity and ethical standard of Members of Parliament and the institution of Parliament.

Thus, as members we have a duty to ensure transparency in the manner in which we perform our functions and to guarantee that we remain accountable as public representatives.



By your breach of the Code of Conduct, you have gravely undermined the principles of trust and transparency and further hinder Parliament’s efforts to build and maintain public trust in democratic institutions. As Speaker of the House and in terms of the sanction imposed on you, I must inform you that failure to observe the letter and spirit of the Code of Conduct is totally unacceptable, and I therefore, in this public forum, issue this reprimand for your failure.



With regard to the hon N G Tolashe, B P Mabe, M M Tlou, B S Yabo and M Zwane, I will ensure that the fine of two days’ salary for not initially submitting the disclosure form for


2019 or 2020, that was agreed to by the House, is imposed. I thank you, hon members.



I also want to make the point that letters had been written by the secretary of Parliament to all those concerned. I see that only two members are here ... three members are here ... and I want to say that we commend you for that, hon members. We commend you for that ... [Applause.] ... because others have not even responded. Thank you very much and you may be seated, hon members.



Order! That was the Seventh and Eighth Orders of the day. There were no objections and the reprimand has been issued. We will now proceed with the Ninth Order. The secretary will read the Ninth Order.



Report on 2019 Register of Members’ Interests: Late and nondisclosures, contravention of Code of Ethical Conduct and disclosure of Members’ Interests accordingly adopted.



Report on 2020 Register of Members’ Interests accordingly adopted.







There was no debate.



The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Hon Speaker, I move that this report be adopted by the House. Thank you.



Question put.



Motion agreed to.



Report accordingly adopted.



The SPEAKER: Hon members, now that the House has adopted this report, I will directly communicate with the member to ensure that the further action required from him is done at an appropriate time. We now proceed to the Tenth Order of the day. The secretary will read the last Order of the day.








There was no debate.


The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Hon Speaker, I move that the report be adopted by the House. Thank you.



Question put.



Ms N V MENTE: Speaker, please record our objection. And, we vehemently reject the unconstitutional and unfair report on Members of Parliament which seeks to intimidate Members of Parliament on how to deal with matters of Parliament and how to conduct themselves when they are interviewing ... [Inaudible.]



The SPEAKER: Hon member ... [Inaudible.] ... a declaration. The Chief Whips in their meeting in their wisdom took a decision that there will be no declarations. Now, this is not a point of order. What you are doing is making a statement, which is a declaration. Can we proceed now? There are no objections. We have of course noted the objection of the EFF. Thank you.



Mr V ZUNGULA: Speaker, please note the objection of the ATM.



The SPEAKER: The objection of the ATM is noted. I said you


should just say point of order and I’ll listen.


Mr N F SHIVAMBU: [Inaudible.] ... point of order. We are calling for a division. [Interjections.]



The SPEAKER: Thank you. There is a point of order and I’m





Mr N F SHIVAMBU: I’ve call for a division.



The SPEAKER: But you are calling for a division after we have adopted the report. You should’ve raised that matter before we adopted ... [Inaudible.]



Mr N F SHIVAMBU: No, but ... [Inaudible.] ... We don’t want to


... [Inaudible.] We want to vote. We are calling now for a division.



The SPEAKER: No, no, no, I’m sorry, hon member. Hon Mente


spoke on your behalf and requested that we should note ...



Mr N F SHIVAMBU: [Inaudible.]



The SPEAKER: No, no, no, Comrade Floyd ... hon Floyd. Hon Mente?


Ms N V MENTE: Speaker, you interrupted me and said I’m making


a statement and then you switched off my microphone.



The SPEAKER: I didn’t switch off your microphone, hon Mente.


Hon Mente? Hon Mente?



Ms N V MENTE: Yes, Speaker, I’m here.



The SPEAKER: Hon Mente?



Ms N V MENTE: Yes, Speaker, I couldn’t finish what I was saying. I wasn’t making a declaration. I was ... [Inaudible.]



The SPEAKER: You said we should note the objection of the EFF and you went on to ... [Inaudible.]



Ms N V MENTE: I went on to speak and at the end I was going to say we need a division, but you interjected and cut me off.



The SPEAKER: Wait! Hon Mente? Hon Mente? Hon Mente, you are a senior ... [Inaudible.] ... of your party.



Ms N V MENTE: I’m here. I’m here.


The SPEAKER: I’m saying you objected ...



Ms N V MENTE: I’m not doing anything.



The SPEAKER: No, no, no, don’t talk whilst I’m on the floor. You wait for me to finish and then you speak. This is what we have been talking about. There should be mutual respect amongst Members of Parliament. You can’t be screaming at me whilst I’m on the floor, in the same way that I can’t do it to you. We have noted the objection of the EFF and we agreed to that. Then later somebody else ... the Whip of the party ... is now requesting a division, and I say no to that. Hon ...



Mr N F SHIVAMBU: [Inaudible.] ... on a point of order.



The SPEAKER: Yes, hon member?



Mr N F SHIVAMBU: The procedure ... I think this thing of being new as a Speaker confuses you in terms of procedure, because the procedure is such that we call for ... We note the objections but as Members of Parliament we have the right to call for a division. This question is still before Parliament. It is not yet concluded. You can ask your Table staff. They will tell you that asking for a division now is procedurally


in order. We are calling for a division on this question because we want to vote against it.



The SPEAKER: Thank you, hon Shivambu. Thank you. I am saying that the timing in calling for the division is the problem. That is the issue. I will now allow a member of the ANC ... You had your hand up.



Ms J TSHABALALA: Thank you so much, hon Speaker. I am rising on a point of order. The Speaker had concluded the process on this matter and a point of objection was raised by the EFF. The EFF member did make that statement. You called them to order. You closed and ruled on the matter. Now we have moved on this issue. Furthermore, I will also propose that hon Mente should be thrown out of the House because she has been perpetually opening the platform and you have been perpetually entertaining her. That is out of order. So, I feel that we should move, hon Speaker.



The SPEAKER: I thank you, hon members. Having noted the objections of the EFF, we now proceed.



Mr N F SHIVAMBU: On a point of order, Speaker.


The SPEAKER: Hon Shivambu, this is your last point of order.



Mr N F SHIVAMBU: The point of order is that our call for a division is procedurally correct. Let’s divide ... [Inaudible.]



The SPEAKER: It is procedurally correct if you had made the point before your own member raised an objection.



Mr N F SHIVAMBU: But, when our member was speaking you interrupted her. You muted her microphone and ... [Inaudible.]

... allow her to call for a division.



An HON MEMBER: Huh-uh Floyd, man!



Mr N F SHIVAMBU: ... [Inaudible.] ... why are you refusing


that? It’s a simple thing.



An HON MEMBER: Bring it on!



The SPEAKER: Okay. You are not going to scream here, Chief Whip. Hon Dlakude? [Inaudible.] ... bring it on ... [Inaudible.]




Speaker. For the sake of peace and progress, let’s allow that


vote. It will not kill us.



The SPEAKER: Thank you very much, hon Dlakude. That’s very


constructive. Hon Singh, you have your hand up?



Mr N SINGH: Yes, thank you very much, hon Speaker. I heard what the Deputy Chief Whip said. However, normally when that happens parties are given an opportunity to declare because if we are going to divide we must tell the House whether we are going to vote for or against, and why we are doing that. So, are declarations going to be allowed on this matter so that we express ourselves?






Mr N SINGH: It’s allowed in terms of the Rules, hon Natasha. I think I’m speaking to the hon Speaker. [Laughter.]



The SPEAKER: Thank you very much, hon Singh. In the beginning I noted that at the Chief Whips’ Forum there was agreement that there will be no declarations on these two items, and that’s okay. And because there were no declarations, right ...


And earlier on there wasn’t anyone who then proposed a division. We were then proceeding because objections had been registered. However, seeing that there is insistence on a division ... [Interjections.] ... Hon members, please allow

... [Interjections.] You are right. We may be setting a precedent. However, the Whips ... [Interjections.] You see all of you ... all the parties here are represented at the Chief Whips’ Forum and the decision was taken by the Whips. Now there is a proposal to reverse the decision which was taken.



The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Speaker, may I rise on Rule


86 which is a reflection of decisions made in the House? Now, I’m terribly sorry that the hon Singh seems to be highly offended by what I said but the thing is, as Whips we decided that because it is an ethics issue, ethics issues remain confidential. That is why the Ethics Committee is a closed committee of Parliament. We maintain an element of decorum by having elements that are discussed in the Ethics Committee kept confidential between yourself and the member whom the ethical issue occurs to. So, that is why we are not declaring on an issue. I for one am not going to break precedent and the guidelines. I am one of the lucky ones who has the old guideline book that says once the Chief Whips’ Forum has decided we will not make declarations you may not then go into


a vote; otherwise hon Singh is quite correct. We would all have to stand up and we would have to break a Rule of Parliament, which is breaking the confidentiality of the Ethics Committee. So, with the greatest deal of respect, Madam Speaker, it is my understanding from the Rules and guidelines of Parliament, as well as from the Chief Whips’ Forum which I understand is a consultative forum, that we agreed amongst ourselves that there would be no discussion on this because it is a confidential issue. The objection of the EFF has been noted. It will be noted and I think that is where this matter should end.



The SPEAKER: I thank you, hon member for that clarification.



Mr N F SHIVAMBU: On a point of order, Speaker.



The SPEAKER: Now, this is your last point of order.



Mr N F SHIVAMBU: The point of order is that the Rules Book of Parliament do not prescribe that the decisions of the Chief Whips’ Forum, which is a consultative forum, are binding in the House. That is why, whatever is discussed in the Chief Whips’ Forum, still has to be processed within the official structures of Parliament. There is no official structure of


Parliament which has taken a decision that we cannot vote on this issue. It is our right to demand a vote on this question and that is why we are calling for a division ... [Inaudible.]



The SPEAKER: Thank you. [Inaudible] ... hands ... [Inaudible.]


... and I will not allow you to speak now. I now make a ruling, and please allow me to do so because this is a heated political matter. Hon Mazzone has explained the reason why declarations shouldn’t be made. Nonetheless, there is nothing preventing us from having a division called without the declarations, right? So, we are now granting you the division you want but we will not make declarations. [Interjections.] No, no, no, just hold on.



Ms O M C MAOTWE: Thank you, Speaker. Thank you.



The SPEAKER: I’m trying to maintain the decorum of the House. That’s what we want to do here. Hon members, I now call for a division. The bells will be rung for two minutes.



Division demanded.



The House divided.


The SPEAKER: Order! Order! No matter how unhappy you are, please take your seat. Take your seat, hon member! I think I want to make an appeal to all of us that we be patient with one another and that we be tolerant. I’m really pleading for tolerance.



Now, hon members, a division having been called — of course the bells have been rung — I have determined that, in accordance with the Rules, a manual voting procedure will be used for this division. Firstly, in order to establish a quorum, I will request the Table to confirm that we have the requisite number of members physically present in the Chamber and on the virtual platform to take this decision. Party Whips will then be given an opportunity to confirm the number of their members present and indicate if they vote for or against the question. A member who wishes to abstain or vote against the party vote may do so by informing the Speaker.



Order! I am informed that we have the requisite quorum. We will now proceed. The question before the House is: Consideration of report of Joint Committee on Ethics and Members’ Interests on complaint against hon J S Malema. Voting will now commence. The doors to the Chamber will be locked and members will not be allowed to enter the virtual platform


until voting is concluded. Whips, could you confirm the number of your members present in the Chamber and on the virtual platform, and indicate if they vote for or against the question?






Motion agreed to.



Report accordingly adopted.



The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Madam Speaker, I know that you are about to adjourn the House but I wonder if I may be so bold as to ask you to please ask the National Assembly Table to acquire a legal opinion from Legal Services, as we have been told repeatedly during the course of today’s ... the last section of hearings ... not hearings but items, that these particular issues are going to be taken on legal review by the EFF. Now, the EFF has fully taken part in the debates that have happened in this House, they have made declarations themselves and they have voted. Therefore, because they have been full participants in what has happened in the House, it is my opinion that they no longer have legal standing on which to then question the legality ...


Mr S TAMBO: You are not a lawyer! You are not a lawyer! You are a dropout ... [Inaudible.] [Interjections.]



Ms E N NTLANGWINI: On a point of order, Speaker. [Interjections.]



The SPEAKER: Thank you, hon Mazzone.



The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Madam Speaker, allow me to finish. I am a ...



Ms E N NTLANGWINI: On a point of order, Speaker.



The SPEAKER: Hon Ntlangwini, you have a point of order? Yes, hon Ntlangwini?



Ms E N NTLANGWINI: Thank you very much, Speaker. Thank God we don’t need to take any legal advice from the fake lawyer, Natasha Mazzone.



Mr W FABER: That’s not a point of order!



Ms E N NTLANGWINI: She is ... They have no leg to stand on legally ... [Inaudible.]


Mr W FABER: That is no point of order!



Ms E N NTLANGWINI: [Inaudible.] ... because she’s not even a lawyer. She has not even completed her law degree, and for the past years she has been faking herself as a lawyer and portraying herself as an advocate, yet she’s a fake lawyer.



Mr W FABER: [Inaudible.] ... with due respect, that is not a point of order.



The SPEAKER: Hon members ... Hon Ntlangwini, don’t abuse this Chamber. The Table ... will you please remove her from the system?



Ms E N NTLANGWINI: I said what I said. I said what I said.



The SPEAKER: Please remove her from the system!



The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Madam Speaker, thank you very much. I am a very proud matriculant and I have dealt with guttersnipes like the hon Ntlangwini all my life.



The SPEAKER: No, no, no, no, just ...


Mr N M PAULSEN: Order Speaker!



Ms O M C MAOTWE: Go and finish your degree!



Ms H O MKHALIPHI: Can you call bouncers to remove her? Call bouncers. She thinks that she is untouchable. [Interjections.]



The SPEAKER: Hon members, we have come to the end of the sitting. [Interjections.]



Ms H O MKHALIPHI: Ja, tell that white person to sit down. [Interjections.] Tell that fake lawyer to sit down or call bouncers for her. [Interjections.]



The SPEAKER: Hon members who all seem to be lawyers, please take ...



The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Madam Speaker, I am not a lawyer.



The SPEAKER: No, no, no, I’m talking to the people who ...



Ms O M C MAOTWE: You fake law ...


Mr N M PAULSEN: Point of order, Speaker.



Ms H O MKHALIPHI: Why is she still speaking? Madam Speaker, why is she still speaking? It’s because she is white. She’s from Italy. She must go back to Italy. [Interjections.]



Mr K CEZA: She’s still speaking. The House has adjourned.





Ms O M C MAOTWE: Remove Mazzone from the platform. She must go!



Mr K CEZA: It’s a white tendency. She thinks she ...





The SPEAKER: [Inaudible.] ... favour of the report. We have just voted in favour of the report. No amount of disruption of this session will stop us from announcing the numbers and that is what we have done. Unfortunately, what you are trying to do now is actually to distract us from what we are doing.

Actually, I am now calling the session to an end. This is the end. Thank you very much.


The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Madam Speaker, will my request be adhered to?









The SPEAKER: Thank you.



The House adjourned at 19:38.