Hansard: NA: Unrevised hansard
House: National Assembly
Date of Meeting: 29 Sep 2022
Summary
No summary available.
Minutes
UNREVISED HANSARD
NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
THURSDAY, 29 SEPTEMBER 2022
PROCEEDINGS OF HYBRID NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
Watch: Plenary
The House met at 14:02.
The Speaker took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayer or meditation.
The SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order, hon members. Actually, at our age we live on medication. Morning, lunch and dinner, we have to take medication, some medicine. Hon members, you may be seated. Take your seats, hon members and we proceed.
UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE USED
(Ruling)
The SPEAKER: Hon members, let me start by ... On the 30 August 2022, during questions to the President, points of orders were raised in respect of three incidences. At the time I indicated that I will study the record and revert to the House to Rule.
Before the Ruling, I should remind members that we enjoy special constitutional privileges including freedom of speech. This is an essential right in that it enables us to raise and pursue matters in the public interest. This privilege is only limited by the Rules of Parliament. The Rules in turn, were not intended to constrain members, but rather to ensure that reasonable debate can occur.
Indeed, democracy would not be served if members could deviate from this objective and resort to insult or personal imputations. Rule 84, hon members, specifically prohibits members from using offensive, abusive, insulting, disrespectful, unbecoming or unparliamentary words or language nor offensive. No member may impugn improper motives to any other member or cast personal reflection upon a member’s integrity or dignity or verbally abuse a member in any other way except by way of a separate substantive motion. This Rule also applies to reflections upon the President.
I can now turn on to the incident of 30 August 2022. In the first instance, hon Mkhaliphi rose on a point of order to contend that hon Dhlomo has harassed her by stating that, and I quote: “What are her children saying when she speaks in this House” Ms Mkhaliphi insisted that such remarks constituted harassment and had to be withdrawn. I asked hon Dhlomo whether he had in fact made the remarks, which he denied. It was on that basis that I undertook to study the record.
Having had the opportunity to study the record, however, I must report that the available records did not capture the alleged comment and as such, I am unable to rule on their permissibility. I can, nevertheless, restate that insults and personal remarks and especially references to family have no home in our discourse. They are simply unacceptable and unparliamentary.
During the course of the proceedings, hon Radebe rose on a point of order to allege that hon Malema had casts aspersions on the President without bringing a substantive motion. At the time, Mr Radebe’s point of order could not be dealt with as there were interjections from other members. In this instance, the record show that Mr Malema said, and I quote: “Therefore, the President went to kidnap people, he engaged in money- laundering, he intimidated women and kidnapped women in his farm and we are told he must not answer.”
In a third incident, the hon Papo rose to complain that both hon Malema and hon Ndlozi have insulted him. I again said that
I will deal with this matter at a later stage. In this regard the record indicate that hon Malema said, with reference to hon Papo, and I quote: “Protect me from that charlatan, that is why you got 24 votes, domkop.” Order! Later, hon Ndlozi referred hon Papo as a hopeless idiot.
Presiding officers have previously Ruled that. Reference to other members as charlatans, “domkops” or idiots is demeaning. It is demeaning. It is very demeaning, actually. Moreover, as I have quoted the Rules prohibit members from making allegations of impugning the character of other members, including the President without a substantive motion. I am aware that members may wish to bring certain matters to the attention of the House, however, they must do so within the framework of the Rules and due process.
Hon Malema, I must consequently ask that you withdraw all the references to the President and hon Papo, as I have highlighted. Hon Malema. Hon Malema is on the platform, I am informed.
Mr J S MALEMA: I don’t know what you said I must withdraw, I just joined now.
The SPEAKER: You are now withdrawing two remarks; one, reference to the President of being a kidnapper, hon Papo being a charlatan, a “domkop” and I am saying, please, withdraw those so that we may proceed.
Mr J S MALEMA: I withdraw.
The SPEAKER: Thank you very much, hon Malema. I must also ... [Interjections.] ...
Mr J S MALEMA: ... because I want to attend to ...
The SPEAKER: ... I must also ask hon Ndlozi to withdraw his remark. Hon Ndlozi.
Dr M Q NDLOZI: I withdraw hopeless idiot.
IsiXhosa:
SOMLOMO: Hayi maan kaloku.
English:
There is no hopeless idiot here. You withdraw unconditionally, withdraw.
An HON MEMBER: Mmnxh!
Dr M Q NDLOZI: I withdraw unconditionally, hopeless idiot. Those words I withdraw.
IsiXhosa:
SOMLOMO: Ndlozi ohloniphekileyo, musa ukuziqala kanjalo iingxoxo. Uza kuphuma, rhoxisa.
English:
Withdraw.
Mr J S MALEMA: Haa-uh, haa-uh, hon Speaker, haa-uh, haa-uh ...
The SPEAKER: ... withdraw, hon Ndlozi.
Mr J S MALEMA: No, you are out of order, Speaker. Why do you threaten us with being taken out?
The SPEAKER: Hon Malema, you have withdrawn your remarks, keep quiet, it is not your turn ...
Mr J S MALEMA: ... no, you can’t start by ...
The SPEAKER: ... hon Ndlozi, withdraw.
Dr M Q NDLOZI: I withdraw hopeless idiot.
Tswana:
Hakere ...
English:
... that’s what you asked me to withdraw, Speaker? That is how it is done by the way. That is how it is done.
The SPEAKER: Hon Ndlozi, hon Ndlozi, hon Ndlozi ...
Dr M Q NDLOZI: I withdraw.
The SPEAKER: Thank you, you withdraw. Thank you. That’s what I wanted you to do.
Lastly, hon members, having studied the record, I noticed a number of other remarks by various members which were not challenged during the proceedings, remain of concern. I will urge all members to address each other in respectful terms and in a manner that befits our offices as public representatives. We have an obligation to treat each other with respect and
dignity. Those are the values on which our democracy was founded and which we must inculcate mindful that our conduct transcends the House and that our people look to us for leadership. I thank you, hon members for listening. We may now proceed with the business of today.
Hon members, the only item on today’s Order Paper is Questions addressed to the President. Yes, is that a point of order?
Yes.
Mr M N PAULSEN: The hon Radebe called hon Mkhaliphi a “houtkop? He did, he did. Ask him.
The SPEAKER: Okay, take your seat. Did you do that? If you did, would you, please, withdraw.
Mr B A RADEBE: Hon Speaker, hon Mkhaliphi has just called me a “German cut.”
The SPEAKER: Would you, please, withdraw “houtkop”.
Mr B A RADEBE: Alright, alright. I withdraw “houtkop” I also rise on a point of order ...
Mr B A RADEBE: I withdraw ...
The SPEAKER: ... “houtkop”
Mr B A RADEBE: Yeah, yeah.
The SPEAKER: Thank you very much. Thank you. There are four
... hon Paulsen!
Mr J S MALEMA: On a point of order, Speaker.
The SPEAKER: Yes, hon Malema. Point of Order.
Mr J S MALEMA: We should not be treated the way you are treating us. An hon member now has just been asked to ... [Interjections.] ...
Mr P M P MODISE: ... [Inaudible.] ... not scared of Julius, wena.
The SPEAKER: ... Is that a point of order, hon Malema?
Mr J S MALEMA: Who is that Bartimea, who says he is not scared of me? You know, this homeless people. What is he saying? The issue here is ...
The SPEAKER: ... hon Malema, I did not give you the floor, I am sorry. I thought you were raising a point of order.
Mr J S MALEMA: It is a point of order.
The SPEAKER: Yes, on a point of order.
Mr J S MALEMA: You just asked an hon member to withdraw what he said. He withdrew that which you said he must withdraw but in the process of withdrawing he mentioned what he is withdrawing. However, when Ndlozi said he is withdrawing “hopeless idiot” it is a problem. We must be treated the same here, you are out of order.
The SPEAKER: Thank you very much, hon Malema.
Sesotho:
Mong P M P MODISE: Mara Julius, o lliswa ke ntho e nyane.
The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Thank you very
much, hon Speaker. As hon Radebe was withdrawing, he wanted to bring to your attention that he was labelled as “German cut” So, he is hon Radebe, not “German cut”. Thank you, hon Speaker.
The SPEAKER: Thank you very much, hon Dlakude. Hon Paulsen, hon Radebe is hon Radebe. Shall we now proceed. No! I will not
... that’s how you start a session. I am not going to allow any points of order! I am now proceeding with the business ... I am not! I am not allowing you. There are four supplementary questions ... [Interjections.] ...
Ms H O MKHALIPHI: ... Speaker! Speaker! ...
The SPEAKER: ... Hon members, order, Order!
Ms H O MKHALIPHI: ... Speaker, it is all about me.
The SPEAKER: I said, Order!
Ms H O MKHALIPHI: I must say something.
The SPEAKER: I am saying it for the third time, Order!
There are four supplementary questions on each question. Parties have given indications on which question their members wish to pose supplementary questions. Adequate notice was given to parties for this purpose. This was done to facilitate participation of members who were connecting to the sitting through a virtual platform. The members who will pose supplementary questions will be recognised by the presiding officer.
In allocating opportunities for supplementary questions, the principle of fairness among others has applied. If a member who is supposed to ask a supplementary question through the virtual platform is unable to do so, due to technological difficulties, the party whip on duty will be allowed to ask the question on behalf of their member. When all the supplementary questions have been answered by the President, we will proceed to the next question on the Question Paper.
The first question has been asked by the hon the leader of the opposition. The hon President.
Mr J S MALEMA: No, on a point of order, Speaker. On a point of order, hon Speaker.
The SPEAKER: On a point of order, hon Malema. Yes.
Mr P M P MODISE: Which Rule? Which Rule?
Mr J S MALEMA: I think last time we agreed here that the President will have to answer the unanswered question because we did not conclude the business of that session. So, I thought that is where he will start because he hasn’t answered that question.
The SPEAKER: Hon Malema, just for your information, I don’t know how you may have missed this. Two days ago in this Chamber, a motion was raised or brought to the House which was proposing a rearrangement of the questions by starting with these particular questions with the supplementary questions.
Unfortunately, here that motion was defeated.
So, the issue that you are raising has been raised and voted on. Unfortunately, or fortunately as I say that motion was defeated. So, we are not going back to that now, we are now proceeding with the questions for the day.
Mr P M P MODISE: Uh, point of order, Chair.
The SPEAKER: Hon P M Modise, what is the point of order?
Mr P M P MODISE: Chair, it will be very important that when you rise you must quote the Rule ... [Interjections.] ...
The SPEAKER: ... point of order, tell me what the point of order is about.
Mr P M P MODISE: The point of order is that people must not rise and just say point of order. Give us the Rule number
The SPEAKER: Hon Modise, would you, please, withdraw that. Hon the President, I have given you the opportunity to respond to the first question. Thank you.
Question 13:
The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Hon Speaker, hon members, the challenge and problem of child malnutrition is a global problem, it is also a problem here on our continent. But bringing it back home here to South Africa, child ... [Interjections.]
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: On a point of order, Speaker. The understanding is that before we deal with today’s Questions session ... [Interjections.]
AN HON MEMBER (Male): Which rule?
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: ... there must be a response to the supplementary questions that were asked as Question 11 on the sitting that sat on the 30th of ... [Inaudible.]
The SPEAKER: Hon member, where were you when this matter was discussed in this House and when it was voted on?
Hon Shivambu, you’re a Chief Whip. Where were you when this matter was discussed in this House and was voted for and was agreed on what direction to take today?
Because what I am doing now is based on a discussion and a decision of this House two days ago. So it is not ... [Interjections.]
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: ... [Inaudible.] ...
The SPEAKER: Hon member, wait a minute. I am ruling that we are now proceeding on the basis of your advice as the House because you discussed the matter and voted on it, and the agreement was that you will start with the questions for today and your last question will be supplementary questions which
the President must respond to, from last time. Thank you very much, hon member.
We now proceed. The hon the President!
The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Thank you, hon Speaker. Child malnutrition is one of the greatest impediments to the well- being of our people and indeed to the development of our society. As I said, it is a global problem, but it is a problem that we need to deal with.
The fight against child poverty is, therefore, one of the priorities of this administration. This is reflected in several social protection interventions that the government has embarked upon to ensure that every child has access to adequate nutrition, decent housing, to free healthcare, to education and also childcare.
Over the years we have increased the coverage of the Child Support Grant to protect poor and vulnerable children in our country. To date, over 13 million children have access to the Child Support Grants, compared to 12,5 million in 2018.
Various independent research findings, including those conducted by the United Nations Children’s Fund, UNICEF, and the International Labour Organisation, ILO, have confirmed that the Child Support Grant directly reduces poverty and vulnerability amongst the children of our country.
The social assistance programme is complemented by other government interventions, including the School Nutrition Programme and Community Nutrition and Development Centres that provide nutritious and healthy meals to vulnerable people and households.
The number of learners, hon Speaker, that receive free school meals has increased by half a million over the last four years, from 9,1 million in 2018 to 9,6 million now.
Government has adopted the 1 000 Days Campaign, which aims to improve the nutrition of pregnant mothers and children during the first 1 000 days of life to help ensure that children get the best start in life and the opportunity to reach their full potential.
This initiative is implemented by the Department of Social Development as well as the Department of Health, and it
includes nutrition education and awareness for pregnant and lactating mothers, complementary feeding support and growth monitoring and nutrition counselling as well.
The Department of Social Development is currently working on a maternal support policy to introduce state social assistance provision for vulnerable pregnant women. Once the policy has been finalised it will be presented for approval by the relevant structures.
The Coronavirus Rapid Mobile Survey conducted between 2021 and 2022 concluded that despite significant investments in social grants, food insecurity and household and child hunger remained stubbornly high.
Child malnutrition is in the end a product of poverty, it’s also a product of unemployment and inequality that continue to persist in our country. Therefore, our interventions to support vulnerable children must be implemented alongside actions to drive inclusive economic growth, investment and job creation, which this administration has taken as top priorities. I thank you. [Applause.]
The LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: Mr President, South Africa is a modern democracy and an upper middle-income country. So, you would expect a certain level of care and protection for its citizens. Yet the latest statistics shows that 41% of ... [Interjections.] [Inaudible.] ...
The SPEAKER: Hon Minister Sisulu, will you please mute your mic, your system? Thank you.
The LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: ... 41% of South Africans cannot feed their families anymore, 81% ... [Interjections.] [Inaudible.] ...
The SPEAKER: Hon ... sorry. Hon Minister, will you please mute your system? Thank you.
Proceed, hon member!
The LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: ... 41% of South Africans cannot feed their families anymore, 81% of South African households are skipping one meal a day, and obviously this is a shameful indictment on government.
Now, you’ve spoken about this plan today and you’ve spoken about grants. But the reality is that the rise of food prices is outstripping grants. It’s clearly not working, we need a benefit plan, we need a ... [Inaudible.] ...
Now, we submitted to your office five suggestions and ... [Inaudible.] ... that would ease that burden: cutting the cost of fuel axons, reducing the ... redirecting the food aid from Cuba, import tariff dropping on the number of food items. But perhaps the most important one that could make the biggest impact would be the addition of selective food items onto the zero-rated list.
You recommended dropping Value Added Tax, VAT, on bone and chicken, beef, tin beans, wheat flour, margarine, peanut butter, baby food, tea, coffee and soup and powder. But the chicken category alone will be a lifesaving for protein for households.
Mr President, will you commit today to reviewing the list of VAT-free items, adding bone and chicken for the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement, MTBPS, as announced this year? Thank you.
The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Hon Speaker, let me welcome the analysis that hon Steenhuisen has put forward as well as the practical approach of asserting out a number of proposals. I think the most important one that he highlights is zero-rating certain food items; and going through the chicken, the bone and so forth.
I would like to say that the issue of addressing food prices that continue to rise, as well as fuel prices, is a matter that has been under consideration and continues to be under consideration by my Cabinet colleagues. We have set up a team of Ministers who’ve been looking at this, they did look at the fuel price rises and they came up with interventions and the issue of food price rises has also featured on their radar screen. And clearly, issue of zero-rating is a matter that Treasury has been grappling with for years because they have looked at the practicality of doing it and the impracticality in terms of the VAT tax system which at times it is argued could complicate the entire VAT system.
But I think if we look at what other countries do, we should be able to find some solutions. But at the same time I don’t want to pre-empt what suggestions and proposals could come through this process that we are involved in.
We would not be able to say that before the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement is issued that any such intervention should have been done because it is quite an involved process.
But the concerns of our people are not only hon Steenhuisen’s concern, had been raised and that is why the group of colleagues who’ve been working on this are continuing to look at a variety of options that we can look at or come up with to address the plight of our people because the rising food prices have not only affected South Africans, have also affected many other people in other parts of the world.
So, we are duty bound, therefore, to address this and I would like to say to hon Steenhuisen, thank you for some of the practical points that you put forward. We’ll see how best this can be done and it really revolves the practicalities of doing or coming up with these types of interventions.
But what I can say now is that we are looking at the challenge of food price rises and I would like to thank hon Steenhuisen for his suggestions. Thank you, hon Speaker. [Applause.]
Mr O M MATHAFA: Thank you, Mr President, for your response. It actually addresses the chunk of my question, particularly as it relates to rising cost of living.
Therefore, the question, hon President, is to find out: What measures are we going to put in place in order to use inclusive economic growth, investment creation and job creation in order to alleviate malnutrition in kids? Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Hon Speaker, clearly, real issue here is to address triple challenge that we’ve faced for many years, it is poverty, inequality and unemployment.
And through doing everything we can to foster economic growth we hope and we intend to address the challenge of unemployment and we want to see more and more people in employment because through that, that reduces poverty amongst our people, and in the end should have an impact on inequality.
Increasing investment, attracting more and more investors into our country and those within our country to invest more and more as we create a conducive environment for them to invest is clearly one of the interventions we are committed to in
terms of implementing our economic recovery and reconstruction plan, which is currently underway in terms of being implemented and of course, we intend to continue with our grant system because grants that are paid to our people, particularly child grants that are paid to the children of our country have proven by those who implemented or embarked on researches that as, I think the UNICEF said that it reduces poverty. But we obviously want to see much more, we want to see much more reduction on poverty, particularly when it comes to food poverty amongst our people and addressing the issue of food insecurity so that those who go to bed should go to bed
... as they go to bed rather, they should not go to bed hungry.
So, those interventions that we have highlighted, and many more that may well come up through the interventions that the colleagues can come up with will go a long way in addressing the challenge that the children of our country face. Thank you, hon Speaker. [Applause.]
Ms N V MENTE: Mr Ramaphosa, the problem of hunger and malnutrition is linked to the chronic problem of unemployment and resource poverty that affects predominantly black people. Without resolving this crisis there is no hope in ending
hunger. Linked to this is a lack of access to land and agricultural inputs for people to produce their own food.
In Limpopo, Eastern Cape, KwaZulu-Natal and the Western Cape alone the levels of poverty are over 60%.
Now, the question becomes ...
IsiZulu:
Sicela usuku, sicela inyanga, sicela unyaka lapho uzosiphathela ipulani esizoyikholwa.
English:
A believable plan when will people have access to land? Because when you refuse the EFF section 25 amendment you said you have other alternatives.
When will people have access to land so that they can have their own agricultural products and can deal with the issue of malnutrition?
When can people [Time expired.] who have the skill of opening saloons have land to open their own saloons so that they can deal with unemployment? Thank you.
The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Hon Speaker, the government continues to address the question of land. This National Assembly, just yesterday, passed the Expropriation Bill. That is one of the interventions that will be able to contribute in addressing the land hunger that our people have because through that Bill we’ll be able to expropriate land for public use, for the use of our people, and that in many ways will be answering precisely the issue of the demand that our people have always made on land.
There are a number of other interventions that we continue to make.
Hon Mente spoke about the needs of our people for agricultural implements, for assistance in their farming activities.
Through the covid period we were able to implement a number of interventions which many of our people appreciated. Through the voucher system that we put in place we were able to assist well over 200 000 people and I have said that I would like to see that scheme which has been seen to work very well to be expanded and to include more and more hundreds of thousands of black farmers or emerging farmers in our country.
The challenge, obviously, is quite big but our government is not sitting on its laurels, we are addressing the issue of land, hunger. And as we said, there are a variety of interventions that we are embarking upon that are going to address this question, on an ongoing basis.
And as we look around our country we do see a number of emerging black successful farmers who are, themselves, becoming greary good example to even younger black people who would like to go into farming. And of course, the need they have is more land and that is precisely what we continue to address.
So, be rest assured. The issue of land is firmly on our agenda and we will address it because our people need the land so that they can advance their lives. Thank you, hon Speaker.
Mr A M SHAIK EMAM: Mr President, we knew about this problem of children being stunted in malnutrition in 1999. We set a target to end hunger and prevent malnutrition by the year 2030. But I can assure you that it has increased, in terms of the statistics from 25% to 27%; 10 to 20 children die in this country every day of malnutrition.
Now, I know, Mr President, you say that there are your colleagues are having meetings and discussing these things. Would you agree, Mr President, that whatever discussion we’re having are not good enough?
But it’s not working, firstly, it’s increased from 25 to 27%; secondly, you’re not going to eradicate this by 2030, it means we have to change the target. But very important, local government is doing very little, most of this malnutrition is at local government level. And the looting and the corruption and the only that benefit they are politicians and officials at the expense of the poorest of the poor.
What measures can be put to get more of that benefit to the people on the ground rather than politicians and official benefiting to corruption and not getting value for money?
Thank you.
The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Hon Speaker, just a day or two ago I had the occasion to address the local government summit where we had key leaders of local government, as in Mayors, Speakers, Chief Whips, Municipal Managers, Chief Financial Officers and key Directors at local government level.
And that summit addressed the whole range of issues including the issue of efficient and proper service delivery to our people, which just goes beyond also the usual type of services that need to be delivered but which also goes to addressing the social needs of our people including dealing with poverty, food security. And, so, this matter has been firmly brought to the attention of the key people who play important roles even at local government level.
The conclusions of that local government summit will soon be known and I’m hopeful that we would be able to draw a lot of good suggestions on what needs to be done.
Hon Emam is absolutely right. This has been a recurring problem over a number of years. The important thing is that the efforts that are being made by government need to continue and not be lessened, and we to strengthen at the present moment.
As a government, giving grants to 13 million children in our country on a monthly basis and ensuring that more than
9 million children get a meal a day at school, that in itself is an important intervention. And clearly, together with a whole number of other interventions we need to do more and
there is more that can be done. And some of the thoughts and suggestions that are being put forward are clearly things that we need to look at.
So, this is a problem that we have recognized and have recognized over a number of years and the interventions that are being made continue to address precisely this problem. So, the problem is under serious consideration and it is being addressed, and we will continue to do so because we cannot let our children down. This is the future of our country and we, therefore, through the 1 000 days campaign and many others, we intend to ensure that this problem is addressed fully and completely. Thank you very much.
Question 14:
The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Hon Speaker and hon members, gangsterism, kidnapping and extortion is, in the main, undertaken by those with criminal intent and criminal enterprises that both threaten national security and erode the social fabric of communities.
The SA Police Service, the SAPS, has established several initiatives to address gangsterism and the crimes that are
associated with it. The capacitation of the SAPS members to address gangsterism is therefore an important priority for us.
Since the Anti-Gang Unit was established here in the Western Cape in November 2018, it has made a number of arrests. There have been 819 arrests for the illegal possession of firearms and ammunition, 442 arrests for murder, 253 arrests for attempted murder and 1 387 arrests for drug-related crimes. It has also confiscated large quantities of firearms, ammunition and drugs. These figures do demonstrate both the scale of the problem and the achievements of the Anti-Gang Unit.
The work of the unit includes integrated intelligence-led operations guided by regular interaction with a number of stakeholders in our communities, important information gathering from informers and analysis of crime patterns and threats.
The organised, transnational and cybercrime approach involves the identification and investigation of organised crime threats. These multidisciplinary investigations are in the end not limited to a specific geographical area and may cut across provincial as well as international borders. These investigations may even include external stakeholders such as
the National Prosecuting Authority, NPA, and the Financial Intelligence Centre.
The aim is to disrupt, neutralise and dismantle identified organised groups. The operational approach is complemented by a number of strategies that are aimed at focussing on specific crimes as well. For example, the SAPS has a plan to address gender-based violence, GBV, and sexual offences, which emanates from the National Strategic Plan on Gender-Based Violence and Femicide. The GBV action plan is multisectoral and deals with issues such as domestic violence, sexual offences, human trafficking and serial rape.
The Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation – the Hawks – investigates money laundering and asset forfeiture on all national priority offences, including kidnapping.
While crime rates remain extremely high, it is evident from the reports of the SAPS, the Hawks, the NPA and other law enforcement entities that progress is being made. It is being made in apprehending and prosecuting criminals. This is something that is sometimes not really fully recognised but our police are making progress. There is a clear focus on dealing with a number of centres of criminal activity and I
think that as a nation we do need to give them credit for the work that they continue to do because it is important work and they are making a great deal of progress as they move on.
Thank you very much, hon Speaker.
Ms O M C MAOTWE: Thank you very much, Speaker. Mr Ramaphosa, you are correct that you deployed soldiers in Cape Town in 2019 to deal with gangsterism, particularly on the Cape Flats, because that is where you think the focus should be, but as the EFF we warned you about this misguided decision. We told you that the deployment was not informed by any intelligence. President, we warned you that a public relations campaign would not solve the problem of gangsterism. Almost three years ago, we also told you that you cannot solve the problem by sending soldiers who are supposed to protect our sovereignty as a country but that instead fight our people in their homes. You have spent more than R250 million in two years and you have nothing to show for it. Those numbers that you mentioned just now are nothing.
However, we know that gangsterism is ... [Inaudible.] ... that comes from Gauteng and other parts of the country, and you are not doing anything about the drugs that are manufactured in Gauteng, particularly in Bryanston, Waterkloof in Pretoria and
in many other suburbs. You don’t want to deal with this problem, President.
We know and have told you that magistrates in Khayelitsha and Mitchells Plain courts are corrupt. People are arrested today for serious crimes of murder, attempted murder and robbery, and are then released the next day on bail. Even when they are
... on bail, they still go back and do gangsterism. You know who the leaders of these gangsters are. Why are you not going to where they live and arrest them? Are you not arresting them because they work for the state, in particular, the Minister of Police, and perhaps even yourself?
Mr B A RADEBE: Hon Speaker, the member who is on the platform has just insinuated that the gangsters are working for the Minister of Police. It must be brought through a substantive motion. Thank you.
The SPEAKER: Thank you, hon Radebe. Hon Maotwe, you know what to do.
Ms O M C MAOTWE: It was a question, Speaker. It’s not an insinuation. It’s a question. That German cut must listen to
the question. He must not come here and speak ... [Inaudible.] It was a question.
The SPEAKER: Hon Maotwe, it was a question which was coupled with language which should not be used in the House.
Ms O M C MAOTWE: Which language? Which language is that?
The SPEAKER: Hon Maotwe?
Ms O M C MAOTWE: Yes, Speaker?
The SPEAKER: Hon Maotwe, there are certain things which you said in your statement which are not in line with the Rules of the House.
Ms O M C MAOTWE: What did I say?
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: Speaker, on a point of order.
Mr J S MALEMA: Speaker, on a point of order.
The SPEAKER: Hon members, will you please allow me to deal with hon Maotwe.
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: On a point of order.
Mr J S MALEMA: Why are you not just writing questions for us? Why can’t you just write questions for us if this is going to be the attitude?
The SPEAKER: Hon Maotwe? No, no, hon Malema.
Mr J S MALEMA: She’s asking a question. Let the President answer the question.
The SPEAKER: By raising a matter which relates to a violation of the Rules, does not imply that I want ...
Mr J S MALEMA: Let the President answer the question!
The SPEAKER: Huh-uh! Don’t do that. Hon Malema, don’t do that!
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: On a point of order.
The SPEAKER: You are wrong. You are wrong. Hon Maotwe, I am still addressing you. I have requested you to withdraw what you said.
Mr J S MALEMA: She’s not going to withdraw anything. Let the President answer the question. She’s not going to withdraw anything. You came here with a caucused position that you are going to tell people to withdraw.
The SPEAKER: Hon Malema, I heard her. I heard ... Hon members? Huh-uh. Just hold on please. I am dealing with this matter. I am busy with Maotwe. Please lower your hand. Lower your hand. Hon Maotwe, I have requested you ...
Dr M Q NDLOZI: [Inaudible.] ... Speaker, you are confused because the point of order had nothing to do with language.
The SPEAKER: No, hon Ndlozi! No! Don’t do that!
Dr M Q NDLOZI: Speaker, the point of order you are talking about had nothing to do with language. [Inaudible.]
The SPEAKER: There is no point of order here. The issue is about the statement made ...
Dr M Q NDLOZI: You are responding to Radebe. You are responding to Radebe’s point of order, and Radebe’s point of order had nothing to do with language. [Inaudible.]
The SPEAKER: Hon Ndlozi? Hon Ndlozi? Hon Ndlozi?
Mr J S MALEMA: Hon Speaker, let the President answer the question. Allow the President to answer the question.
The SPEAKER: Will you please remove hon Ndlozi from the system?
Mr S M KULA: Hon Speaker, this President is not going to answer a question that is out of order. Hon Maotwe must withdraw that comment.
The SPEAKER: Please remove hon Ndlozi from the system.
Ms N V MENTE: No, hon Speaker. You can’t ... [Inaudible.] Hon Speaker?
The SPEAKER: Hon Maotwe, you and I are still on the floor. You raised ...
Mr J S MALEMA: There is no Maotwe who is going to withdraw anything here. She’s not going to withdraw anything.
The SPEAKER: No, no, no, no!
Mr S M KULA: No, hon Maotwe is going to withdraw. [Inaudible.]
The SPEAKER: Please allow me to Chair.
Mr S M KULA: She’s going to withdraw. Wena, Julius, you are not the Speaker. The Speaker is hon Mapisa-Nqakula. We are not going to listen to you. You don’t rule this House. Hon Maotwe must be ... [Inaudible.]
The SPEAKER: Hon Hope Papo, allow me to preside.
Mr J S MALEMA: You are nothing! All of you are nothing. You are here because you are unemployed. [Inaudible.]
Mr S M KULA: That question of hon Maotwe is out of order.
The SPEAKER: Hon members? Will you please remove the two hon members from the system? Remove hon Ndlozi and hon Maotwe from the system. Thank you very much.
Ms O M C MAOTWE: Speaker, why are you removing ... [Inaudible.] [Interjections.]
Ms E N NTLANGWINI: Speaker, on a point of order.
Ms N V MENTE: No, no, no, Speaker! Now you are being emotional.
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: Speaker, on a point of order.
The SPEAKER: No, no, no, you are not going to do that. I am not ... [Interjections.] Yes? I beg your pardon?
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: On a point of order.
The SPEAKER: What is the point of order?
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: Hon Maotwe raised a question ... if the Minister ... [Inaudible.] ... with these gangsters.
The SPEAKER: It was a question. Hon ...
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: It’s not a violation of the Rules. It’s a question. [Inaudible.] [Interjections.]
The SPEAKER: Hon Floyd Shivambu?
Mr V PAMBO: Allow him to speak. Speaker, listen, just listen.
The SPEAKER: Hon Shivambu, you are correct. Hon Maotwe asked a question. However, before the question was even raised the manner in which she characterised the person of the Minister of Police was incorrect and you know this in terms of the Rules.
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: What exactly did she say? What did she say?
The SPEAKER: No, no!
Mr J S MALEMA: Speaker, on a point of order. You don’t even know what Maotwe said. You don’t know that.
Ms N V MENTE: Speaker, you are making things up. You didn’t hear.
The SPEAKER: There is nothing made up.
Ms N V MENTE: No, you are making things up.
Mr J S MALEMA: It was a question.
The SPEAKER: Hon member, if I may read what hon ...
An HON MEMBER: Hon Frolick, please take the Chair.
The SPEAKER: Allow me to read what hon Maotwe said. She said, you know who these gangsters are. Do you not deal with them because they work for the state, the Minister of Police or even you? What does that mean?
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: It’s a question.
The SPEAKER: What does that mean, hon members?
Mr J S MALEMA: It means exactly that. It’s a question. Are they working for you, Mr President? That’s what the question is. Are you not arresting these people because they are working for you? Let the President answer the question.
The SPEAKER: Hon Paulsen? Hon Paulsen, you are not going to behave like that. You are not going to behave like that. You will not.
An HON MEMBER: No, you are not going to threaten us.
The SPEAKER: It’s not threatening. I’m just telling you. You are not.
Mr J S MALEMA: You are threatening us. [Inaudible.] You are threatening us.
Ms N V MENTE: You’ve been threatening these people. You’ve been threatening us.
Mr J S MALEMA: Speaker, there’s no EFF ... who is going to be threatened by you here. We are not going to be threatened by you. You can do what you want to do. Let the President answer the question.
The SPEAKER: I did not give you the floor. I did not give you the floor. Hon Malema? Hon Malema? Mr President? The hon President?
An HON MEMBER: Speaker, remove Malema.
Ms E N NTLANGWINI: Speaker, on a point of order.
Mr J S MALEMA: {Inaudible.]
The SPEAKER: Hon President, will you please continue?
Ms E N NTLANGWINI: Speaker, on a point of order. Speaker, on a point of order.
The SPEAKER: What is the point of order, hon member?
Ms E N NTLANGWINI: ... [Inaudible.] ... it’s allowed. Why are you taking our rights as Members of Parliament?
The SPEAKER: Is that a point of order?
Ms E N NTLANGWINI: Yes.
The SPEAKER: Okay. It isn’t a point of order. I rule you out. Mr President, you may proceed.
Ms E N NTLANGWINI: No, Speaker, I’m rising on a point of order. The ANC members ... [Inaudible.] ... you are allowing them. You are allowing them. You are allowing ANC members to
... [Inaudible.] [Interjections.]
Ms H O MKHALIPHI: Speaker, why are you not recognising us here?
THE DEPUTY MINISTER OF BASIC EDUCATION: To do what? To do
what, hon member?
Ms E N NTLANGWINI: Look! Look! They are interjecting. The ANC members are interjecting. They are allowed. Don’t treat us like that. Please don’t.
The SPEAKER: Hon Ntlangwini, will you please switch off your microphone? Thank you.
Mr J S MALEMA: Speaker, on a point of order.
The SPEAKER: Hon Malema?
Mr J S MALEMA: Speaker, on a point of order.
The SPEAKER: Yes, hon Malema?
Mr J S MALEMA: I’m asking on what basis do you want the President to answer now that you have removed the person who asked the question? [Interjections.]
The SPEAKER: I’m now using my discretion and allowing him to speak. {Interjections.]
Mr S M KULA: Hon Speaker, you can’t allow ... [Inaudible.] That question can’t arise as a point of order ... [Interjections.]
Mr J S MALEMA: [Inaudible.]
The SPEAKER: I am now allowing him to speak, hon Malema. Will you please mute your microphone?
Mr S M KULA: ... [Inaudible.] ... Don’t listen to him. [Inaudible.] ... This is a reply ... [Inaudible.] ... answers to the President, not to Julius. We can’t listen to Julius ... [Inaudible.] [Interjections.]
The SPEAKER: Hon Malema, please mute your microphone. Hon Dlakude, is that a point of order?
The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Thank you very
much, hon Speaker. I think the President is responding to the question of hon Malema. So, the hon member, when making that follow-up question, made some allegations against the Minister of Police and against the President. [Interjections.] She is insinuating. So, the Rules say that ...
Mr M M DLAMINI: Speaker?
The SPEAKER: Order, hon members! Order!
The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: ... if you allege
something against a member of this House, you must bring a substantive motion to the House. Thank you, hon Speaker. Let’s not continue with the dialogue, hon Speaker. We are here to listen to the responses of the President because he is accountable to this House.
Ms T P MSANE: It was a question!
The SPEAKER: Thank you, hon Dlakude. Hon Mkhaliphi?
Ms H O MKHALIPHI: Thank you very much, Speaker.
Mr M M DLAMINI: Speaker, please recognise me as well.
The SPEAKER: Hon Dlamini, will you please mute your microphone?
Mr M M DLAMINI: Yes, can you please recognise me?
Ms H O MKHALIPHI: I rise on a point of order to say that maybe you must refrain from allowing ... to be abused by hon Radebe. Each time there is a question that is raised by the EFF, hon Radebe is the first one to jump up ... [Inaudible.]
The SPEAKER: No man, please ...
IsiXhosa:
... hlala phantsi.
English:
This is not a point of order.
Ms H O MKHALIPHI: It is a point of order because he’s abusing this platform. This hon Radebe, aka German cut, is abusing this platform.
The SPEAKER: It’s not a point of order, hon Mkhaliphi.
Ms H O MKHALIPHI: Please don’t be biased, Speaker. Don’t be biased.
The SPEAKER: Hon Mkhaliphi, please take your seat.
Mr M M DLAMINI: Speaker?
The SPEAKER: Hon Marshall Dlamini ...
IsiXhosa:
... oyena mntu ...
English:
... who is abusing me ...
IsiXhosa:
... nguwe apho ...
English:
... because you keep on barging in without me giving you an opportunity.
Mr M M DLAMINI: Okay, but I’m asking you to recognise me, Speaker.
Ms H O MKHALIPHI: Sibusiso, not ... [Inaudible.] ... Sibusiso.
Mr M M DLAMINI: Speaker, there’s this ...
The SPEAKER: Hon Lesoma?
Mr J S MALEMA: No, Speaker, there’s this fatherless Sibusiso Kula who is abusing us here.
Ms N R MASHABELA: ... {Inaudible.} No, you can’t allow her. The secretary-general, SG, is there. The SG is talking there. [Inaudible.]
Mr M M DLAMINI: Speaker?
The SPEAKER: Thank you, hon Lesoma.
Mr M M DLAMINI: Speaker, wait ... [Inaudible.]
The SPEAKER: Hon Lesoma, please! Hon member, please sit down.
Mr M M DLAMINI: Speaker? Speaker?
Ms N R MASHABELA: [Inaudible.]
The SPEAKER: Hon Lesoma and the hon member there please don’t do what you’ve just done now.
Mr M M DLAMINI: Speaker ... [Inaudible.] ... you can’t speak alone.
The SPEAKER: Okay, I will not allow hon Dlamini because hon Dlamini has been barging in before I’ve given him the floor. [Inaudible.]
Mr M M DLAMINI: You are talking nonsense ... [Inaudible.] [Interjections.]
The SPEAKER: No! Don’t speak on his behalf, hon member.
Ms N R MASHABELA: ... [Inaudible.] ... allow the SG to continue.
Mr M M DLAMINI: What you are saying is wrong.
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: Speaker, on a point of order.
Ms N R MASHABELA: [Inaudible.]
The SPEAKER: Hon member, wena! Mashabela! Hon Mashabela ...
IsiXhosa:
... ndithetha nawe, ndithetha nawe.
English:
The person I will recognise is hon Shivambu. You know why? It’s because he had his hand up on the system. I do not have hon Dlamini’s. I don’t have it. Will you please ... [Inaudible.] [Interjections.]
Mr M M DLAMINI: Don’t switch off my microphone. Speaker? But recognise me as well.
The SPEAKER: You can’t be screaming ...
IsiXhosa:
Okokoko
English:
Just please ...
Mr M M DLAMINI: But recognise us.
Ms N R MASHABELA: ... [Inaudible.] ... allow ... [Inaudible.]
The SPEAKER: Stop it, hon Mashabela!
Ms N R MASHABELA: [Inaudible.]
The SPEAKER: Stop it, hon Mashabela! You continue. Hon Mashabela, I said you will not do it again. Right.
Mr M M DLAMINI: Can I speak now? You’ve been saying I must wait. Speaker?
Ms M R MOHLALA: Speaker, you must do the same to Sibusiso Kula on the virtual platform. You have not been reprimanding him for quite a while. Yes, you must be consistent. I am hon Mohlala.
IsiXhosa:
USOMLOMO: Mamela ke, mamela - jonga ke Madokwe ...
English:
Hon member, you are not going to scream here.
Ms M R MOHLALA: No, I am not screaming. I am saying ...
The SPEAKER: Hon Madokwe ... [Inaudible.]
Ms M R MOHLALA: I am saying ... [Inaudible.] ... Sibusiso Kula.
Mr T M LANGA: You are not consistent, Speaker.
The SPEAKER: This is not your turn, hon Madokwe. You have not been given ...
IsiXhosa:
... uza kuphuma
English:
... Hon Madokwe ... [Inaudible.]
IsiXhosa:
... uza kuphuma
English:
Mr J S MALEMA: Speaker, on a point of order.
The SPEAKER: Hon members, I am now recognising hon Shivambu, after which the President will continue.
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: Speaker, there’s a person called Sibusiso Kula here who has been saying Julius this, Julius that, and everything else. He’s a scatterbrain who has been speaking here and you have never called him to order.
The SPEAKER: What is his name on the system?
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: Sibusiso Kula. He’s been making a lot of interventions here. You have not called him to order. You have not told him to use the appropriate ... [Inaudible.] Can you please call him to order and make him withdraw what he has been doing here?
The SPEAKER: Thank you very much. Hon Kula?
Mr J S MALEMA: Or be removed.
The SPEAKER: Hon Kula? Hon Kula, I’ve called you twice. Hon Kula?
Mr S M KULA: Yes, I’m paying attention. I’ve raised my hand on the platform.
IsiXhosa:
USOMLOMO: Kwenzeke ntoni?
English:
What did you say? You passed remarks and I did not hear them. You made statements. What did you say?
IsiXhosa:
Uthini?
Mr S M KULA: Speaker, I said that hon Malema is continuously disrupting the sitting. He rises on a point of order but does not raise any point of order. In fact, he raised a question and I said that ... [Inaudible.]
The SPEAKER: I did not give you ... Hon Kula, I did not request you to assist me in presiding over this meeting. I did not invite you to speak. I did not invite you to speak. Now, will you please mute your system.
Mr S M KULA: I will do that, Speaker. That was not my intention. [Inaudible.]
The SPEAKER: Thank you very much. Hon President? The hon President? [Interjections.]
Ms E N NTLANGWINI: He must pay attention to his child.
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: Speaker, on several occasions this Kula has been saying Julius, Julius here ... [Inaudible.]
The SPEAKER: Okay, hon Shivambu. I’ve heard you and I want to say that I will go and study what hon Kula said. However, I have reprimanded hon Kula for assisting me in presiding because I did not invite him to do so. I’ve also said that he must mute his system now. I’m not entertaining any points of order now.
Mr M M DLAMINI: Speaker, you don’t have to do those things. Just give us the ... [Inaudible.] ... of Kula. We will attend to him. You don’t have to do anything. Just give us the ... [Inaudible.] ... of Kula. [Inaudible.] That’s all we need.
Stop wasting our time in checking things that are useless. [Inaudible.]
The SPEAKER: Hon Dlamini? Hon Dlamini?
Mr W T LETSIE: No, Marshall, don’t threaten ... [Inaudible.] Don’t threaten ...
The SPEAKER: Hon Dlamini and hon Msimango, stop ... [Inaudible.] Stop that exchange now!
Mr M M DLAMINI: It’s not a threat. It’s not a threat. [Interjections.] No-one is going to scream Julius here. It’s not a threat. Who is he ... [Inaudible.] It’s not a threat. [Interjections.]
Mr J S MALEMA: [Inaudible.]
The SPEAKER: Okay, you know what I’m going to do hon members? Hon members on the virtual platform, I will shut you down until I have recognised whose hands are up.
Mr T MALATJI: Send ... location. Send ... location. You and Julius, send ... location.
Mr J S MALEMA: You can’t do anything. When you see us you run after us like puppies and then you act brave here on ... virtual ... Cowards!
The SPEAKER: Hon members, I am shutting down your system. You will be able to hear but you will not be able to ... [Inaudible.] Mr Xaso, do that. Will you do that?
Ms P P MAKHUBELE-MARILELE: We are not cowards, Julius. We are not cowards. You can’t call us cowards. [Interjections.]
The SPEAKER: The hon President? Hon members, may I just draw your attention to something you have probably forgotten about, which is that all of these things that are happening impact on the time. At the end of everything, hon members will complain and say ... but when I say we have now come to the end of Question Time, you will complain that you’ve not had adequate time to follow up on the issues you would like to follow up on. May I just remind all of you that Question Time is three hours, after which ...
IsiXhosa:
... akukho secaweni apha ...
English:
... we will have exactly 45 minutes for the supplementary questions that are outstanding from 30 August. Three hours for these questions and 45 minutes for the last supplementary questions. Wena Madokwe, this is the last time you are heckling me! It’s the last time! You repeat it again ...
IsiXhosa:
... uza kuphuma, uza kuphuma.
English:
Hon member Gwarube?
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Speaker, I’m rising on Rule
79 read with Rule 80. The contention that you are going to mute everybody on the online platform because of a few members who are disrupting the House is in contravention of those two Rules because some members have been sitting there waiting for the President to respond, and now their right to participate in this House has been curtailed because of people who cannot behave. So, I urge you ... You constantly shut down the online system and really curtail the rights of people to participate because of that. Please, if you can just get the House in order so that we can hear the questions ... from the President.
The SPEAKER: Thank you, hon Gwarube. Hon members, point of order. The presiding officers, in terms of the Rules, may want, firstly, to either switch off your microphone, and even if you are on the virtual system, if there is disorder in the House, as has been going on now on the virtual platform amongst members who are on the virtual platform, I will switch
it off. I will switch it off. The people will have to raise their hand. Hon members will raise their hand and they will be recognised. Switching off the platform does not mean that what we are doing here is not audible to them. They can hear everything we are discussing. They will raise their hand when they want to speak and they will be given an opportunity. What I will not allow is members engaging amongst themselves on the virtual platform without having been given an opportunity to do so. I thought I’d just clarify that. In terms of the Rules, the presiding officer may take a decision to switch off the microphone. They are not here, so I will mute them. Thank you.
I’m not going to allow you to raise your hands now. We are now proceeding ... I’m not going to allow you because when these points of order are disruptive to the House and when they seek to cause disorder, the presiding officer has the right not to allow you to speak. So, I’m not entertaining points of order. I told you that we have three hours within which to finish these questions and the last one will be 45 minutes for the supplementary questions which are outstanding. Thank you, hon Mkhaliphi. Please lower your hand. Is it a point of order?
Okay.
Ms H O MKHALIPHI: Thank you very much, Speaker. You must take into cognisance that in the absence of the Chief Whip of the EFF, I am here as one of the Whips. So, when I raise my hand on a point of order it’s to address something with you as a Whip of the EFF.
The SPEAKER: What is the point of order?
Ms H O MKHALIPHI: Firstly, the point of order is that you have been calling my member by the wrong name. That is not acceptable.
The SPEAKER: No man ...
IsiXhosa:
... uxolo maan ...
English:
... it’s their fault. Correct me. What is the name?
Ms H O MKHALIPHI: Can I finish, Speaker?
The SPEAKER: No, because I don’t want us to wait. It’s a trivial matter. We can’t waste time on that.
Ms H O MKHALIPHI: No, it’s not.
The SPEAKER: Mohlala. Hon member Mohlala.
Ms H O MKHALIPHI: Speaker, I have not finished. Can we not be treated like stepchildren in this Parliament?
The SPEAKER: You’re not stepchildren at all.
Ms H O MKHALIPHI: Give me time when I speak. The second point I want to raise with you is that you have been saying to one of the Whips, wena. That is not acceptable from the Speaker. She is hon Mashabela. We can’t allow that to just pass.
The SPEAKER: Hon Mashabela, I withdraw the word, wena. Take your seat, hon Mkhaliphi. Hon Mashabela, I withdraw the reference to you as, wena. You are hon Mashabela and I’m sure all of us will behave as hon members. Please take your seat. Hon Swart?
Mr S N SWART: Thank you, Speaker. I’m rising on a point of clarity. Rev Meshoe, the ACDP leader, is the next speaker to pose a question, and as the virtual platform has been muted,
will those who are on the virtual platform be able to ask follow-up questions? Can you just give clarity in that regard?
The SPEAKER: Yes, hon Swart, hon tata Meshoe will be allowed to speak when his time comes. None of the people who are on the platform will be prevented from speaking. They will speak. Obviously, they can hear the debate in the House but what I will not allow is for people to behave in a disruptive manner because they are on the virtual platform. Thank you very much, hon member.
Now, once more, the hon member whom I referred to as Madokwe, my sincere apologies. It’s the Table that committed that mistake. You are hon Mohlala. Hon Mohlala, you will then conduct yourself as hon Mohlala.
Hon members, we will now proceed and allow the hon President to finish his response to the question raised by hon Maotwe.
Question 14 cont:
The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Hon Speaker, an assertion was made that we were misguided and mistaken and completely wrong in launching the Anti-Gang Unit here in Cape Town in 2018. I actually launched that unit because as it is said that we had
the wrong intelligence about the activities and the conduct of gang.
It was also asserted that we also got the army or the SANDF, South African National Defence Force to get involved in all this. I must say that the police are responsible and ably responsible for dealing with criminality and gang activities.
When the army is brought in, is brought in for support and to help the police. As it turned out, because gang violence was rife at the time, the army in supporting the police did help a great deal and when we launched the anti-gang unit, we saw a considerable decrease as well as rising number of arrests because launching a specialised unit like we did has proven to be greatly beneficial and we have now gone ahead to repeat that type of intervention in dealing with certain types of criminality such as bank heists, we set up a unit and we are setting up a number of other units to deal with those types of criminality and in doing so, the police have been very successful in arresting criminals and dealing with criminality in an effective way.
I admit that crime is quite rife in our country and the police whose number has declined over the years in relation to the
population that we now have are really having a difficult task but we are increasing the number of police officials and I believe that going forward they will be able to do a good job as they move on.
An allegation has also been made that some of the criminals and drug lords work for government which I completely deny and that they also work with the Minister and myself. These are allegations that are outrageous and we deny completely as there is no truth at all in any these.
The Minister together with the police officials are the ones who are working against criminals and criminals are not working for the Minister. Let us just be clear on that.
Activities of the Minister and officials in the SA Police Service are directly reigned against criminal activity.
We are focusing on criminality including gang criminality and gang violence and we will continue to do so and there maybe times when people think we may not be winning the war but the efforts that are being put in place are the types of efforts that are in the end going to make us prevail over these criminals and gang leaders as well as gang members. That we
can assure you, we have declared war against gangs particularly here in the Western Cape as well as in Gauteng our police officials will prevail against all those who participate in gang violence. Thank you hon Speaker.
Rev K R J MESHOE: Thank you hon speaker and thank you Mr President.
Mr J S MALEMA: On a point of order Speaker?
The SPEAKER: Hon Malema will you please allow Mr Meshoe to raise his question.
Mr J S MALEMA: Yes, but I am rising on a point of order before he speaks.
The SPEAKER: What is the point of order hon Malema?
Mr J S MALEMA: Your removal of hon Maotwe is wrong because the President has diligently dealt with the question as raised which proves you wrong that it was not necessarily an act that is completely out. The President had the capacity to respond to it and he responded to it. Speaker, you must admit when you
have made a mistake and call her back. The question has been responded to.
The SPEAKER: Thank you very much hon Malema. You know the reason why I removed the hon Maotwe. She was casting aspersions on the Minister of Police and the President. You know that is why I did that. The President may have responded to the issues as you would have wanted him to but it does not change the fact that I removed Ms Maotwe because she had cast aspersions on the Minister of Police and the President of the Republic. I now proceed. Mr Meshoe.
Rev K R J MESHOE: In February 2019, the SA Police Service presented a progress report on the roll out of the anti-gang strategy and the rollout of Anti-Gang Unit to the Portfolio Committee on Police and various civil society organisations.
Even though the presentation raised hopes that the fight against gangsterism in our communities can won, reality on the ground proved otherwise. All strategies that the police have used so far have not reduced crime or phased out gansterism.
Mr President, my question to you is what will government do to restore trust by communities in the police’s ability to combat
gangestersim as community involvement is essential in gathering intelligence to combat crime and gangesterism effectively, particularly because police are seen to have failed our communities enormously?
The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Yes, I am aware of the report that was given in 2019 and that was soon after we launched the Anti-Gang Unit and clearly over the time as I indicated, progress has been made and because of the enormity of the challenge and the problems that our people are facing on the ground, it may seem like not much progress is being made.
We have admitted that there are a number of gaps and weaknesses and one of those is the incapacitation of the police in terms of not having sufficient personnel in their ranks to deal with all manner criminal activities.
It is for that reason that in the State of the Nation Address, I did stand here and say that we are going to increase the numbers of police. The problem which the Minister if Police has raised repeatedly and we have now been able to employ a further 10 000 and it was something that had to be done because the per capita ratio between population and police officials had gone wrong and we are addressing precisely that
and the further increases that we should have in police personnel ranks is that we are going to be able to increase police presence, police activity and police surveillance against crime on an ongoing basis.
We are also moving ahead with the specialised units as well as training the police more effectively. When I appointed the police commissioner, one of the things that he highlighted was outlining the priorities that he was going to focus on was the issue of community policing forums that he would want to lay more emphasis on working with our communities, working with our people through community policing forums and that is a process that is now underway because hon Rev Meshoe is absolutely right that community involvement is absolutely essential if we are going to bring down the levels of criminality in our nation
As I have often said, criminals are usually known in our communities, our people know who the criminals are, who the drug lords are, who the rapists are all the time. We just need communities to stand up and participate in community policing forums and we will be able to make much better headway and it is this mobilisation that the Minister and Commissioner of Police and other officials including the Deputy Minister are
working on together to ensure that we get our communities properly motivated and participate in bring down criminality.
Hon Meshoe, you are absolutely right, community involvement is important. I would say yes, as much as our people lose hope at times, there are times when they see police excellence and they usually applaud that and we want to see more and more of police activity and excellence where police are seen visibly taking action against criminals.
That I have noticed leaves the spirit of our people and this much I have said to the Minister and police officials that we need to be visibly present amongst our people and our people need to see that the police are making headway against acts of criminality. Thank you hon Speaker.
Mr V ZUNGULA: Speaker, thank you for pronouncing my surname correctly. Mr President, in line with your stated commitment to eradicate the criminal economy and you are genuine with that commitment, why did you not report the crime in Phala Phala to the relevant and appropriate law enforcement institution like all citizens are expected to report a crime?
Secondly, what message does it send to the nation when allegations when money laundering, kidnapping and torturing happening on the President’s farm and the President refuses to take the nation into his confidence and secondly the President refuses to account to parliament about what transpired? Thank you.
The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: I have said and admitted that there was theft at the farm and I reported that to the general of the SA police who later informed me that he has also reported it to another general of the SA Police.
That matter is obviously under processing within the police service, they are dealing with it. I deny that there was any form of money laundering and I have said it publicly that it was proceeds of sale of game.
The SPEAKER: Order! Order! Order hon members, order! Will you please listen. Proceed Mr President.
The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: I have been a cattle farmer and a game farmer for a number of years and it is a matter that I disclosed and in my disclosures here in Parliament as well as well as to the secretary to the Cabinet and that is an
activity that at times results in the sale of cattle as well as the sale of animals such as buffalos, sable, drone and water view that is a matter that takes place from time to time even recently we have been able to conclude. My managers have concluded a process where a parcel of a buffalo was also sold. That in my view is not money laundering, it is a process that goes on.
With regard to accounting to Parliament I am willing, prepared and able to subject myself to all manner of investigations as well as inquiries and processes that are unfolding here in Parliament.
There is now a section 89 which is a process that I have clearly and openly said I will cooperate to the fullest of my ability.
This matter has been subjected through a number if investigations by a number of authorities. The other time I counted there were up to seven or eight authorities that are looking into this. I have said that I am willing to subject myself to that process and that process is now underway and my accountability to Parliament will obviously culminate in this structure of the section 89 committee that you as the members
of the National Assembly have set up and that is where my full cooperation will also be displayed. Thank you hon Speaker.
The LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: Mr President, thank you so much for your response and we welcome the fact that you have broken the silence. Mr President I will ask you a simple question. If you reported it to the police and the general, why was a case number never given and why was no case opened? Thank you.
The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: I reported it as one would report and when you report to a police general you expect that processes will unfold the way that they should and in the end the police general will be able to answer that question Thank you.
Question 15:
The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Hon Speaker, according to the information received from Eskom, the remaining cost to complete Medupi is close to R19 billion.
All six Medupi units have reached the stage of commercial operation, and the current focus is on completing the balance of the plant and remedial works. The remaining cost to complete Kusile is around R14 billion.
Four out of six Kusile units are in commercial operation and the current focus is on completing the commissioning of the remaining two units.
Eskom’s intention is to complete the remaining scope of works at Medupi and Kusile within the current project budgets and approved by the Eskom Board.
Eskom is making steady progress in developing and implementing effective technical solutions to the major plant defects at both power stations, Medupi and Kusile.
As a result, the availability and reliability of the commissioned units at Medupi and Kusile is improving on an ongoing basis.
The effective correction of the major plant defects at Medupi and Kusile will ensure that the plants achieve their contractual performance, with improved reliability and as well as availability factors.
As an example, before the correction of the major plant defects, the energy availability factor at Medupi was 64% measured over 12 months.
To date, in this financial year, the energy availability factor at Medupi is now around 85%, which is a condiderable improvement. Now these figures exclude the impact of the turbine incident at Medupi unit 4, which is consequently currently offline for repairs.
This plant performance improvement represents a significant improvement in the energy output for the station in support of the national grid.
So, what I can say is that there is improvement and we have now collectively as a nation come to realised that these power stations as they are being built are really complex processes and at times when they are not well designed they even become more complex. Something that we have been suffering from because the design defaults or defects have actually contributed to a large extent to the loadshedding that we currentle having. Thank you, hon Speaker.
Ms J C N MKWANAZI: Hon President, we noted with appreciation the progress done at Medupi and Kusile Power Stations and the continuous hard co-ordinated work by Cabinet and led by yourself, hon President, to deliver the sustainable and affordability electricity to South Africans. Mr President, in
the light of the design and technical float at Medupi and Kusile Power Stations, which contributed had not only through the delays in the complexion of both power stations but also instability to power stations generating units leaving the country prone to energy insecurity.
Mr President, has the government consider holding those companies that were responsible for the design and technical floats at these power stations to account given the loadshedding a distress continuous this day and what progress has so far? Thank you so much, hon Speaker.
The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Hon Speaker, Yes, there are processes underway and some of which have reached a measure of wishing to look at the challenges from a point of view of doing proper investigations on what has resulted in the float designs, float operational capability of some of these plants and also looking at maladministration that had occurred in the process such as either overpricing as well as corruption that got underway.
And as there are unravelling and uncovering many of these there have been follow through to some of the entities to appoint where, Yes, do investigations that have been launched
and initiatives that have been embarked upon. There have been funds or monies that have had to be claimed and returned. And that work is ongoing because having spent so much money in constructing these two power stations we obviously need to do thorough going investigations to find out precisely what we spent money on and some of it must result in looking at everything that happened, including the design process and the operational incapacity or incapability of some of these power stations. So, that work is underway and I know that Eskom has a team of people who are looking very introspectively into that. Thank you, hon Speaker.
The LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: Mr President, let me remind you again on what you said back in 2015, and unquote: Another 18 months two years you forget the challenges that we had in relation to power and energy Eskom in ever happened. It’s now more than seven years later we are having our worse loadshedding here ever. Households and businesses having blackouts up to 12 hours a day now. This is the costliest failure in our country’s history yet you have fired nobody.
The fact that Minister Mantashe and Gordhan remain in their positions is a demonstration to the nation that you have clear confidence with them and satisfied with their performance.
Will you tell South Africans today what level of sustain loadshedding should get these Ministers fired? Thank you.
The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Challenge of loadshedding that we are going through is not the wilful and planned intentions of anyone who works in the state system from Ministers and I would even say even Eskom executives themselves.
Now, our energy architecture is quite complicated and as I said before, it did not start yesterday. We have been through this over a number of years. Yes, in 2015 I did base on the information that we had and I had also based it on the Medupi and Kusile Units coming into operation. And because so much money has been invested in those two Maga Power Stations many of us around the nation thought that these two power stations are really going to boost our energy generation and I must say I stored a lot of confidence even as I went to Medupi to go and see the launch one of those units I generally did believe even then that we have found the solution to our energy problems but lo and behold where we are today and it has not been the wilful and clearly planned intension of anyone that I work with. This has been a calamity of enormous proportions which we all admit. Just two weeks ago we have almost 50% of our electricity generation capacity just collapsing one after
another and the next. It’s not something that was planned by the Minister or the chief executive office. It is something that really happened and which we are dealing with.
Well almost two months ago when I announced the broadest plan that we have obviously did not foresee that we will lose 50% capacity. In fact, what we wanted to do is to add more capacity and to repair and to maintain the fleet that we have. It’s a process that is underway. And, yes, admittedly some mistakes have been made along the line and we are looking at that and we will be following through on what needs to be done.
Now loadshedding continues to happen to the detriment of our economy, the detriment of our people. Nobody in the country is happy with loadshedding, including myself. And we are working on it, yes, you mentioned cable theft, from cable theft to criminality to the age of our power stations and all that has combined to land us where we are but we are addressing the problem and everybody is focus from the two Ministers are focus on it, including all the executives. They have been put under tremendous pressure to address this. Yes, we are going to be making some announcements and we hope and trust and
believe that that will then takes us forward. Thank you, hon Speaker.
IsiXhosa:
Mnu N L S KWANKWA: Sonlomo, uyibize kakuhle enkosi kakhulu.
English:
Hon President, I put it to you that it will be irresponsible for the government to put the energy needs or to entrust the private sector with the energy needs of the country when we know that energy is a public good.
Secondly, is that pushing people towards independent power producers while it might help to alleviate the loadshedding problem in the short term but it would eventually lead to the death of Eskom and Eskom that has a very high debt which will need to be paid by the taxpayer. Now instead of us leasing learn power stations of Eskom such as in Mpumalanga to independent power producers why have the state not invested in renewable energy on behalf of the taxpayer because you know that in terms of the introductory part it must be cheap now but in the long term the private sector is going to charge a lot of money and make it unaffordable for the poor if you don’t make those interventions now? Thank you.
The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Yes, indeed, energy is a public good and the process of restructuring Eskom is not meant to sacrifice this public good and just give it away to say private sector actors. As you would have listened very careful as we outlined this we have said that the generation of energy should be done in a way were we do have a number of players.
This is part of our energy plans overtime which have been made available and discuss even here that we should be able to have at the generation level a number of players, including local government.
Local government plays a critical role in the energy sector. They distribute and they raise revenue through energy and we have also saying that they should also be able to generate and how they generate will be through independent power producers who would either reach agreement or which they themselves perhaps do.
Eskom will forever in my book remain the major energy producer in our country. Eskom produces about 45 000 megawatts and that is a mega entity. And I don’t see even a local government like Cape Town, Johannesburg being able to overtake Eskom in generating energy. That is something that will not happen.
So, in terms of you saying why has the government not invested, Eskom is in great debt, enormous debt. And right now we have said that Eskom must also be a player in the renewable energy sector. And thus precisely what Eskom is working on.
But in order for Eskom to do that it needs the financial resources. And right now the financial resources are with the private sector. The private sector has a financial resource to generate now.
The restructuring process that we are going through is that, yes, you can have a number of generator but the transmission that is the real backbone of your energy architecture. The transmission will always be owned by the government. That is a must. Distribution can also have a number of players and Eskom will also continue to be a very key player in distribution.
Now I often said that the monopoly that any entity can have in generating, for instance, energy as we have is quite risky and we now are living through the risk. We are living through the risk because we have got only one company that generate for the whole nation and I often tell people this story that as I fly at night from Cape Town to Pretoria, Pretoria to Cape Town you just see the lights on in the many towns in our country and the fear I continue to have is that its only one company that is generating that. And I say this is very risky,
extremely risky. Whichever way you can look at it even if you look at it ideologically it is real dangerous risk. And that’s why we say have a number of players. You already have a number of players in distribution.
Eskom is not the only distributor of energy. You have got municipalities that distribute. You have also got companies that distribute energy in certain areas. So, you can have a number of distributors, a number of generators. what we have made sure is that Eskom, yes, is as big as it is, it will never be overtaken. But the transmission line will always be owned by the government. And that we are not going to turn back on because we must own the pipe through which this electricity goes. Thank you very much.
Mr K P SITHOLE: Hon President, with reference to these units being reported as being overburden, faulty and long overdue what guarantee does the country have that these units wont experience failure and damage emanating from initial oversight and what consequences management measure will the government implement as an accountability oversight measure? Can additional unit be built because of the burden or strain of electricity grid? How will the government ensure that proper
and afforded procedures are implemented to avoid any faultier and overspending and believes? Thank you.
The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: As we build all these units I think one of the problems is that we need to be alive to is that Eskom was once the best energy generator in the world. It was ranked much higher than the sovereign, which is our country. It was a top performing business a number of years ago and overtime and including the time when state capture set in. It started off with a decision that was taken was that we should stop building power stations that Eskom should stop and that has been admitted that there was such a decision and so Eskom stopped building power station. But what that resulted in is that your experts, your engineers and your key sort of developmental officials then left. And we are finding some of them as we are skewering the world to find good engineers we find them in the Philippines, we finding them in the Middle East and many places.
So, that capacity then was denuded from Eskom and as we were building these new power stations we did not have internal capacity to be able to manage the contracts properly to be able to oversee what was being built and to also check carefully the designs. And I would argue that the designs
needed to be done by Eskom itself rather than being done by outsiders. And so that capacity and knowledge and expertise was gone. It was no longer there. So then we were building these power stations and corruption set in. And that’s why the prices are just escalated on an ongoing basis without the necessary people inside who would be watching our back or ensuring that everything is done properly in the interest of Eskom.
So, what guarantee can we give that as these units are now being developed, I think and I know we can because we know what has happened in the recent past. We have been unravelling corruption and some of it are like ongoing.
The current management is unravelling a lot of corruption and even as people say they must go they are becoming so focus in unravelling corruption. I must tell you that I went to a Power Station Tutuka a few weeks ago and the manager was telling us how things like diesel was purported to be delivered. Diesel which the manager was paying R4 million a month. And it was not being delivered and he literally had to run after somebody who was driving a truck to stop them because they were lying in saying they were delivering diesel. So, we have got now managers and executives who are unravelling a lot of
corruption that has been ongoing. Now you say give a guarantee and I say yes. Now the awareness about corruption has heightened and the pursued of the corruptors or the thieves has gone to a higher level.
So, when these units are being built now we are going to be watching this like Hawks and we brought in the SA Police as well as who are also getting involve and the SAA is also getting involve in looking very closely at what is happening at Eskom.
So, you say were proper procedure has been followed, yes, we are going to follow proper procedures because Eskom was the bed of corruption and now we are focusing more attention and making sure that proper procedures are followed, proper governance is followed and the procurement process is also such that it is properly done. So, I am having quiet confidence in our ability to finish these units and finish them within the budgeted amounts that we have put up. Thank you, hon Speaker.
Question 16:
The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Hon members and hon members, while the matter of illicit financial crimes was not discussed
at the bilateral meeting with US President Joe Biden, this matter has been discussed specifically at the G20 meetings, where a number of our Ministers overtime attend as we prepare to go to the next G20 this matter has been discussed where the US, as well as South Africa are also members. The discussions at the G20 are based on agreements that arise from the Inclusive Framework on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, constituted the Customs and Excise Unit, Large Business and International Tax Unit and the High Wealth Individuals Unit.
These units operate distinctly but complement each other in the fight against illicit financial crime.
The SA Revenue Service co-operates with the United States’ Internal Revenue Service on matters such as benchmarking, training and investigations.
There is no reason to set up a separate agency within or outside of Sars, which is the only organ of state administering our tax laws and hence implementing the laws we have enacted to give effect to the action items in Inclusive Framework on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting. Government has adopted a whole-of-society approach on this matter.
Industry, civil society, regulators, financial institutions and law-enforcement agencies co-operate in two interagency working groups with the sole purpose of combating illicit economic activities. I see there is a lot of excitement in this House when I say whole of society involvement. I am so glad that hon members are so in love with this concept and I hope they recognise that it is precisely what government is committed to doing. Thank you, hon Speaker.
Mr S M JAFTA: Hon Speaker and hon President, this Parliament recently approved the multilateral convention to implement the Tax Treaty Related Measures to prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting. The US has also approved this convention. Part of the underlying currency giving rise to these crimes is the role of professional enablers in creating illicit offshore accounts and shell companies for criminals such as lawyers, accountants, financial institutions, corporate and trust service providers.
Would it not be appropriate therefore for the President and his counterpart in the US to have a future bilateral on how professional bodies entrust service providers in both jurisdictions can closely work together to erode these financial crimes? I thank you.
The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Hon Speaker, I do take council on what the hon member has said that should we not have a bilateral which will address these matters.
I did say that during our meeting, that was an official visit to the United States, in the White House, we did not really get an opportunity to deal with this matter because we were dealing with a whole number of matters. We raised up to 20 matters with the US President. We were able to make quite a lot of progress in addressing a number of those issues.
This matter is being dealt with at the G20 level. I say we will take council on what the hon member is saying because when we next interact with each other we could also raise this matter which is important for both countries. So, we should be able to take it forward. However, it will be also being against the backdrop of what we are doing at the G20, because that is where our officials and our various Ministers participate with others from various countries of the G20 to deal with matters such as these. However, taking this type of matter up on a bilateral basis also helps. At a G20 we are then able to craft protocols and rules that should be followed by many countries as you heard 137 countries have been able to participate and sign on to this process that deals with this
matter and the G20 which is an important voice that involves not only your developed economy countries, but also your developing economy countries. So, when we do meet in Indonesia in a few weeks, this is one of those matters that is going to be top of the agenda as it has been addressed by our officials as well as Ministers. However, we do take council from that and thank you very much, hon Speaker.
Ms T MGWEBA: Hon Speaker and Mr President, we need a holistic society approach to deal with economic acts of sabotage of the revenue base for our country. We do not need a separate agency, but rather better results from the existing agencies. What we do not see is a commitment by Corporate SA and global monopolies in acknowledging that it is them who have presided over the manufacture of these corrupt practices.
Therefore, Mr President do you not think that 20 years of the implementation of compliance measures the country’s framework still seems to be biased towards compliance, rather than assisting the country to solve crime and seizing assets derived from such activities and those convicted, send to jail? Thank you, hon Speaker.
The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Hon Speaker, this is an ongoing process and I do agree with the hon member that yes, we do not need another agency because the current agencies can deal with this matter properly and if packed as I said earlier Sars and all these units that work distinctly on their own, but on them co-operative basis. So, the one hand knows what the other hand is doing. Therefore, we are seeing quite a lot of progress. I hear the hon member clearly when she said that we do not see a commitment from Corporate SA. To the extent that there is no commitment the law and what Sars is doing will catch them out! For in the end, Sars does have teeth that bite and will be able to follow-up on all those who do not follow due process and will be able to recover whatever have been lost to the Republic.
So I have enstore a very deal of confidence in Sars ability, particularly through the resuscitation of some of the units that were done away with and establishing those units that will make sure that we deal with this matter effectively.
As speak now, Sars is making a great deal of progress. We should really strengthen Sars and upload them for all the work that they do in this regard. Thank you, hon Speaker.
The LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: Mr President, thank you very much. I am sure you have been made aware in the recent months of a number of existing laws and regulations in the previting financial crimes such as the ones listed by the hon Jafta and he took an oath of office to uphold it. Existing exchange control regulations require for example, require that you receive prior permission before receiving payment in a foreign currency and that you declare and sell back all foreign currency to an accredited dealer within 30 days received.
Now instead of proposing a raft of new interventions in international corporations should the focus rather not making sure that existing laws are enforced so that we can bring all those people who have stockpiles of illicit foreign currencies staffed away in their coaches and their homes and should you not be setting an example in this regard?
The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: I take you are referring specifically to my situation. Yes, the SA Reserve Bank is working on this matter and it is dealing with it and I have made my disclosures and my various managers have also made their disclosures. So this matter is being dealt with and I would like it to leave it to the SA Reserve Bank, to make their own conclusions on this matter and determinations. As I
have said earlier the level of co-operation on my side and those who are associated in this matter has been quite extensive and I have fully co-operated. So, this matter is being dealt with, and we should leave it to regulators and authorities to deal with. Thank you very much. Thank you, hon Speaker.
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: Hon Speaker, I think it is ... [Inaudible.]
... normal cause that South Africa is defined by massive revenue leakages through aggressive tax avoidance, profit shifting and illicit flows. Part of those examples is the R2,5 billion that was shifted by Lonmin when you were a president and a board member, Mr Ramaphosa of Lonmin. It was contained in the Fullum Commission report that R2,5 billion was shifted for the tax haven they called Bermuda. That also includes more than R2 billion US dollars which was shifted by multinational corporations such as the Anglo American and Glencoe which Shanduka your company has got business relationships with.
That was contained in the High Level Panel Report on the illicit financial flows from the African continent.
This also of course include like bringing millions of currency and trading with currency domestically. Despite the fact that we are not allowed to trade in foreign currency in the country without certain regulations that have to be complied with.
So, outside the multilateral and bilateral treaties this needs a solid and sound domestic legislation to deal with aggressive particularly aggressive tax avoidance and profit shifting which are the primary instruments of revenue base raising.
Why is still that there is still no legislation that deals with aggressive tax avoidance despite these massive revenue leakages? Now a question is: Is it because you are a puppet of these multinational corporations where a partner or because you are also involved in illicit financial flows as evidenced by the fact that you have refused us to disclose to the SA Reserve Bank in terms of the monies that are in Phala Phala?
Mr B A RADEBE: On a point of order.
The SPEAKER: Hon member, there is a point of order.
The B A RADEBE: Hon Speaker, my point of order is: The speaker on the platform has used an unparliamentary language according
to Rule 84, by referring to the President and a Head of State as a puppet. Thank you, hon Speaker.
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: Speaker.
The SPEAKER: Hon Radebe and hon Shivambu.
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: Hon Speaker, it is a question that says is it because you are a puppet of multinational corporations?
The SPEAKER: No, hon Shivambu!
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: I have made that remark and we will make those observations.
The SPEAKER: Hon Shivambu, will you please withdraw the word puppet from your statement.
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: Hon Speaker, I am asking from ...
The SPEAKER: Will you please withdraw the word puppet.
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: Alright. I am withdrawing the word puppet so that I can conclude this question.
The SPEAKER: Thank you very much, hon member.
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: Is it because you are a lackey or a lapdog of these multinational corporations that are directing you to avoid passing proper legislation that will deal with aggressive tax avoidance, profit shifting which are the primary instruments for revenue base erosion?
That is the question that I am asking and it is because of the millions of dollars ...
The SPEAKER: The hon Lesoma.
IsiXhosa:
Mhlekazi Shivambu, yima kaloku, tata.
English:
In fact, you have gone way beyond your time.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms R M M Lesoma): Hon Speaker, my point of order is: The hon Shivambu has used unparliamentary word against the President calling him as lackey which is unparliamentary. Thank you very much.
Hon Speaker, can you rule on that. Thank you so much.
The SPEAKER: Thank you very much, the hon Lesoma.
Hon member, Shivambu, will you please ...
Mr N F SHVAMBU: Hon Speaker, Speaker, I am asking a question if he is a lackey or a lapdog? What is wrong in asking a question? I am not making a conclusive remark here.
The SPEAKER: Hon Shivambu, you know that is wrong. Can you please withdraw that!
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: But I am asking a question!
The SPEAKER: Hon member, can you please wait! Am still dealing with a point of order.
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: But is a question!
The SPEAKER: Hon Shivambu, will you please withdraw what you have just said!
Ms H O MKHALIPI: Speaker, I had my hand up!
The SPEAKER: Hon Shivambu! Can you withdraw what you have just said!
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: Hon Speaker I withdraw and then I replace it with the word is he a servant of multinational corporations that are sending him to avoid passing thorough and comprehensive legislation?
The SPEAKER: Hon Shivambu.
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: Yes, hon Speaker, I have withdrawn.
The SPEAKER: Hon Shivambu, hon Shivambuearlier on, I had talked to some of the things which we need to avoid and names which we need not use in calling out one another or in describing our personalities as individuals. I am really appealing to you.
You have withdrawn, but I want to make an appeal that we do not use such language in this House again. Thank you very much, hon Shivambu. Hon the President. Now.
IsiXhosa:
Awungomfanekiso kakade, ulilingu eihloniphekileyo uMkhalipi.
English:
Yes, will you raise what you wanted to raise?
Ms H O MKHALIPI: Hon Speaker, I am just cautioning you. You are doing the same mistake that you did with the hon Maotwe.
Allow the President to answer the question! This is Question session. So, just allow him.
The SPEAKER: Thank you very much.
Ms H O MKHALIPI: Do not be a buffer zone between you and the President!
The SPEAKER: Thank you very much.
Hon Mkhalipi, hon Mkhalipi, I have not prevented the President from responding to the question raised by the hon Shivambu.
What I am doing is exactly what you know should not happen; should be done in the Chamber that is to withdraw words which seek to portray a person in a particular way.
[Interjections.]
No, no, no, you may not agree, but it is in the rules actually.
Alright. I will tell you now.
The hon Xaso, you are causing confusion and now she is lurching on to that.
No do not do that.
Hon member, Mkhalipi, please man! Let us not throw names that seek to impure on our dignity and our integrity as hon members.
I am just making an appeal hon member, please!
We now proceed to allow the hon the President, to respond minus what has been withdrawn. The hon the President. It is not in the statement.
The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Alright hon Speaker. I did however want to say: The last time I checked myself, I am not a lapdog. I do not go about licking other dogs and I am not a puppet. So, I am least concerned about such reference.
For you can only be concerned if you are a puppet or if you are a lapdog and I am not. So, what he has said passes on my back like water on a duck so I am least concerned. However, more importantly, I think the hon Shivambu does raise an important point that rather than rely on multilateral processes and institutions as well as regulations which are necessary by the way if we are to do this on a global basis, we should pass our own laws. That process obviously is a process that is underway.
Treasury is looking closely at this and Sars is also involved and indeed our various agencies. This matter has been obviously brought more to the fore through a number of other processes. I should say that at the African Union, AU, level, our former President Thabo Mbeki, was involved in a process of leading the process of looking at the illicit financial flows out of our continent. He and his team found that there are billions and billions of dollars that flow out of our continent illicitly and the AU has been seized with this matter and the AU is a multilateral institution and that has brought home not only to our continent, but in many other parts of the world. That we need to tighten the illicit flow of money. We are involved in that process. I think the various agencies that we have, Sars included, the Reserve Bank, as
well as Treasury. This a matter that is top of the agenda including a whole number of initiatives that continued to be made as technology advances. So, using technology and really good laws which we learn from the multilateral institutions and various bodies including the Brazil, Russia, China and SA, Brics, including the G20, G7, the United Nations, UN, and all that – all of this brings about a combination that is going to help us a great deal even as a nation.
So, Mr, Minister – I said Minister - the hon Shivambu has raised quite an important point.
[Interjections.]
The SPEAKER: Order!
The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: So, what a Freudian slip I have made.
Freudian slip, yes. “Ja.”
So, in the end, one welcomes the thought he has put forward about having national legislation, but I would even say hon Shivambu, it is tightening national legislation to make sure
precisely the issue that you have raised is properly addressed. Thank you very much, hon Speaker.
Question 17:
The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Hon Speaker, the protection of our rail infrastructure is vital for the functioning of our economy and the wellbeing and development of our people. We have, therefore, been working hard with several stakeholders to end the criminal destruction of this vital infrastructure. We are seeing improvements with respect to the security of our rail lines. An example of this is the co-operation between Transnet and the SA Police Service to secure the North Rail Corridor, which has led to a significant reduction in crime and the various derailments that have been happening.
The SA Police Service has established Economic Infrastructure Task Teams in 22 priority districts to tackle all crimes that damage the country’s economic assets. As part of our concerted effort to curb these crimes, last month, the government published draft proposals to address the widespread theft of copper cable and other forms of metal from public infrastructure. The draft measures propose a six-month export prohibition on scrap and waste metal, including copper cable, together with a permit system for export of specified semi-
processed metal products. In terms of the National Key Points Act, the rail network does not qualify for declaration as a national key point. This is because it is not address-specific and would not be able to meet the minimum physical security standard required for implementation at a national key point facility.
The Critical Infrastructure Protection Act which is being finalised will replace the National Key Points Act, and defines infrastructure to include any transport network or network for the delivery of electricity or water. The Critical Infrastructure Protection Act still needs to be operationalised in conjunction with the promulgation of the Regulations of the Act.
The Criminal Matters Amendment Act of 2015 provides for several legal sanctions for acts of theft or destruction of economic infrastructure. According to the Act, any person who unlawfully and intentionally tampers with, damages or destroys essential infrastructure, can be found guilty of an offence and liable to a conviction for a period of up to 30 years, or in the case of a company, could invoke a fine not exceeding R100 million. This essential infrastructure includes infrastructure required for the provision of energy,
transport, water, sanitation and communication. In the financial year to date, 43 people have been convicted in terms of this Act for copper cable theft, theft of fuel from the Transnet pipeline and destruction of railway infrastructure.
Several of these people have received sentences of between 10 and 15 years and one was sentenced to 26 years imprisonment. It is clear that the government is serious about tackling economic sabotage and, while this remains a huge problem, our efforts in all this are beginning to show some real results
This is a matter that we take seriously as our country has been subjected to a lot of economic destruction and criminal activities but we are addressing this and I'm rather glad that they're working together and I've received the report between Transnet and the police in 22 areas of priority is beginning to show real benefits. And the reports have not been coming from Transnet directly, but they've been coming even from private sector actors who say that they're beginning to see real progress in this regard. So we want this to continue and spread throughout the country because we've had wanton destruction of economic infrastructure and we are now drawing the line and saying that those who are responsible will get imprisonment sentences such as the one that the law outlines. Thank you, hon Speaker.
Mr L N MANGCU: Thank you very much, hon Speaker, thank you very much, President, I think firstly, let's welcome the feedback you are giving to the nation regarding the convictions as it relates to the Critical Matters Amendment Act. I think this is what has been missing for people to know that something is happening. Some people are going to jail, hence people are feeling that nothing is happening. So we welcome that progress, President, and we wish to see more in that regard.
President, my question, therefore, is whether it's clear that the Critical Infrastructure Protection Act is what we need to turn around the tide since we cannot declare this rail network as a key point or national key point, when can we expect this legislation, Mr President, to come into place? I know there are regulations you spoke about from our ... [Inaudible.] ... but can you take the nation into confidence and pin it ... the ground? Thank you, Mr President.
The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Hon Speaker, hon Steenhuisen is distracting me, as he sits very close to me, you might want to consider him to move away. [Interjections.] Hon Speaker, hon Mangcu, yes, this is an important piece of legislation that we will rely on to make progress in this regard. But what is
pleasing is that we are already seeing progress. As one visits various countries on the continent, one hears a number of countries also experiencing exactly the same problem, cable theft in various countries in Kenya and Malawi and all that.
And we all are being subjected to acts of criminality on economic infrastructure and a number of countries have imposed really drastic measures in part the ban that we have imposed for six months is something that in our view should stop criminal activities in this regard. And the regulations that you would like me to pin a date to should be finalised shortly. I have not been able to pin down those who are drafting those regulations so that they can give us a specific date, but because we are experiencing these problems in a large manner, we have to speed the process up so that the regulations are in place and we can utilise the law.
The good thing is that, yes, action is being taken proactively through the co-operation of the SAPS as well as Transnet and indeed as well as a number of actors in the private sector working together with their own personnel. And people are getting arrested and people are being prosecuted and they're getting convicted. And they're getting long prison sentences. This is precisely what we want to see. Now, as you correctly say, this has not been so proactively communicated, even from
the government’s point of view, and this is communication that should be spread around so that our people know that there are these initiatives that the government is taking to protect our economic infrastructure, and I want to see this really steamrolling proceeding in a way that even ordinary people will see that progress is being made, but more importantly for those with criminal intent to know that this is not the way to go.
IsiZulu:
Alufakwa.
English:
And in the end, they must know that they will go to jail and not just go to jail for 18 months. They will go to jail for more than 20 years and more. This is precisely what we want to see. Thank you, hon Speaker.
The LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: Speaker, Mr President, you and the hon member will be delighted to know that there's some good news. You don't need a new Act to deal with these issues.
The Criminal Matters Amendment Act passed by this House in 2015 already allows for jail sentences of up to 30 years for
anyone involved with damaging rail infrastructure. What you do need to do Mr President is to improve the capacity of enforcement to root out the syndicates. ... [Inaudible.] ... put in place anti-corruption measures within the state-owned entities because, for every syndicate on the outside, there's an official on the inside who is colluding with them.
The DA governments are already fighting back. We are working with law enforcement and strengthening local law enforcement around rail, and we are working with the steel industry to find out where this stuff is going once it's stolen. Now the best thing that you can do, Mr President, gives these local governments greater control over the rail services and infrastructure. Mr President, given the government’s struggle to deal with this matter and to deal with rail, will you support our call for the devolution of rail to competent local government? [Interjections.]
The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Hon Speaker, somehow, even as, hon Steenhuisen was speaking in a very supportive way, I knew there was a catch in what he was about to say. Hon Speaker, hon Steenhuisen is right. We need to focus on enforcement and dealing with the syndicates because as he correctly says, there are syndicates that operate in this sector. It's not
only the person who is cutting the cable and carting it away on a little trolley. Who is the main actor? The main actor sits elsewhere, and they are syndicates that operate ... and in a way, they are also global syndicates. They don't only operate in South Africa; they operate right across the globe. So that is what we need to focus on and make sure that there is enforcement.
And I'd like to say that, given the progress that is being made all around and including what hon Steenhuisen says, where DA governs is making progress. Nationally. progress is being made. The reason that these people are being sent to jail, in terms of the Act that you have referred to, it's precisely because we are making progress. We are focusing and having increased focus in this area and I'm seeing us even making greater breakthroughs as we move on. As to where the responsibility should reside, that is a matter obviously that can be debated. It can be looked at but right now I'm more focusing on the issue of enhancing the enforcement and going after the syndicates, and because the syndicates operate, as I have said, globally as well as nationally, we do need national involvement.
And the entire national system must be involved, obviously, and this should please you, hon Steenhuisen, obviously working with the provinces and working with our local government, so it must be seen as an all-inclusive type of process rather than an exclusive type of process. Now, I would like to see us working in an integrated manner, in a joined up government type of manner, where we break down the silos of just local government, provincial, and national. And it should cut right across. And in that way, I guess we will make even greater progress and will put more people behind bars who interfere with our economic infrastructure. Thank you, hon speaker.
Ms H O MKHALIPHI: Can you call the bouncers?
The SPEAKER; Order hon members!
Ms H O MKHALIPHI: Thank you very much, Speaker, Mr President, as part of your campaign for the last general elections, you took a train ride in Gauteng and the train got stuck with you in it. As usual, you expressed shock and committed to fixing the problems facing the Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa, Prasa, and you even promised to have a bullet train before the end of your first term as President.
The situation has gotten worse since then, and the train services are completely halted in many parts of the country. To whom do you attribute your failure to deliver on your promises of getting Prasa back on track? And why are there no consequences for those responsible for the gross incompetence and disservices to our people?
The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Hon Speaker, Prasa was one of those entities that were seriously captured and the rate and the depth of corruption that prevailed in Prasa was quite extensive and that is why Prasa was brought almost to its needs and the processes to rebuild Prasa are now underway and they're moving ahead with great determination, and the Minister is focusing on making sure that Prasa returns to its glory days. And that those who've been responsible for bringing Prasa to its knees are held responsible and accountable. And as we speak now, they are involved in unravelling everything that was done wrong during the past few years, and we should see Prasa being put on the right track again.
As regards the train rides and all that impacts negatively on our people, that is being addressed. A number of train lines are being brought back and we want to see more and more of
those train lines being put back to operate so that our people can have a more efficient and cheaper way of transport to be able to take them where they need to go.
Yes, it was a disappointment for me when I took that train ride and the train just stuck. Yes, expressing unhappiness, unhappy happiness with the state of Prasa, particularly for our people because when I was on that train, a lot of our people showed that they rely on the rail to take them to work and it was distressing but fortunately, that is being addressed and Prasa should be able to get back on its feet.
Thank you, hon Speaker. [Interjections.]
Mr K P SITHOLE: Thank you, hon Speaker, hon President, given that the infrastructure is of common national interest, it is fitting, hon President, it is declared a national key point. Considering this, President, we need to understand the root cause of why there seems to be ongoing destruction of this rail network. I would like to know how we would have capitate capitated the SA Police Service and the relevant law enforcement stakeholders to identify the root cause of the destruction of this rail network which may uncover a link to a possible syndicate that will benefit from the destruction of the rail network. I thank you.
The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Hon Speaker, as we said, a closer examination of both economic, particularly legal, revealed that we were not able to classify the rail network as a national key point because there's no specific address. But we are dealing with it through other legislation.
The SA Police Service is already seized with very extensive investigations into the causes and not only the causes, but also those who may well be behind the destruction. And as I said earlier, which was alluded to by hon Steenhuisen, there are syndicates. There are big players who are involved in all this. So our State Security Agency, SSA, our police, and our criminal intelligence are seized with this matter. And progress is being made in unravelling those who are involved in this.
So, what one can say right now is that we are making progress and as I said, people are getting arrested, but we also need to focus more on, the full causality as well as the real big players who are behind this whole process of economic infrastructure destruction. Thank you, hon Speaker. Thank
Question 18:
The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Hon Speaker, when I received the final report of the State Capture Commission in June 2022, I said that I will study the report and provide a comprehensive response as well as a plan for implementation within the court stipulated timeframe of four months. This requires consideration of up to 358 recommendations from the commission. This range in nature from recommended actions against alleged perpetrators and enablers of corruption to the recovery of funds to proposed reforms to prevent, detect and prosecute corruption in future.
The work that is currently under way to consider these recommendations does not mean that we have been waiting for tabling of this response plan to start the process of implementation of recommendations made by the commission. You may well recall that I amended the regulations of the State Capture Commission in 2020 to permit sharing of information records or documents with any law enforcement agency.
This was to enable law enforcement agencies to proceed with the investigations while the State Capture Commission was busy with its work. As a result, many of the recommendations for criminal investigation prosecution and asset recovery contained in the commission’s report were already receiving
priority attention. Similarly, work is underway across government department agencies, state-owned enterprises and Chapter 9 institutions on a range of interventions to respond to the commissions’ findings and recommendations. This includes reform of the intelligence services, various legislative reforms, new financial and governance controls, capacity building and improved co-ordination and information sharing to prevent state capture and corruption.
The implementation plan that I will submit to Parliament will outline this ongoing work and will indicate which recommendations have been prioritised for implementation. Our approach is guided by the need to ensure both that the perpetrators of state capture face the consequences of their actions and that we use this opportunity to design and implement far reaching reforms to prevent a future occurrence. And it is important that we should collectively and nationally view State Capture Commission Report as a great opportunity to deal with what happened in the past, but more importantly, we also deal with what should happen in the future in the form of preventing state capture in any shape of form re-emerging in our country. Thank you, hon Speaker.
The SPEAKER: Thank you, hon President. The first supplementary question will be asked by the hon J J Maake.
Mr J J MAAKE: Thank you, Madam Speaker, Your Excellency the hon President of the Republic of South Africa. I was nearly tempted to say the President of the last colony that was liberated, South of Sahara, because there are people who were never colonised in here. The recommendations by the Zondo Commission of State Capture covers a whole range of issues and areas. For example, what should be implemented by state-owned enterprises, SOEs, the intelligent services, Parliament, the National Prosecuting Authority, NPA, etc, in order to avoid these institutions, simply saying that they don’t have the resources to implement these recommendations. Wouldn’t it be ideal for each institution cited by the commission to be compelled to budget fully for the implementation of these recommendations, or for the President to have a ring-fenced fund specifically for the implementation of all the recommendations cited by the commission. How does the President intend to co-ordinate the whole process? Thank you.
The SPEAKER: Thank you, hon member. The hon the President?
The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Thank you, hon Speaker. Given - as I have said – that there are almost 385 recommendations which the hon Maake very ably identified - the key actors who must implement the SOE, intelligence services, Parliament and various departments, I could not agree more as she suggested. Shouldn’t they all budget for the implementation of these recommendations? I think in my view that is a brilliant thought.
Clearly, the co-ordination thereof is something that we need to look at, because what we would do from the Presidency is to present the implementation plan which we will present to Parliament. And indeed Parliament will have to address this issue, debate and discuss it and as Parliament, in the end process, it will need to see what the budget requirement will be.
I guess that from various institutions, we will need to take it a little further than just coming up with an implementation plan and say it is likely to cost. I do think that the hon Maake has raised a very cogent point which we need to give attention to. In terms of the work that we have been doing – of course we have been looking at what needs to be implemented
and now we need to take it a little forward and say it as it should be – what it is going to cost.
I take it that there will be costs requirements in a number of instances. There may well not be much that will require expenditure on others but looking at it more broadly in terms of the various entities that will be involved and all this, I think the proposal from the hon Maake falls into the category of really good proposals which I thank him for. Thank you, hon Speaker.
The SPEAKER: Thank you, hon President. The second supplementary question will be asked by the hon the Leader of the Opposition.
The LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: Thank you very much, Mr President. Mr President, when presenting your testimony at the Zondo Commission on Parliament’s failure to investigate Nkandla under the pretext that this was a job of law enforcement agencies, you said and I quote, “When you look at Hansard, I would say that the two would not be mutually exclusive and if anything, both checks could easily have been followed.”
Despite the submission, your party that you lead yesterday is repeating the exact same problem we had with Nkandla by refusing to have an ad hoc committee and regards that as a the section 89 committee that is not going the generals that you refer to; it’s not going to investigate the SA Airways, SAA; not going to investigate the Department of International Relations and Co-operation; not going to investigate any of the other protagonists.
Mr President, when you said this to Judge Zondo, were you telling the truth that Parliament should investigate when serious allegations arise or did you simply change your mind now that the matter and shoes is on your feet and not Mr Zumas? Thank you.
The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Hon Speaker, I take it that the matter that had to be dealt with yesterday is a matter that is now under consideration by a panel set up by this very body.
And I take it that these processes will in the end be able to demonstrate precisely what has happened. So, it is not a question of saying that Parliament should not play a role because Parliament is correctly playing a role, and my own accountability to this body is a given within the various parameters of all these various institutions that are looking
at this matter. So, it is not really a change of mind. I am all up for good governance and accountability and I believe that this process that is now underway is one that should be followed, it does not make me uncomfortable because it affects me or the shoes in my feet now. It’s just recommits me to the process of governance and accountability, and I believe that it’s a process that is currently ongoing. And we should have the ability and I think the confidence that the processes that we have embarked on will be able to lead us somewhere. Thank you, hon Speaker.
The SPEAKER: Thank you, hon President. The third supplementary question will be asked by the hon M Hlengwa. Hon Hlengwa, are you in the House or are you on the virtual platform? You are on the virtual platform - then would you please open for the hon Hlengwa. Hon Hlengwa, you have the floor. Okay, maybe there is a network problem on the hon Hlengwa’s side.
Mr M HLENGWA: No. Speaker, thank you very much. There was ... [Inaudible.] ... unmuting it. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Mr President, given the fact that your implementation plan is actually due to Parliament by 15 October as per Parliament’s own statement in June, one would have hoped that you spoke in greater confidence because then it means that you
must be at the tail end of finalising it. So, the critical question then becomes, “Is there a political will on the part of government to actually see through the implementation of the Zondo Commission and recommendations?”
Mr President, on the issue of budget that you are speaking to, I don’t think that it can be left to this House. You should be at the very least giving a ballpark figure to say, in terms of the implementation plan that you have, or referring us to the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework, MTEF, that will be coming up soon. So, it has to be a plan that is costed and so as things stand now, what are the estimated costs that you have projected in so far as the implementation plan that is due on
15 October is concerned? We will want to know whether you will meet that deadline of bringing that plan to Parliament. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Thank you, hon Speaker. Is there a political will to implement the Zondo Commission recommendations? The answer is, yes, there is political will. When we bring the implementation plan to Parliament, that is when the will of government will become clear that indeed we are serious and we have the will to do so. You are absolutely
right that the financial aspect of implementing the plan cannot be left to Parliament.
We as the executive have to craft that and that is why I applauded what the hon Maake has put forward, which adapt to be a very good suggestion because inherent in putting forward an implementation plan and repeat inherent in doing so consequentially will result in expenditure – expenditure which should be crafted and then obviously presented to Parliament because in the end, correctly so, Parliament is the one that approves expenditure.
The extent to which you say the MTEF is the Medium-Term Policy Budget Statement that will be presented shortly, the extent to which it will form a part of that, something that the Minister of Finance and I are going to be meeting and discussing because that has to be presented to Cabinet first and thereafter, to Parliament. But as regards the implementation plan itself, it is being finalised. You asked a direct question whether we will be able to meet the deadline of 15 October. The desire is that we should. I should say that if we have been watching court processes, the commission approached the court in relation to dealing with the question of condonation because you might recall that there were delays in
giving the final report to me. Having delayed, and it was not a lengthy delay – they needed to get condonation from court for that delay, but it was a delay nonetheless. They also ... [Interjections.]
The SPEAKER: Hon Desiree, please mute. Proceed, hon President.
The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: In relation to that approach to court, they also needed to do errata to correct a few errors of either typography, this and that - and we are looking at all that. We are looking at the report to see the extent to which it touches on our own implementation deadlines. The desire is that, yes, we should meet that deadline.
If there is a change, we would be able to advise Parliament and give the reasons and say that these are the reasons. But I was just giving a mere background because the commission had to approach the courts to get ... [Inaudible.] ... condonation and also to deal with some of those typographical issues. So, the political will is there, it is absolutely clear and the costing thereof is a matter that will be discussed with the Minister of Finance to see whether it can be inserted now and at the same time to see exactly what the timeframe is going to be. So, that’s as far as one can say but to underline the hon
Hlengwa’s question, the political will is there and that will become very clear when we present it here to Parliament. Thank you, hon Speaker.
The SPEAKER: Thank you, hon President. The last supplementary question will be asked by the hon P J Groenewald.
Afrikaans:
Dr P J GROENEWALD: Agb Voorsitter, deur u ...
English:
... hon President, in January this year – I think it was after you received the first report on the commission, you said to the judge on television and in the media that you will implement all the recommendations of the report and you are on record. But in August the same year, in a court case, in terms of cadre deployment, you gave sworn affidavit to the court where you said that you are not obliged to implement all the recommendations. I think it is fair that the public and the taxpayers who forked out almost R1 billion for the commission, must have certainty that you will ensure that all the recommendations be implemented. So, my follow up question is, “Will you implement all the recommendations, if not, why not,
and what criteria will you follow besides the ones you will implement and which ones not? I thank you.
The SPEAKER: Thank you, hon member. The hon the President
The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Thank you, hon Speaker. I am glad to see that you read my affidavits. Yes, what was set out in the affidavits is the law. The law of commissions is that one the report is presented to the President, he or she may or may not implement. So, that is a given in terms of the law.
But we have because the State Capture Commission process has been a defining moment for our country in dealing with acts of corruption and state capture. It has been a defining moment in which we have had to take a different path, because the other path led to disasters that we are living through as we wade our way from what was done wrongly in the past. It is a path not to take and we must depart from that.
So, the political will and the determination is that we must set ourselves on this path of moving away from state capture, dealing with state capture and that is what has underpinned our will to say that we will implement recommendations of the Zondo Commission. Let me say that that is our commitment, and we will implement. There may be some - as you correctly say in
the last part of your question – that we will not be able to implement within a particular timeframe. We will need to look at phases of when some get implemented and so forth. And if there are challenges in as far as implementing – having stated our clear and definite desire and wish and will, we will be able to say so.
We will be able to give reasons why we are not able to do so. So, that is then going to be put before Parliament, and hon Groenewald, that is when you will also get an opportunity to debate the matter and see whether what we are seeking to implement within particular timeframes is doable or not doable. The good thing about the commission is that it was all public, very transparent and everybody knows about it. The implementation plan is also going to be put forward. I have just been advised that the deadline for implementation plan to Parliament is currently 22 October – my bad slip of the tongue
– and not 15 October. So, it is 22 October – I just wanted to make that clear that that is what we are now looking at – which is not far from 15 October as the hon Hlengwa was insisting on. Thank you, hon Speaker.
SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTIONS, IN THE NAMES OF Mr V ZUNGULA, Ms TM JOEMAT-PETTERSSON, THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION AND Mr JS
MALEMA, STANDING OVER FROM TUESDAY, 30 AUGUST 2022, ON QUESTION 11 TO BE DEALT WITH IN TERMS OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSE AS AGREED TO ON TUESDAY, 27 SEPTEMBER 2022
Question 11:
The SPEAKER: Thank you, hon President. Hon members, that brings us to the end of the questions which were scheduled for
29 September. Hon members, we now proceed to Question 11 and I would like to make the following statement.
Hon members, while it is the responsibility of the Speaker or any presiding officer to regulate proceedings in the House, it is not for the Speaker to prescribe how the President should respond to a question or make a political judgement on how a question has been responded to in the House.
The issue of responses to outstanding supplementary questions has been widely canvased in both the Chief Whips Forum and the National Assembly Programme Committee. Earlier this week this House agreed to a motion to schedule supplementary questions in respect of Question 11 of 30 August. The President responded to the initial question posed by hon Zungula on 30 August. Should a member not be satisfied with that response, there is now an opportunity to pose supplementary questions in
the agreed order, and not withstanding this, there are also further opportunities provided by the process of posing written questions.
Hon members, having clarified the matter, I will proceed to recognise members to ask supplementary questions as agreed by the programming structures and the House. Now, hon members, I have the following members and I will first start with hon Zungula who will raise the first supplementary question.
Mr V ZUNGULA: Speaker, firstly I need to correct you in your attempt to provide some misguided clarity. In the last session on 30 August when the President was asked this question, he responded and stated that he has been advised not to answer.
Now, you can’t come here, Speaker, and make it as if we were prescribing or we wanted you to prescribe how the President answers whereas, in his own words, he stated that he has been advised not to answer. That is one thing I wanted to clarify, but let me proceed with the supplementary question.
Mr President, when you joined government in 2014 you stated that you will hand over your business interests to a blind trust where you will not have any sight of your investments and the operations of the business interests. If this is the
case, why were you the go-to person to take action in the Phala-Phala case by assigning the head of your protection unit to deal with the matter? Whoever the manager was when the crime was committed in Phala-Phala would have been the relevant person to take action. However, in this case it was yourself. It is you who confirmed to the House that you reported the case to the head of your protection unit.
The second question is why you have such intricate details ... [Interjections.]
The SPEAKER: No, hon member. Hon member ... [Interjections.]
IsiXhosa:
... haayi kaloku yimani.
English:
Order! Order! You may not ask more than one question as a supplementary question.
Mr V ZUNGULA: Speaker, it is one question. It is one question, Speaker.
The SPEAKER: Hon members ... [Interjections.]
Mr V ZUNGULA: Speaker?
The SPEAKER: Yes?
Mr V ZUNGULA: It is one question.
The SPEAKER: Okay, continue.
Mr V ZUNGULA: Thank you. Mr President, why do you have such intricate details such as money lost and the clients yet your business interests are supposedly held in a blind trust where you have no sight? Are you currently involved in any businesses wherein you buy and sell merchandise while at the same time you are the President of the country? Thank you.
The SPEAKER: Thank you, hon member. Yes, hon Dlakude?
The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Thank you very
much, hon Speaker. I think we should not move away from our Rules. Our Rules are clear, hon Speaker. A person is allowed to ask only one follow up question and not two. So, we must not set a precedent that we allow people to ask three questions. That is against the Rules, Speaker. Thanks.
The SPEAKER: Thank you, hon Dlakude. Hon Zungula, I am sure you are aware of this in terms of Rule 142. Yes, hon Mkhaliphi?
Ms H O MKHALIPHI: Speaker, it will be fair of you to leave hon Zungula because it is his question. So, just leave him ... [Interjections.]
The SPEAKER: No, hon Mkhaliphi, is it a point of order?
Mr H O MKHALIPHI: Yes, Speaker, it is a point of order. I am saying to you leave him to ask the question the way that satisfies him because this is his original question that was postponed because of your intervention. Secondly, the incoming president of South Africa, Julius Malema, is muted. So, can you unmute him Speaker so that he can do his follow up question? Thank you, Speaker.
The SPEAKER: Thank you. You may be seated. The hon the President.
The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Thank you, hon Speaker. The question was why the report was done by myself. Soon after it happened I was informed that theft had been committed and my
manager informed me and I immediately informed General Rhoode as we were travelling and in Addis Ababa.
When things such as these happen I am informed like when a car overturns and there is an accident I am informed. Not that I will immediately be able to take somebody to hospital or whatever but I am informed because I am interested party on what happened. So, that is why I was informed and I was then able to inform a General of the police service who at the time was traveling with me in Addis Ababa.
With regard to all these interests I have declared, as I have said, my farming activities and my great passion for cattle farming and so on. I have declared the agricultural aspects or activities that I am involved in. That has been declared firstly here in Parliament and thereafter, when I became President, also to the secretary of the Cabinet. In addition, some properties that I personally own have also been disclosed.
I must say that initially the intention was to set up a blind trust, but then I did say that I do not intend to be in any other form of business other than the agricultural sector which I have declared. That is why in the end no such trust
was formed because this is the sum total of what I get involved in. Do I sell and buy merchandise? No. Does the entity buy and sell cattle and animals? Yes, that is what it does. Why does it do so? Because they multiply and you either have to cull them or whatever, and that is the situation that we are in. Thank you, hon Speaker.
The SPEAKER: Thank you, hon President. The second supplementary question will be asked by the hon T M Joemat- Pettersson.
Ms T M JOEMAT-PETTERSSON: Thank you very much, hon President. Hon President, the questions that you are being asked right now are actually a little bit outdated and they are not that important because, respectfully hon President, we welcome your commitment to co-operate with any and all investigations, and this is what you are doing. So, why are we nit-picking on something which you have already agreed to do? It is actually just repeating the very same thing over and over again.
It is important to assert the rule of law, which is what you have done. You have accepted due processes and accountability. This is what a good and true leader ... [Interjections.]
The SPEAKER: Order! Hon members ... Yes, hon member, I am sorry?
Mr B A RADEBE: Hon Speaker, we are allowed to hackle in the House but we cannot drown a speaker on the platform, please.
The SPEAKER: Thank you. You may proceed hon ... [Interjections.]
Ms H O MKHALIPHI: Speaker, can you protect us from German cut? No man.
The SPEAKER: No, hon Mkhaliphi, don’t do that please. Please don’t do that. Hon President, please take your seat, hon Joemat is still on the floor.
Ms T M JOEMAT-PETTERSSON: Hon President ... [Interjections.]
The SPEAKER: No, hon Mkhaliphi, you are the most senior leader of your party who is here today. You are the Deputy Chief Whip you said a few minutes ago. I am not going to allow you to conduct yourself in that way. I expect ... [Interjections.] No, you can’t be hackling. Yes, you are. You are drowning the
speaker, at least if you were not drowning the speaker. Now, please ... [Interjections.]
IsiXhosa:
... khawume kancinci sisi.
English:
Please, point of order? Yes, what is the point of order?
Ms R N KOMANE: Thank you Speaker. I am raising a point of order on you, Speaker. Can you please be fair and consistent with all members of this House? You cannot treat members of the EFF as if they are step-children in this House. Whenever they raise their hands to raise their issues you supress them, but whenever members of the ANC are hackling you are ... [Inaudible.] [Interjections.]
The SPEAKER: Thank you very much ... [Interjections.]
Ms R N KOMANE: ... so, I am calling an order on you, Speaker. [Interjections.]
The SPEAKER: ... please take a seat. [Interjections.]
An HON MEMBER: Point of order, please. I have been ... [Interjections.]
The SPEAKER: Hon member, you know ... all of you, please just lower your hands. Lower your hands. Judith, lower your hand. Hon Mkhaliphi, please lower your hand! Will you please lower your hands! Lower your hands! Hon members, these supplementary
... [Inaudible.] ... hon Tina, khawume [wait.] I am addressing all of you. I am saying lower your hands. You had 45 minutes and you have already taken 15 minutes on this question. You have exactly 45 minutes on this. Stop wasting time, hon members, please. Thank you. Continue, hon Tina.
Ms T M JOEMAT-PETTERSSON: Hon President, would you update the House on your interactions with various state institutions such as the Public Protector, the South African Reserve Bank and the Directorate of Priority Crimes Investigations without compromising any confidence? Thank you.
The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Thank you, hon Speaker. As I said earlier, there are up to eight institutions that have been processing this matter and conducting thorough going investigations and I have been co-operating. In some instances they have asked questions of clarification which I have
provided. I have been saying, to myself, that the process has been very thorough and I am actually impressed with the manner in which questions and supplementary questions have been raised to a point where I cannot fault them. I would not even say that there has been any form of bias against me because they have been very tough and thorough. So, my co-operation which, I articulated right at the beginning, has been solid and continues. They have also been interviewing many people around this and I have continued to say that I will co-operate in whatever manner that they deem necessary. So, I have not held back on this and that’s what I believe is good for governance and accountability. Thank you, hon Speaker.
The SPEAKER: Thank you, hon President. Hon members, before I proceed to invite the next speaker on the supplementary question, I think this is the third time you have referred to hon Radebe as ‘German cut’. Yes, hon members, he has done a German cut but his name is not German cut. Please, hon Radebe. Please, hon member. Please, I am making a plea. Hon members, you have a way of just distracting us from what we are doing. Whether it is German cut or boy cut or whatever but there is a cut done and that is not the name of the hon member ... [Interjections.]
An HON MEMBER: Order, Speaker. Speaker is out of order.
The SPEAKER: Hon member, please, let us not keep on referring to things which are not assisting us to move forward. Thank you. The third supplementary question will be asked by the hon the Leader of the Opposition.
The LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: Thanks very much. Mr President, you actually divulged that you are entitled to private interest and I have seen your register and they have been declared and that goes beyond the question. The real question however is that in terms section 96 of the Constitution it says that you must act in a way and to avoid or expose yourself to any situation involving a risk of a conflict between your official responsibility and your private interest. Very clear about that, you may have private interests but there mustn’t be conflict. Mr President, you said you reported the crime to General. The presidential protection unit is provided to you because you are the head of state and the President. It is a privilege you gain from your official title and not your business interests. I would advance Mr President that it is a conflict of interest for you to use General Wally Rhoode to go and recover debt that accrued into your private business interest using state
resources. It should have been done through a police station for a case to be opened. I will advance Mr President to ask you, do you believe there is a conflict of interest? Thank you.
The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Thank you, hon Speaker. On this matter I honestly do not believe that I have exposed myself to a situation where there is a conflict of interest and to the extent that there could be that type of assertion ... [Interjections.]
The SPEAKER: Mr President, I am really sorry, will you please raise your voice.
The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Oh, sorry. I am saying that to the extent that there could be that assertion. I know that the matter that you are referring to is being processed within the internal confines of the South African Police Service as to what General Rhoode did and what he did not do. In my own conclusion, there hasn’t been a conflict of interest of the nature that you are talking about. That is why I have been saying that this matter does need to be fully ventilated through the various institutions, and once the institutions have ventilated this matter this is the issue that would then
arise. As I am concerned, no, there has not been a conflict of interest and the matter is currently being looked into in that context by the South African Police Service. Thank you, hon Speaker.
Mr J S MALEMA: Thank you very much, Speaker. Mr President, I just want to ask, which procedure were you following by reporting to the General who is your main protector, because we are all equal before the law? What makes you think that somehow you are so special that you can report crime to some General? Crime gets reported at the charge office. The example you gave of a car that overturns, when a car has overturned they don’t call you to call an ambulance, the people who are in that car that has overturned are the ones who call an ambulance. The person who called you to inform you about the crime that took place at Phala-Phala is the one that should have called the police or go to the police station to report the matter. Please accept that you abused your power and you thought there was something special about you, which is why you didn’t take the Mma Malema approach who, when her chickens are stolen, goes to the Seshego police station and report the case. Because she is an ordinary person and you see yourself above and that is why you report crime to generals and not to the charge office. You abused your power as the President of
the Republic and you ought to accept. There is no such a procedure. The person who called you ... you are a law student and people like calling you a lawyer but you are not a lawyer but a graduate of law. You know how crime gets reported. They taught you that at school – Law 101: How crime gets reported. You did not follow any of the things they taught you at school in dealing with this matter because ... [Interjections.]
The SPEAKER: Order, hon members.
Mr J S MALEMA: ... so please don’t ... You have abused your office by reporting the matter to a General without following any of the prescripts ... [Interjections.]
The SPEAKER: Thank you, hon member. Thank you. The hon the President.
The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: Thank you, hon Speaker. I am glad that hon Malema corrected himself. He initially said I am a law student ... [Interjections.] ... No, no, no I will correct you as well. Hon Malema I went beyond being a student; I am a law graduate. I did graduate with a law degree. You are right, yes, and I did my articles ... [Interjections.]
The SPEAKER: Order, hon members. Please, we are at the tail end of everything you will soon be out.
The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: If you want me to explain - I did my articles and I started off with a small firm and I ended up with a big firm. I wrote my board exam and you can mark something negative about me but I passed the written part and I failed the oral. Soon thereafter I got approached by the Council of Unions of South Africa who said to me we want you to come and work for us ... [Interjections.]
Mr V ZUNGULA: That was not the question kodwa [though.] Speaker ... [Interjections.]
The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: No, no, no I am coming. Hon Zungula. [Interjections.]
The SPEAKER: Hon members, order! Order, hon Kekana ... [Interjections.]
The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: I am giving you the context because ... [Interjections.]
The SPEAKER: No, hon President, please I think people are tired. Will you please just respond to this question and we close the session? Thank you, hon President, you may continue.
The PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC: There are some members who would like to hear the story. So, let me regale them with the story. I then got approached by the Council of Unions of South Africa and then I made the choice to pursue the union route rather than to pursue the other one. So, in the end I never qualified as an attorney. I want to make that clear. I did not qualify as an attorney, I am however a law graduate.
Once the theft had occurred I was informed as I said. I guess I may be repeating myself but I also need to answer that. I don’t believe I abused my power because I am surrounded by police officials and when I informed the General I was informing a police official. Even at the time, on the farm, my manager interacted with police officials who were involved with the whole process. I want to dispute the argument that I abused my power. I am not the type of person who will abuse my position or my power. So I did not, and having reported it to the police official I did believe that they will do what they need to do to ensure that this matter is properly handled.
That is the extent to which I was able to handle this matter.
So, in my book, hon Speaker, it was reporting the crime to the police when I informed a police General. Thank you very much.
The SPEAKER: Thank you, hon President. That concludes questions to the President. I thank the hon the President and that concludes the business of the day. The House is adjourned.
The House adjourned at 17:36.
Audio
No related