Hansard: NA: Unrevised Hansard
House: National Assembly
Date of Meeting: 22 Mar 2023
Summary
No summary available.
Minutes
UNREVISED HANSARD
NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
WEDNESDAY, 22 MARCH 2023
PROCEEDINGS OF NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
Watch video here: Plenary (Hybrid)
The House met at 15:00.
The House Chairperson Ms M G Boroto took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayer or meditation.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Order, hon members. Can we have all hon members settled. Hon members, I wish to first acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the delegation of Members of Parliament from the United Kingdom. You are welcome. [Applause.] Hon members, there is a lot of noise, please. Hon members, please, take your seats. The session has started.
ANNOUNCEMENT
Hon members, before we proceed with today’s business I wish to announce that the vacancies which occurred in the National Assembly owing to the resignation of Mr E N Mthethwa, Ms L N Sisulu and Ms M E Nkoana-Mashabane have been filled with effect from 16 March 2023 by the nominations of Mr M R Mdakane, Ms N P Tyobeka-Makeke and Dr J C Ntwane respectively. [Applause.] The members had made and subscribed to the solemn affirmation an oath in the Speaker’s Office. I want to welcome you, hon members.
IsiZulu:
Angibaboni. Bathi abaniboni.
English:
Where are you? Please, stand. Thank you very much, thank you. Hon members, as we proceed now I would want the Secretary to read the First Order of the day.
DEBATE ON HUMAN RIGHTS DAY – CONSOLIDATING AND SUSTAINING HUMAN RIGHTS CULTURE INTO THE FUTURE.
The MINISTER OF SPORT, ARTS AND CULTURE: House Chairperson; Deputy President, hon Paul Mashatile; Ministers and Deputy Ministers present; leaders of political parties and hon members, this gathering today is convened to discuss and debate a very important matter in our country, the issue of human rights. The fundamental tenet of our struggle for national liberation was and continues to be the redress of the historical injustices. Critical in this struggle was the issue of human rights that remain and became fundamental.
Generally, 21 March was characterised by systematic defiance and protest against apartheid and racism across the country, notable being March 21, 1960, when the community of Sharpeville and Langa townships, like their fellow compatriots across the country embarked on a protest march against pass laws.
The struggle for human rights in South Africa is well known and documented from colonisation to the apartheid era. Dating back from Africans fighting for land rights, freedom of movement, language and religion, both women and men played a significant role. Notable, women led marches from 1913 to the landmark 1956 March against pass laws.
Of significance in the Constitution is the Bill of Rights which protects and promotes fundamental human rights such as the right to life. Of further significance was the establishment of the Chapter 9 Institutions which not only protect human rights but also rights of vulnerable groups such as women and other national groups and linguistic communities. The Department of Sport, Arts and Culture, which I lead, contributes to Pillar 2 of the National Strategic Framework on gender-based violence 2020, which focuses on prevention and rebuilding social cohesion.
I will just cite few of the examples of the initiatives. The Code of Good Practice pledge with Sisters Working in Film and Television; there are also campaigns to end violence such as the Kwanele (It’s enough) Campaign focusing on men having conversations with men, Baqhawafazi Survivor’s Guild and Silapha Wellness Campaign. The Orange Day campaign dictates that the 25th of every month is dedicated to ending violence against women and children. The women in sports policy is in the pipeline. The South African Sports Confederation and Olympics Committee, SASCOC, has the safeguarding policy against harassment and abuse in all sports.
The national federations are encouraged to use it for guidelines to develop their own safeguarding policies. The Department of Sport, Arts and Culture is responsible for co- ordinating and reporting to Priority 6, which is Social Cohesion and Safe Communities. Through its delivery partners such as the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, the Department of Social Development and the Department of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs, CoGTA, issues of racism and xenophobia are addressed. Further, the of Prevention and Combating of Hate Crime and Hate Speech Bill has recently been passed and awaiting assenting into law by the President. Furthermore, the Department of Sports, Arts and Culture has a partnership with the United Nations Development Programme, UNDP, on strengthening social cohesion in South Africa.
This partnership has special focus on attacks on foreign nationals. It also has an aspect of mediation, conflict resolution and peace building while it also ensures that rights of all South Africans are protected. The department has embarked on digitisation initiatives of the archives and other business processes. Cybersecurity measures will have to be implemented to ensure the security of both our user community, as well as the security of human rights and security of information in our custody. Care will be taken to ensure compliance with Protection of Personal Information Act, known as POPIA, and other relevant legislation. However, digitisation also supports human rights such as access to information as information that is digitised can be accessible 24/7 online without limitations of access to brick-and-mortar facilities.
The Department through the National Archives and Records Service of South Africa embarked on a programme of digitising valuable historical records for preservation and access purposes. This project started in 2014-15. Some of the records digitised to date belong to the following collections: The Treason Trial; the Rivonia Trial; the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, TRC, papers and audiotapes; Convention for a Democratic South Africa, CODESA; the multiparty negotiating forum and the Constitutional Assembly. Ubuntu is basic and fundamental to South Africans and is a social cohesion common ground for Africans collectively. It is almost second nature to the people of Africa as they share the basic principles of human rights from birth.
As an effort by government of extending services to rural and underprivileged communities ravaged by poverty and unemployment. The Human Rights Day 2023, was commemorated in a small “klein dorpie” called De Aar in the Northern Cape where there was also observation of the library week, which entails rolling out of library infrastructure and reading material provincially. Of course, it is also the establishment of libraries for the visually impaired in an effort to ensure provision of dignity for all.
House Chair, we are committed to the elimination of the exploitation of the rights of artists and this will be done through the enactment of the Copyright Amendment Bill and the Performers Protections Amendment Bill which is now before the NCOP. To us, as members of the governing party we have been seized with the matter of human rights since before 1912, which predates the establishment of the ANC. Our conception of human rights, therefore, predates all known documents internationally. We are not new comers in this field of advocacy of human rights. I thank you, Chairperson. [Applause.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon Nodada, please take your chair. Can you take the microphone to hon Kwankwa?
Mr N S L KWANKWA: Hon House Chairperson, on a point of order
...
IsiXhosa:
... bendingafuni ukuniphazamisa kodwa kumnyama apha. Abanye bethu bayathwasa, abahlali kwindawo engakhanyiyo.
English:
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Okay, we will look at that. Proceed hon Nodada, the platform is yours.
Mr B B NODADA: Chairperson, yesterday the DA visited the family of the late four-year-old Langalam Viki who tragically drowned to death in a pit toilet at her school in eSiqithini, Eastern Cape last week. I cannot describe the level of pain I felt as I walked in her final footsteps before she was swallowed by faeces.
IsiXhosa:
Sithe sisondela nje, sabe sikhawulelwa livumba lelindle elithe lathatha ubomi bale ntwazana kabuhlungu kangaka.
English:
As the father of a 4-year-old, this shattered me. I can only imagine what her mother, Nangamso is going through. There is no greater pain than having to bury your child, and under such traumatic and undignified circumstances. No child should have to meet this fate almost 30 years after the dawn of our democracy. Schools are meant to be safe havens that cultivate a better future for our children, not the graveyards that this government has turned them into.
Sadly, South Africans have become desensitised to these tragic deaths, which occur too frequently in provinces across the country under ANC-led government. There is no sense of urgency no political will to eradicate pit toilets. Just this month the Eastern Cape Department of Education returned R100 million meant to deal with dangerous and dilapidated infrastructure.
These are signs of an uncaring government that would rather see our children die before they act.
How many children need to die before you and your MECs eradicate these pit toilets, Minister Motshekga? Maybe you would care or have a sense of urgency if it was your grandchildren. On Human Rights Day, the DA has launched a plan to eradicate school pit toilets across South Africa to ensure that no family ever endures the tragedy suffered by the Viki family. The drowning of our children in pit toilets goes far beyond a human rights violation. It is a horror that no parent should ever be forced to endure.
The DA will take legal action against national and provincial governments to find the quickest and most effective means to instruct them to erect proper sanitation facilities for all of our schoolchildren as a fundamental human right. We will work with civil society organisations that care about our children’s future to build a strong case against this uncaring government.
The 2021 National Education Infrastructure Management System, Neims report revealed that over 5 000 public schools still use pit toilets. Yet in answers to parliamentary questions, Minister Motshekga has stated that only 3 000 schools were initially identified. These wildly differing numbers in the
Minister’s answers indicate that the department is either not on top of the situation, or is trying to hide the serious extent of the problem. That is why as the DA’s Shadow Minister of Basic Education, I have launched a countrywide campaign to eradicate pit toilets in our schools, which will include widespread oversight visits of all school infrastructure which may place the lives of children at risk.
This campaign kicked off yesterday where we sought to assess the sanitation facilities at Mcwangele Secondary School where little Langalam tragically died. We cannot commemorate Human Rights Day until every child has access to safe and dignified sanitation in schools. As South Africans commemorate our hard- won human rights, we must never lose sight of the basic rights of which millions are still deprived. The DA will ensure that freedom is afforded to all South Africans, even the 4-year-old child without a voice who simply wishes to use the bathroom safely at school.
The DA will honour the memories of Langalam and the other children who were killed in pit toilets by this government by ensuring that every single dangerous pit toilet or sanitation facility is removed in our schools. In memory of Langalam
Viki, I want to thank DA Leader John Steenhuisen for securing a scholarship for her older sister to go to university.
IsiXhosa:
Wanga umphefumlo wakhe ungaphumla ngoxolo. Ndiyabulela.
Ms O M C MAOTWE: Hon House Chair, greetings to the President and Commander-in-Chief of the EFF, President Julius Malema, and leader of economic emancipation movement here in South Africa, in the continent and the whole world. The only leader who stands and leads from the front, fearless and committed to the struggle of the working class. The officials and members of the Central Command Team, and ground forces of the only movement that remains at the forefront of black people struggles against oppression, imperialism and neo-colonialism. Chairperson, it is a known historical fact that on the 21st of February in 1960, the Pan Africanist Congress of Azania, under the inspired leadership of Robert Mangaliso Sobukwe, embarked on a nationwide protest against the pass system, which the apartheid regime used to control the movement of African people in this territory called South Africa.
In Sharpeville in Gauteng, the PAC was ably led by Nyakane Tsolo, and here in Cape Town, the protest was led by a young student from UCT, Phillip Kgosana. The leadership of the PAC had taken a firm stand to embark on a rolling mass programme starting with undermining the pass system, but which would eventually see the fall of apartheid by 1963. The racist apartheid regime, which had no legitimacy and no moral standing in society, responded by spraying black people with guns, killing 69 and injuring almost 100 black people in Sharpeville.
Chairperson, although this was 63 years ago, and although the apartheid regime has since legally fallen, the conditions that existed back then which forced the PAC to take the route it took, and the nature of the state have not changed much. Black people are still shackled by poverty, landlessness, unemployment, exclusions from education institutions, heavy burdens of diseases, homelessness, lack of water and other basic services. This is so almost three decades after the end of formal apartheid and the beginning of a neo-apartheid regime under the leadership of the former liberation movement.
The former liberation movement has proven for all to see that their preoccupation was never to dismantle the key aspects of colonialism and apartheid, but merely to replace the white oppressor and exploiter with a black one. This neo-apartheid regime has continually demonstrated where its loyalties lie over the past three decades. When Andries Tatane protested for basic water and other municipal services, the neo-apartheid regime sprayed him with bullets, just like the real apartheid regime had done before to black protestors.
When workers in Marikana embarked on a strike to demand a living wage, this neo-apartheid regime sprayed those workers with bullets too, killing 34 men who were sons, husbands, and fathers to many children who have since been abandoned. When activists such as those belonging to Abahlali Basemjondolo protest to assert their rights to housing, this neo-apartheid regime launched a targeted assassination project on the leaders, killing so many of them, including Lindokuhle Mnguni, Ayanda Ngila and many others.
Just this week, when we as the Economic Freedom Fighters called on South Africans to go to the streets to protests against the deliberate collapse of Eskom, the rampant
corruption, the escalating and out of control crime, the rape and murder of women committed with impunity by criminals, the criminality at the highest level of political office in the country, as demonstrated by Phala Phala, this neo-apartheid government, true to its type, resorted to unleashing the security forces on unarmed and peaceful protesters.
The ANC neo-apartheid regime has learnt a lot from their white predecessors. In reality, there is nothing either in form or in content that differentiates the ANC regime from the apartheid regime that Robert Sobukwe fought against in 1960.
At the core, the ANC are the true heirs of the logic of apartheid. To them, black people are not deserving of dignity, of respect, and of basic human decency. As Robert Sobukwe rose to stand up against that immoral and decaying regime in 1960, so will the EFF stand up to fight against the immoral, degenerate, decaying and corrupt regime of the ANC and Mr Ramaphosa.
We will take to the streets to demand land, to demand houses, to demand jobs and electricity, to demand water, and to demand dignity for all black people. We honour the souls of all those black people killed by whites in 1960, and of all those killed
by the black neo-apartheid regime post 1994. We will never get tired of fighting for the full freedom and emancipation of all African people in this country. I thank you.
Ms Z MAJOZI: Hon House Chair, before I begin I would like to read a letter of congratulations by the Premier of KwaZulu- Natal, hon Dube-Ncube, to his royal highness Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi on the inaugural Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi public lecture on human rights held at the International Convention Centre, ICC, yesterday. The premier acknowledged his royal highness Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi’s long journey that he travelled with other great leaders of this country, such as Nelson Mandela and O R Tambo. She further expressed her admiration for his dedication in fighting for human rights and democratic rule in our country, agitating for the release of Madiba, a contribution recognised by the former President himself.
Towards the end of her message, she expressed her privilege on behalf of the government of KwaZulu-Natal in congratulating his highness on the inaugural Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi lecture on Human Rights Day.
Having attended this event, we got a glimpse of the magnitude of the work done by his excellency in advocating for human rights, freedom and liberation — values entrenched in our party’s constitution.
While there is no debating the importance of one human right over the other considering our current socioeconomic and political climate, my focus will be on human dignity.
The Constitution states that, “Everyone has inherent dignity and the right to have their dignity respected and protected”. This means that the failure to protect basic services to South Africa’s people neither respects nor protects the dignity of those people. While it is important to celebrate Human Rights Day every year, it is equally important to reflect on the lack of service delivery South Africans face every day and the direct link it has to human rights violations.
In 2022, the Human Rights Day theme was: Dignity, Freedom and Justice for all. This year the theme is: Consolidating and Supporting Human Rights Culture into the Future. Both themes embrace the need to improve the lives of South Africa’s people
through service delivery. In December 2018, the SA Human Rights Commission, SAHRC, reported that:
Lack of access to socioeconomic rights provides the clearest
reflection of the levels of systemic poverty, unemployment and inequality in South Africa and demonstrates the
persistent recurrence of the cycle of poverty.
This is shown by the lack of sanitation services which
compromises the dignity, health and quality of life of poor communities. In that same year, the SAHRC also reported that
the loss of public resources through corruption has compromised water and sanitation services for poor communities
in rural areas.
While it is nice to think back on the great strides our country has made in human rights considering our history, the reality is that not all human rights are currently being protected by the government. Perhaps it is due to a failure in understanding the contents of the Constitution or complacency. However, more often than not it is due to political arrogance.
For us to get anywhere near consolidating and sustaining a culture of human rights, we first need to ensure that the human rights of all South Africans are truly protected and that we are not just operating at a rhetorical level. With all
that said, rights come with responsibilities. Therefore, as South Africans we are equally responsible to take ownership of our livelihoods. Thank you, Chair.
Mr W W WESSELS: Hon House Chairperson, the Minister of Sport, Arts and Culture said that the ANC are not newcomers to human rights and that they are champions of human rights. Maybe that is the problem because the ANC government lives in the past.
They do not see the inadequacies that ordinary South Africans have to live with. They do not see that ordinary South Africans are deprived of the most basic human rights. Thirty years of being in government and the ANC’s legacy will be that they deprived the majority of South Africans of their basic human rights.
Whilst the ANC government yesterday celebrated Human Rights Day in luxury, most South Africans and millions of South Africans were without the most basic right of access to adequate water supply. Towns in Kopanong, in Ditsobotla and
across the country are without water due to your mismanagement, and due to the ANC government’s corruption, mismanagement and complete ignorance when it comes to the actual basic needs of South Africans. Money is spent on protecting Ministers, and for Ministers and your cadres to live in luxury, whilst millions of South Africans suffer due to poverty, due to inequality and due to the fact that you can’t actually serve their basic rights. The Constitution guarantees certain basic rights but the ANC has forgotten that.
Afrikaans:
Artikel 9 van die Grondwet waarborg die reg op gelykheid maar as die ANC regering staan u nie gelykheid voor nie. Alles behalwe. Die Minister praat van gelykheid in sport en van geen diskriminasie in sport nie maar sport is net een voorbeeld waar ras vooropgestel word; waar u met ‘n bril uit die verlede kyk en nie wil besef dat gelykheid en gelyke geleenthede vooropgestel moet word nie.
Artikel 31 van die Grondwet waarborg die reg tot kultuur, godsdiens en taal. Die Grondwet waarborg ook die reg om in u taal en in die taal van u keuse te kan skoolgaan en onderrig
te verkry. Maar wat het die ANC regering die afgelope 30 jaar gedoen om toegang tot ... vir kinders in hul eie taal daar te stel? Die meerderheid van Suid-Afrikaners is nie Afrikaans of Engelssprekend nie. In watter taal moet hulle skoolgaan?
Afrikaans of Engels. U is niks beter nie. U ontsê mense die reg tot moedertaalonderrig en wanneer mense opstaan vir hul taalregte dan is hulle rassiste.
Artikel 10 van die Grondwet waarborg menswaardigheid. Maar gaan kyk hoe lyk dit in hospitale. Gaan kyk waardeur mense moet gaan as hulle net ‘n eenvoudige prosedure moet ondergaan. U stel net in u eie sakke belang en nie in dit van Suid- Afrikaners nie.
English:
Whilst Ministers live in luxury, the foster care grant is a mere R37 per child per day. That is a shame! How can a child live on R37 per day? How can they? You must be ashamed of yourselves! You cannot stand here and say that you are the champions of human rights because you are not. The only way that we will return to basic human rights and ... [Inaudible.]
... human rights, is by voting the ANC government out and getting rid of all of you. Thank you.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon members, I don’t mind your heckling but you are now drowning out the speakers on the podium. I mustn’t hear your voice from where I am seated. We are in session. The hon Sukers?
Ms M E SUKERS: Hon House Chair, on this day of solemn remembrance, the ACDP rises with the sacred question asked to the prophet. Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no physician here? Why is there no healing for the people of our country?
Where is the balm for the family of Cloete and Thomas Murray who were gunned down in cold blood when the sound of the assassin’s bullets reverberated into the shattered hearts of South Africans, a broken nation, and it broke the hearts of a family?
Where is the balm for the family and colleagues of Babita Deokaran when she was killed in cold blood in Women’s Month for uncovering the scale of corruption at Tembisa Hospital?
Where is the balm for the community of Fikile Ntshangase, the land activist killed in a village in KwaZulu-Natal, as she defended the right of her community to live on their ancestral land?
A covenant oath was sworn and sealed when the blood of the innocent soaked the soil of Sharpeville, their sacrifice binding us to a future South Africa where all should have life, liberty and dignity. That covenant oath was enshrined in our Constitution and it is in memory of that blood that we swear when we take our oaths of office and when we swear to uphold the Constitution.
Today I want to ask you the question and I want to ask it of myself. Are there any physicians in this House with the balm for the hearts of a broken nation?
There is no balm because we forget our covenant oath with God and with our people. That covenant oath was broken on Monday
20 March when under the potential threat of violence and looting, small businesses in the city centre closed and workers had to forgo a day’s salary. That covenant is broken every time we turn a blind eye to corruption. When we fail in our oversight duties, oaths are broken.
Let the President of South Africa answer the nation. Let the Minister of Police answer the nation. Did you not swear an oath to Babita Deokaran when she was appointed to be a
custodian of our people’s money? Did you not make an oath with Cloete Murray when he was asked to find the Gupta and Bosasa billions? Did you not swear to Fikile Ntshangase that she could speak for her community without risking her life?
They believed you! They believed you! Make right with the people ... [Inaudible.] [Time expired.]
Mr N S L KWANKWA: House Chair, is it working?
IsiXhosa:
Ilayitile?
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Hon Kwankwa, something is wrong with your microphone. I don’t know.
IsiXhosa:
Mnu N L S KWANKWA: Itheni ayindifuni?
English:
Is it on? Is it right? Okay. House Chair, yesterday we commemorated one of the important holidays in our country,
that reminded us of our fight for the self-evident right to determine our own destiny. When we became ... [Interjections.]
IsiXhosa:
Niyangxola. La masela. [Uwelewele]
English:
When we became a democracy in 1994, South Africa adopted what it considers to be an advanced Constitutional sought to entrench the rights of our people. The new government vowed to do away with the injustices and the inequalities of the past.
Despite this, there is still a continuation of human rights violation and issues such as lack of provision of basic services, human trafficking, child labour, gender equality. In other words, this government has failed dismally in the provision of the first generation human rights, which deal in particular with the socioeconomic needs of our people.
This government has no political will to give practical expression to the Bill of Rights. As a result, there has been service delivery protests all over the country about this issue, because our people have seen and realize that the
enthusiasm that accompanied the dawn of democracy has now been replaced by growing signs of despair, due to the fact that Operation Phakisa has now changed and become into operation do nothing. The Batho Pele Principles have changed to becoming ANC first instead of people first, because the ANC all the time prioritizes that which will help it to advance its nefarious causes.
Sustaining human rights in this country requires a government, or that we as a society to prioritize the needs of our people, strengthen and enforce laws against gender inequality in order to curb the challenges such as gender-based violence, and create a better country for all. Moreover, there are still many children who are subjected to the worst forms of child labour, including commercial sexual exploitation, which at times is the result of human trafficking. In recent years, sectors like agriculture have seen an increase in child labour were a total of 70% of all child children engaged in child labour in this sector, and we seem not to be doing enough to address this problem.
The Department of Employment and Labour needs to put proper social protection measures in place, such as improving its
labour inspectorate, and dismantle all the barriers that make it impossible for people to enter into the private sector and to compete fairly, in order to ensure that we create conditions that do not encourage child labour, especially in the agricultural sector, where you see a lot of this in the Western Cape.
Government should also collaborate with civil society organizations and other relevant stakeholders, focusing on promoting and preserving human rights ensure everyone’s human rights are protected regardless of their age, gender or religion. [Time expired]
IsiNdebele:
USIHLALO WENDLU (Kkz M G Boroto): Isiskhathi sakho siphelile. Siyathokoza.
IsiXhosa:
Mnu N L S KWANKWA: Hayi, andiyazi le nto ayithethi kakuhle. Nala maxesha enu, konke nje.
IsiNdebele:
USIHLALO WENDLU (Kkz M G Boroto): Hayi, uyayibona bona ibovu. Itjho bona khamba.
Mr B N HERRON: House Chair in 1960 when the police killed 69 people protesting apartheid pass laws at Sharpeville, there was no such thing as a culture of human rights because the then government did not regard the majority of South Africans as human beings. Today with a progressive Constitution and Bill of Rights and the state in his wisdom, declared Sharpeville Day Human Rights Day. But, we remain far from the promised land of developing a culture of human rights, which involves significantly more than celebrating the rights to express our opinions and move around freely without being beaten or shot.
When we see millions of people struggling without livelihoods to feed themselves and their families. When we see families living in squalor and raw sewage flowing past their door. When we see children dying in pit toilets. When we see the rate of violent crime, perpetrated mostly by men and often against women. The length of the journey that still lies before us to translate the principles of human rights and dignity in our
much vaunted founding documents into practical reality on the ground, becomes strikingly obvious.
Human rights is a universal concept. Humans have rights whether or not the countries they live in has Bill of Rights or not. The United Nations describes human rights as rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion or any other status. Human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work, education and many more. It is the responsibility of government to create the necessary environment, to equip people with skills to obtain jobs, and to develop an economy with the rigour to grow.
If we had developed a culture of human rights we wouldn’t accept a housing programme that perpetuates exclusion, inequality and spatial injustice. We wouldn’t build mundane suburbs of poverty, miles away from anything and burden low income earners lucky enough to have a job with paying 40% of their household income for the privilege to move from A to B. If we were serious about developing a culture of human rights, we wouldn’t accept that 10 million unemployed South Africans
wake up every day with nothing to do, nothing to eat, and nothing to hope for. We would have restructured our budgets long time ago to ensure that we all have access to basic income, sufficient to meet our most basic human needs.
A country with a culture of human rights, wouldn’t have abandoned the restorative justice process begun by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Thereby turning the backs on thousands of orphans widows, widowers, loved ones and communities who felt the direct brunt of apartheid human rights. Our human rights are enshrined in our Constitution. What remains for us to do, is to take these visionary words and practically embed them in our people’s daily lived experiences. Thank you.
Mr A M SHAIK EMAM: House Chairperson, allow me at the outset to congratulate the Deputy President, besides becoming the Deputy President found a new wife, congratulations Deputy President. [Applause] I am a little concerned though because I see he is also surrounded by two women on either side, it is something to worry about. Chairperson and hon members, we talk about human rights. We talk about human rights violations.
But, how is that no one mentioning the first indigenous nation
of South Africa, the Khoi and San. The rightful heirs to the land, to the water of this country, is indeed the Khoi and San, the first indigenous nation, but it seems not to be part of the vocabulary of political parties.
Let us not forget the violations of the Palestinian people and yet me come here and grandstand about human rights. For 75 years, those Palestinians have been having their human rights violated. Let us talk about the human rights violation against the police officers in this country who are expected to protect us from human rights violation, but we send them out with R13 a day as a danger allowance, which no one in this House would dare send their brothers, sisters, and children for R13 a day danger allowance. Let me also take this opportunity of commending the SA Police Service for the fantastic piece of work produced by SA Police Service, SAPS members, all other law enforcement agencies to uphold the human rights of all those people who chose not to be part and parcel of any disruption, mayhem and chaos in this country.
You know, I hear people talk about human rights here. But let me talk about this, we talk about the high unemployment rate in this country. How is it that the very same people come here
and criticize the ANC and talk about human rights and unemployment when in their own organizations, they don’t even treat the workers with dignity, ... [Applause] ... with respect to such an extent that, some of them have never seen an increase for 10-11 years. They don’t know what it is. They have absolutely no benefits whatsoever. Why is it the same politicians who do not go to these foreign businesses that are employing people at R60 a day at the expense of South Africans and do very little or nothing about it? That is human rights violations. I have run out of time. Thank you very much.
Mr J N DE VILLIERS: House Chairperson, Africans want to perform the work which they are capable of doing, and not the work that the government declares them capable of doing. On 20 April 1964, Nelson Mandela spoke these words as he stood before the court in what has now become known as the Rivonia Trial. During this trial, President Mandela spoke widely on the injustices of the apartheid government and the human rights which should be enjoyed equally by all. The right to employment, to choose your job, to start your own business is a constitutional human rights contained in a South African Bill of Rights, which reads:
Every citizen has the right to choose their trade, occupation or profession freely.
The Constitution puts an obligation on the government that it must respect, protect, promote, and fulfil the rights contained in the Bill of Rights, which includes the right to work and employment. This measure puts a duty on the state to create the right environment where people can exercise this human right to be employed to have work.
According to the latest Statistics SA Quarterly Labour Force Survey, the unemployment rate for quarter four for 2022 was 32,7%. Which means that in the last quarter of 2022
7,8 million South Africans were available to work but unable to exercise their constitutional right to work. A right, which constitutionally should be protected and promoted by the ruling party. House Chair, these numbers contained another astonishing fact. You see, the unemployment rate actually lowered slightly from quarter three two quarter four with
169 000 in new jobs that were created in the economy. Of the
169 000 jobs that were created, 167 000 jobs were created in the Western Cape. Let’s pause on that for a moment. [Applause] In the 169 000 jobs that were created, 167 000 of them were
created in one province, the Western Cape. That means the other eight provinces contributed 2 000 jobs.
It is easy for any political party to say they are pro-poor, to say that you care about the unemployed. But what can be more pro-poor than the creation of jobs? What can say louder that you actually care for people than the actual creation of employment? If South Africans want a government that really cares, that really is pro-poor and is serious about protecting their right to work and their right to employment. A government which knows how to respect, protect, and promote and fulfil every person’s right to have a job, they only need to turn to the evidence of the last quarter of the labour work survey.
In 2024, a vote for the DA is a vote for employment. It is a vote for a party that cares, which can be proved by its clear track record of creating the environment where business can grow and jobs are created. A vote for the DA is a vote for jobs, because the evidence is clear. There is no more pro-poor party than the DA. Thank you Chair.
Ms G K TSEKE: House Chair, the hon Speaker, Mme [Ms] Nosiviwe Maphisa-Nqakula, the Deputy President of the country and of the ANC, the Chief Whip of the Majority Party, which is the ANC ...
Setswana:
... Maloko a Palamente a a tlotlegang, setšhaba ka kakaretso
...
English:
... South Africans watching this debate, dumelang. [good afternoon.]
Setswana:
Mmusakgotla, mokgatlo wa ANC o filwe tetla le maatla a go busa Aforika Borwa, e se ka ntwa kgotsa dikgotlhang, e le ka thato, lerato le boikobo jwa Maaforika a mmala o sebilo bao ba nang le tshepo, kgatlhego le botshepegi gore re tla fetola serodumo sa naga eno. [Legofi.]
Re tla tokafatsa matshelo a badudi. Ke ka moo bontsintsi jwa bone ka 2019 ba re neileng tetla ya go busa naga eno gape.
Re dira jalo e le ka go rata naga eno e bile e le maikemisetso a rona gore badudi ba ba tlhokang ditirelo ba di bone ka ponyo ya leitlho.
Re a tshepisa gore moo re sa fitlhellang maitlhomomagolo a mokgatlo ono re tlile go gata ka bonako monongwaga gore batho ba rona ba bone ditirelo.
Re a itse gore ga re a dira go ka tlala seatla fela re netefatsa gore re tla tsweletsa kgolagano magareng ga rona le Maaforika Borwa go lwantsha botlhokatiro, go tlhoka tekatekano le lehuma mo nageng eno.
English:
Hon members, the ANC adopted the African claims policy document way back in 1943. Leaders of our liberation movement demonstrated their commitment to the African claims to not only repeal discriminatory legislation but advocate for the realisation of various generational rights as further affirmed in the Freedom Charter.
The Constitution adopted in this Parliament in 1996 is another important example of restoring the dignity of our people. Our
Constitution is a rights-based document guaranteeing not only political and civil liberties but also socioeconomic and environmental rights.
It is in this House that progressive legislation has been endorsed.
Hon Chair, our Bill of Rights in the Constitution guarantees every South African access to adequate basic services such as housing, water and sanitation, education and health provision, and social protection.
In the last 28 years of the ANC-led government we have managed to build more than four million houses.
This ANC-led government expanded access to water and sanitation infrastructure to ensure that we restore the dignity of our people.
Once again, this year, President Ramaphosa has committed that government is going to build more water infrastructure to serve the increasing South African population.
Because it is our believe as the ANC that a permanent solution of addressing the triple challenges of inequality, poverty and unemployment is through education.
The ANC-led government has ensured that it dedicates its special attention to Early Childhood Development, ECDs, just to give a child a proper and quality foundation. We provided free education from the basic education to tertiary level.
Several postgraduate students have received government funding through the National Research Foundation, NRF. Government also allocated the highest budget to education. [Applause.]
We have realised, even the injunction in the Freedom Charter, that the doors of education and culture shall be open. This is fundamental to empowering people to be their self-liberators.
Hon members, wealth and income distribution are an important part of restoring people’s dignity. The ANC-led government has adopted various policies to address wealth distribution such as the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment, BBBEE, affirmative action policy, and most recently, the black industrialists policy have realised positive outcomes with an
increasing number of black industrialists developed by our state.
Some in this House have been calling for the scraping of the BBBEE policy, arguing that it favours certain connected people in our society at the expense of our majority. Many of our people benefitted from the BBBEE policy through the government public procurement system.
The public procurement system at the local government level, where most government projects take place, guarantees that 30% of the project value has to benefit local Small, Medium and Macro Enterprises, SMMEs, irrespective of whether the main contractor is a local company.
Nationally and provincially, our government led by the ANC – if I remind you – departments have allocated 40%, 30% and 7% of their procurement spent to women, youth and persons with disabilities, respectively.
All these are government’s drive to ensure wealth distribution in our country and reduce inequalities based on race, class and gender.
We cannot run away from the fact that through the implementation of affirmative action many of our excluded people are now in the executive and managerial positions in the private sector because of this policy of the ANC-led government.
We still have much work to do to address the white-male dominance of executive positions in listed companies in the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, JSE. [Applause.]
According to the Equality Commission about 70% of top managers in the public sector are black, compared to over 70% of white top managers in the private sector. In addition, men hold 77% of top management positions in both sectors. This implies that achieving gender equality in the workplace, particularly for executive roles, remains a significant problem. We are confident that inequality between men and women will be addressed as we continue to implement our transformative agenda.
Hon Chair, this ANC-led government is championing the policy of black industrialists. For the benefit of those who do not understand the programme of black industrialists, the black
industrialists are the black entrepreneurs who are starting industrial enterprises that generate value through the mass production of goods and services. These new industrial enterprises are majority black-owned.
The work of black industrialists is to maximise the economic potential of our country’s capital assets. For individuals who take part in the initiative, our government has guaranteed financial support of up to R50 million. For example, Micro Finish, which is a manufacturing company in Pinetown, manufacture safety components of internal combustion engines, exports 98% of its production to the European Union, EU, the United States of America, USA, and the United Kingdom, UK.
Hon Chair, some men in our society think it is their God-given right to ill-treat and abuse women. Let me remind those who kill and abuse the wives, the sisters and the girlfriends, that Colossians 3:19 says: Husbands, love your wives and do not be hard with them. [Interjections.] Whilst Proverbs 31:10 says: A woman is far more precious than jewels. Please, take care of your women, take care of your sisters.
Gender-based violence and femicide, GBVF, is a pandemic in our society. President Ramaphosa has committed the government to address the scourge in our society by developing a national strategic plan on gender-based violence and femicide. This strategic plan has committed to address income inequality which is a source of conflict with is a source of conflict with women dependent on men.
We must state that this has already begun to change in our society. Women, today, can provide more for themselves whilst many remain dependent.
In our last ANC conference in December 2022 we committed that our government must ensure that survivors of GBVF are provided with their own homes to prevent the cycle of violence.
It is our view that our communities have a role to play in addressing this scourge. Many victims of gender-based violence and femicide have died. Our communities are hesitant to report such cases because we say we have no responsibility to intervene when two people in a relationship are fighting. This must stop, so that we can be able to protect the rights of women and the girl child. [Applause.]
Hon members, we are the first country on the African continent to guarantee the protection of the rights of people with disabilities and the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer/questioning, asexual, LGBTQIA+, community. [Applause.]
Just recently, the African Commission on Human Rights and People’s Rights, an independent expert body within the African union, AU, rejected an application by three non-governmental organizations for observer status because of their advocacy work on the human rights violation of LGBTQIA+ people in Africa.
We, at times, tend to use our value systems to deny this community their entitlements to protect their human rights as people. It can never be us as Africans, who have endured oppression and discrimination for more than 350 years, who seek to oppress and discriminate against the LGBTQIA+ communities. [Applause.]
Our human rights are also the human rights of the people living with disabilities and the LGBTQIA+ communities.
Lastly, South Africa we love our beautiful land. Let’s show the whole world we can bring peace and harmony. [Interjections.] [Applause.]
[Singing] South Africa We love you
Our beautiful land
Let’s show the whole world
That we can bring peace in our land
[Applause.]
Mr S M JAFTA: Hon House Chair, yesterday we commemorated the Sharpeville Day. We took stock of where we have been and the progress we have made. There have been achievements on many fronts but much of the progress has been eroded by corruption, maladministration and abuse of state resources. The people are not happy.
Hon House Chair, as we tour the length and breadth of this country. As we consult our constituencies and as we engage in oversight visits, our people decry the state of our affairs. People appeals have not abated.
The basic education infrastructure is dismissal and many rural schools are in turmoil. The ratio of learner to teacher in these schools is shockingly skewed.
On the economy, monopolies have not been dismantled, they continue to deprive emerging small enterprises, their competitive edge. They ... [Inaudible.] ... competition and expose us to inflated commodity prices.
We must also touch on the issue of violent crime. Women remain hard hit by acts of gender-based violence. Efforts to sanitary towels is still the luxury of the rich. Many women are still subjected to old fashioned practices such as Ukuthwala.
It will also be remising of us Hon House Chair, to not decry the neglect of rural agricultural development. Emerging farmers still face financial sabotage. There’s no attempt to promote rural farmers through preferential procurement localization and subsidy schemes. Instead projects such the Vrede Dairy Farm are run down by corrupt officials.
Land restitution has also staggered, government has not settled old order claims and this affected the new claims, this anomaly persists to this day.
In closing hon House Chair, we must reinstate our position on human rights. Unless the interest of the people on the ground take centre stage in government processes, unless their views are taken into account in the law making progress, our democracy will remain hollow. Thank you very much.
Mr M G E HENDRICKS: Hon House Chair, Al Jama-ah commemorates the massacre of 67 people in Sharpeville and another two in Langa in the Western Cape. Those who were not killed were sent to Dimbaza near King Williamstown, to also rot away in a dissolute area after serving their time.
The Industrial Park is no compensation as the Minister of Trade and Industries has abandoned them. I visited them and that’s what they told me.
Patriarchy in government is a barrier to many women in South Africa not enjoying their human rights. Every human being has
inherent dignity. This dignity can never be taken away as it resides in every person by virtue of being a human being.
South Africa’s Constitution entrenches these rights. But officials in government, supported by some hon members and schooled by apartheid and schooled by university still harking for a return to apartheid, continued to put brakes on the rolling out of human rights in South Africa.
They also happened to put brakes on women’s rights. And it was no surprise when the woman of the governing party, just last week tabled a motion in this Parliament to discuss patriarchy. This was also later raised by a woman of the governing party in the portfolio committee meeting. So, patriarchy is a big problem.
This a week after officials in the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, supported by its Deputy Minister, sold their patriarchal hand by denying indigenous women commuting cash to put their cases in maintenance courts, to put bread on the table of father’s kids. These fathers who do not pay maintenance and appear in court of B, after being charged get commuting cash - discrimination of the worst kind.
Is this not patriarchy? Is this not a violation of human rights? The sad thing is, some women even support these patriarchal positions and their procrastination.
So, children on Human Rights Day continue to go hungry because fathers don’t pay maintenance. This is a sign that
gender-based violence is thunder, but no lightning in these corridors of power.
The Deputy Speaker, who is a champion to fight gender-based violence, must tell fathers to pay their papgeld. The patriarchal official, the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development, must step aside. They also do nothing. But women are denied access to divorce courts because their fake marriages don’t give them a valid South African marriage certificate. They have no time to give attention to serious life and death matters affecting women. A breadth of fresh air ... [Interjection.] ... as the committee is addressing this. Thank you very much.
Ms E R J SPIES: Hon House Chairperson and hon members, today we gather to commemorate the day that should be marked with
the highest respect and honour, a day that has been trampled upon in disregarded by those in power.
The tragedy of 21 March 1961, is a day, that could have been a day in apartheid South Africa, a work day, school day or even charity day. It was a day that saw the violation of our people’s rights. A day that saw the loss of 69 souls in Sharpeville. A day that mark the struggle for human rights in our country.
We must acknowledge that although this tragedy happened before our time, we continue to experience the violation of our rights as citizens of this country. Every day in the new South Africa, it’s a day without power somewhere. A day without water somewhere. A day where corrupt officials and their incompetent administration make decisions that deprive our people of their birth right.
Local government as the closest sphere of government to the people has failed the people three decades down the line. And let me give you the facts. During 2019-20 ordered, it was find that the Chris Hani District Municipality in the Eastern Cape, could not account for how it spent R1 billion of the
R1,3 billion, it had received in equitable share and grant allocations.
Similarly, the Dr Ruth Segomotsi Mompati District Municipality
in the North West, was unable to account for how it spent R582 million of the R697 million in its bank account. The Members of Parliament, MPs here were told that bank accounts were reconciled but double payments were made to suppliers.
Twenty municipalities went through R5,5 billion that they could not account for, of the R6,4 billion tax payers contributed via the national purse, to those municipalities through equitable share and conditional grant allocations.
Only R980 million remain by municipal financial year end. This is only the tip of the iceberg. R5,5 billion could have been used to fund one million more indigent households with free electricity, water, sanitation and refuse removal services across the country. R5,5 billion could have cleared Electricity Supply Commission, Eskom, debt in 21 municipalities in the Northern Cape, 11 in the North West, 11 in the Eastern Cape, eight in KwaZulu-Natal and six in Limpopo.
This is how the ANC-led government violates the rights of its people. It is a tragedy that this day which should be marked with reverence and respect has been reduced to just another day.
Afrikaans:
Die ANC se vernedering gaan gepaard met volgehoue beloftes van beter doen, dat dit nie weer gaan gebeur nie, dat hulle altyd besig is om vir nog ’n kans te vra. Dan is daar mos altyd die arrogansie. My grootste frustrasie met hierdie regering is dat hulle nie die balk in hulle eie oë wil sien nie, dat hulle menseregte wil herdenk maar nie daarvoor wil veg nie. 21 Maart
— die verlies van 69 siele in Sharpeville.
English:
We must not forget and we will never forget, the struggle for human rights did end with the fall of apartheid. We must demand that government takes responsibility for their failure to uphold the rights of its citizens. Let us take a moment to remember those who lost their lives in Sharpeville ... [Interjection.] ... to fight for a better South Africa. I thank you. [Time expired.]
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES RESPONSIBLE FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT (Mr J H
Jeffery): House Chairperson, hon members, this is meant to be a debate about consolidating and sustaining human rights culture in the future. It should be a debate about what more needs to be done to realise the human rights of all South Africans. Unfortunately, it has largely become a forum for political point-scoring.
What is indisputable is that there have been great advances for South Africans in their human rights, in the human rights they enjoy since 1994, but we acknowledge that things are nowhere near where they should be. What we've seen from the different parties is finger-pointing and this example, that example. To the hon Nodada, I agree with the death of Langalam Viki is tragic, as well as the death of Michael Komape, but let's also not politicise the issue.
The Minister of Education is working on a programme to eradicate pit latrines ... [Interjections.] ... which is moving and she will be addressing a media conference on Sunday to give more detail about this matter. Unfortunately, hon members from this side of the House don't seem to want to hear
me. The DA claims to be the bastion of human rights. They tell us about how bad things are.
Let me just to the former speaker said, we are not just remembering the 69 People who were killed at Sharpeville in 1960, not 1961. We also remember the people who were killed by the police in Langa Township here in Cape Town in 1960, the same day. We also remember the 20 people who were murdered in Langa, near Uitenhage in the 1980s. Those are all people who sacrificed for where we are now.
Also on the DA, I mean, we can't deny mistakes have been made. There are things that could be done better, but we're working at doing that, but from your side, I was interested, and it's in the news of the Cape Times this morning, this case of Makhubela v Stellenbosch District Municipality, (20830/22) [2023] ZAWCHC 53 (15 March 2023), where the applicant, the parent of an initiate, had to apply to the court to get access to the initiation school on land or against the Stellenbosch District Municipality. Just to read from the judgment, it reads:
The attitude of the respondent, as demonstrated by De Beer, is that the Stellenbosch District Municipality is simply out of breath to keep up with the nation at work to construct a democratic and constitutional dispensation, especially for an African child in its jurisdiction. De Beer, who is the Acting Municipal Manager for the Stellenbosch Municipality, is simply crying out loud for social context training.
So it's your municipality DA. I hope that you will take action on it. To the EFF, you claim to be revolutionaries, but which revolutionary party will want children and students not to go to school when we've spent decades fighting for all children and African children in particular to have the right to education, I think, with respect, the most memorable event from Friday's Shutdown, stay away were the pictures of the hon Malema marching hand in hand with his new friend Carl Niehaus. One can go on ... [Interjections.] ...
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Ms M G Boroto): Order, hon members! Order! Allow the speaker to proceed.
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES RESPONSIBLE FOR JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT (Mr J H
Jeffery): The important thing is that a lot has been done. If you take, for example, access to justice before 1994, only a few people had access to justice. After 1994, we built new courts, two new provincial high courts and other magistrates courts. We've created new bodies and new laws to increase access to justice for all and ensure that people are able to enforce their human rights. We took the old SA Police, which was a paramilitary organisation with the 10 homeland agencies and the nonstatutory forces, rationalised and incorporated them into the new SA Police Service, the SAPS. We've built Chapter 9 institutions. These institutions have been shown to be fundamental in helping people attain and protect their human rights.
We've created additional bodies such as the Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services, the Independent Police Investigative Directorate, and the Information Regulator, all in an attempt to protect the human rights of people against abuse. In 1994 at the dawn of democracy, our judges and magistrates were overwhelmingly white and male, in fact with the judges there was a one-woman judge in 1994 and two black judges. So we've had to start making the bench more representative. We've established an independent judiciary and
a new Constitutional Court and together we can proudly proclaim that many of the rights which we enjoy have come from ground-breaking equality, human dignity, and socioeconomic right to jurisprudence from our courts.
Our courts have not hesitated to show when and where government policies or practices have fallen short of a constitutional benchmark and where our laws have not passed constitutional muster. The courts have said that such laws must be remedied and the executive and the legislature have done so. Furthermore, today our judges and magistrates truly reflect the diversity, the diversity of South Africans. When we fought for a free and democratic South Africa, we also fought to bring about a just and fair society where all are equal before the law and have access to justice.
We've extended Legal Aid to provide legal advice and representation to those who can't afford it. Many people think that Legal Aid only deals with criminal matters, but that's not correct. Legal Aid is able to assist in criminal offences, consumer issues, debt issues, deceased estates, equality court cases, problems with accessing payments of benefits, employment claims such as unfair dismissal or discrimination,
separation, divorce or disputes about children, housing and threatened evictions, domestic violence, land rights matters, and any case where a person's rights have been violated. We've also extended access to justice in terms of every regional court is currently a divorce court where you can have your divorce heard rather than having to go to the high court.
As far as socioeconomic rights, we've made significant progress. According to Statistics SA’s General Household Survey of 2021, 83% of South African households lived in formal dwellings in 2021, followed by 11% in informal dwellings and 4% in traditional dwellings. The percentage of households with access to improved sanitation increased by 22,4% points between 2002 and 2021, growing from 61% to 84%.
With regard to education, literacy increased as the percentage of individuals aged 20 and older who did not have any education decreased from 11% in 2002 to only 3% in 2021. Those with at least a Grade 12 qualification increased from 30% to 50% over the same period. These are significant advances. When we think of human rights, we think of how hard we had to struggle to attain them in the first place, and why we need to continue to protect and promote human rights in this country.
With due respect to the hon Freedom Front Plus speaker, and I see hon Boshoff in the audience, you respect, was it your grandfather, Hendrik Verwoerd? D F Malan, Strijdom, Vorster. Okay, you left the National Party before when P W Botha took power, but that's your legacy, so I have no idea how you can lecture us on human rights given your history. [Applause.] Johnny Clegg wrote a song many years ago about our struggle leaders. In the last verse of the song he sings:
IsiZulu:
Asimbonanga
Asimbonang 'umfowethu thina Laph'ekhona
Laph'wafela khona
English:
He asks the question in the last line of the song:
IsiZulu:
Siyofika nini la' siyakhona
English:
In other words, when will we arrive at our destination? There is still much that we need to do, but we are doing it. When it comes to gender-based violence, we've passed those three Bills in this House, thank you very much. They're being implemented. We need to work at ensuring that they work effectively for the victims of gender-based violence.
When it comes to the prevention and combating of hate crimes and hate speech, we have the Bill that was passed here in this House last week. Ironically, the human rights party, as they're trying to say, the DA, refused to support it, as did the Freedom Front Plus, as did the ACDP and Al Jama-ah. I think that the fears that those parties had, and that's just my perspective, is around some of them have racists as members or people that support them and they're worried about what will happen to them. Then some of them have homophobes who are members and they're worried about their support.
As we reflect on the events of Sharpeville in 1960, we remember that too many lives were lost and too many people suffered so that we here today can be protected by the Bill of Rights. The rights enjoined in our constitution can never be taken for granted, but we are far from where we want to be.
It's no use moaning and groaning about things as so many opposition MPs have had using this important debate as an election platform for next year. We need to be working together as South Africans and put our shoulders on the wheel collectively to improve the lives of our people. One of the biggest problems in South Africa is the huge disparities of wealth and wealth have a white face and poverty has a black face.
Are we doing enough? Most of the white people, I think, support the DA, but are we doing enough to promote, to encourage people to contribute, to put back, rather than just making money out of the system? So House Chairperson, as I close, we've achieved a lot, but we have a lot further to go. We need to do that collectively and together, rather than politicking and point-scoring. Thank you. [Applause.]
REMOVAL OF THE SPEAKER FROM OFFICE IN TERMS OF SECTION 52(4)
OF THE CONSTITUTION AND NATIONAL ASSEMBLY RULE 28
(Draft Resolution)
Mr J S MALEMA: Deputy President of the EFF, the leadership of the EFF, and the people of South Africa, let me greet all those who agree that indeed for our democracy to work, we need to hold the executive accountable.
The people of South Africa, let me begin by extending our deepest gratitude for the massive support shown for the national shutdown, which was held on 20 March 2023. [Interjections.] The 20th of March marked one of the greatest national demonstrations post-1994, wherein thousands of our people registered their dissatisfaction of load shedding, unemployment, high levels of crime and gender-based violence, and lack of service delivery.
Many of you affirmed the authority of the EFF to be superior to that of the President of South Africa and his entire Cabinet combined, by partaking in the shutdown because you cannot trust anything he and his government says. A majority of businesses remained closed, taxi ranks and buses were empty, no trains or trucks were moving on the day and even load shedding was suspended due to low level of electricity demand, proving that major industries that use electricity were not operational.
The success and moral correctness of the national shutdown is proven by the fact that no one, not the state or the media was able to dispute the logic for the national shutdown, and they all chose to attempt to divert and dilute its message by creating a myth of anarchy and destruction. We salute you for your support, and we salute all protesters for their discipline and commitment to peaceful protest.
We remain resolute on our demand for Mr Cyril Ramaphosa to resign as the President of South Africa ... [Interjections.]
... and our people want reliable supply of electricity for their businesses, livelihoods and for the economy to survive.
The EFF has proved once more, who is in charge in this country
... [Applause.] [Interjections.] ... When you said to business, it is business as usual, open your shops, I said close, and they closed. I am in charge. I have you by the scrotum. [Applause.] [Interjections.] There is nothing you can do, all of you combined. You can scream anyhow you want. Once more, I demonstrated to you white opposition, with the ruling party combined that I am in charge ... [Applause.] [Interjections.] ... and you can tweet every day, you can call press conferences every day, and bring soldiers and police,
because the man in charge said shut down South Africa, and it was shut down. Whether you like it or not, in your cocoons, you are admitting that when the president speaks - that is a motion of no confidence by the way – and said open I will protect you, they said we cannot trust you, they closed. Even this one who wears dobbs hats, ran around everywhere, saying open, I will protect you, and they said no, you never protect us on any day. Why would you protect us today? They never listened to him. They closed.
These other ones ran to court to say don’t close, we have an order, an imaginary order. In Cape Town, there won’t be anything, we are in charge here. Cape Town is ours. It is white. They can’t do anything in the white areas. The business of Cape Town said we can’t trust you. They closed, because they knew who to trust.
The EFF has tabled a motion of no confidence against the Speaker of the National Assembly, Ms Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula. We did this because it has become clear that we are dealing with an unrepentant delinquent who abuses her power and violates the Rules of the National Assembly and the Constitution.
What we saw on 9 February 2023, when the Speaker called members of this House animals and violated the Constitution and the Rules of the National Assembly, by allowing the police to invade Parliament, and made it worse by calling on the security forces of South Africa to enter the chamber to intimidate peaceful members of Parliament is not something that we can take light.
When the National Assembly convened a sitting for The Presidency Budget Vote delivered by Mr Cyril Ramaphosa, in June 2022, we fearlessly stood up to demand that the only director of the Ntaba Nyoni estates tells the country where he got the US dollars that were stolen at Phala Phala farm.
She decided to degenerate and instructed the protection officers to assault Members of Parliament, including assaulting women Members of Parliament. Women Members of Parliament were also sexually assaulted because when they were being violently removed, beaten and pushed, their private parts were touched by men. [Interjections.]
We told the Speaker in the same sitting that this is happening, but she ignored us because her sole mandate is to
protect Ramaphosa. Whenever Mr Ramaphosa is being held accountable, she chooses violence. She chose to abuse her powers, violate the Constitution, and the Rules of the National Assembly.
She is happy when we leave these chambers in the hands of men who are unashamed to violate women Members of Parliament, touch our private parts, and harass us such that we end up in hospital seeking medical treatment. [Interjections.] It is this Speaker, who denied a secret ballot vote on the establishment of the section 89 committee into Phala Phala farm, despite members being threatened with removal by the ruling party should they decide to vote with their conscience.
Ms Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula has entered the Office of the Speaker with a predetermined agenda of protecting Mr Ramaphosa from any and all scrutiny, at all costs. She has degenerated this Parliament into a place of violence, censorship and an arena where the Constitution is disrespected and violated. She has no shame, that women were sexually assaulted under her watch as a female Speaker. Ms Mapisa-Nqakula is a mistake of history, and a step backwards for women leadership in this country. [Interjections.]
As the EFF, we table this motion of no confidence in the Speaker, because under her, the gains of our democracy are being reversed at a rapid rate. If she is to continue as the Speaker, then the ruling party and its President will continue to loot state resources, launder money, evade tax, and violate the Constitution without any accountability.
Her lack of tolerance for African opposition in this Parliament is not acceptable, and reaffirms us that she is the Speaker of a puppet government, that suffers from a severe inferiority complex. [Interjections.]
As the EFF, we have long withdrawn any respect that we have offered her, and this was made final when she resorted to calling democratically elected, African Members of Parliament animals. She will go down the same empty path of her predecessor Ms Baleka Mbete, who is now in the dustbin of history for the same conduct she is exhibiting in this sixth democratic Parliament.
There is no future, there is no legacy, and there is no honour in defending corruption, and Ms Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula will learn this harsh lesson when we remove her political party
from power in 2024. She will be remembered as an instrument for corruption, violence and the descent of this Parliament into a heaven for a dictator who deploys the military to suppress peaceful protests.
Ms Nosiviwe Mapisa Nqakula is a tool for a President who has failed to lead South Africa, and is fast taking this country towards collapsing.
She is nothing but a puppet, whose legacy will be enhancing the sexual assault of women, enabling corruption, and crushing the voices of accountability in Parliament. Like her handler, she must be removed, and she must be removed now! Thank you.
THE DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Hon House
Chairperson, hon Speaker, hon Deputy Speaker, His Excellency the Deputy President of the Republic of South Africa and our hon Chief Whip of the Majority Party, hon members, let me begin this address by quoting from the Preamble of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, as articulated by Justice Pius Langa, which asserts that the underlying imperative of South Africa’s Constitution is to provide, and I quote:
A historic bridge between the past of a deeply divided society characterised by strife, conflict, untold suffering and injustice, and a future founded on the recognition of human rights, democracy, a peaceful coexistence and development opportunities for all South Africans, irrespective of colour, race, class, belief or sex.
We find ourselves at the crossroads of a critical conjuncture, where the ideals of a transformative agenda, must find expression on every democratic platform at our disposal.
Poverty, inequality and the vile abuse of women, must be addressed through the work of the democratic institutions we lead, in order to bring about the desired change, as articulated in the Preamble, as stated.
Hon House Chairperson, this debate takes place a day after an iconic date in our country’s history that we commemorate as Human Rights Day. Yesterday marked 63 years anniversary of Sharpeville massacre were 69 innocent people perished and
180 people were seriously wounded after the apartheid government ordered the police force to shoot peaceful protesters, who protested against the unjust pass laws.
These acts of violence, intimidation and brutality by an unjust system, remain etched in history as a reminder, that we must be vigilant and resolute, to never allow dictatorships with narrow interests, to usurp the powers and functions of our democratic institutions. As the ANC, we remain committed to the promotion and protection of basic human rights as enshrined in the supreme law of our country, which is our Constitution.
Hon House Chairperson, the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa, is a construct of our democratic governance ideals. At its core, this Parliament is chiefly constituted to serve as a conduit for advancing the transformative ideals of our Constitution, with the people of South Africa remaining at the centre of every decision we make as a House.
In its national conferences, the ANC reaffirmed its position in ensuring that the legislative sector remains a critical instrument for advancing people’s power and fast tracking the transformation of our society. These policy principles remain as critical drivers in the functioning of this activist and transformative Parliament, in order to advance South Africa’s transformation agenda.
The role of Parliament in advancing the transformation agenda of the country, has become even more critical, particularly given the social, economic and development challenges that we are facing as country. However, our ability to effectively intervene in changing the material conditions of our people is often diverted when the parliamentary platform is used to demonstrate the narrow political agenda of some amongst us.
We are often unable to effectively engage on matters concerning South Africa’s transformative developmental, due to the populist and destructive behaviour of some amongst us. Hon Chairperson, it is important to emphasise, that Parliamentary Democracy is often weakened, when we allow this House to engage in the narrow and populist agendas of those who are simply here to engage in political theatrics and grand standing, in order to make a name for themselves. [Applause.]
We must be clear that we have anarchists and agents of destruction in our midst amongst us, who have manipulated their way into this sacred space of consensus-building debate, to actively thwart freedom of speech and to violate the liberties given to each member of this House. These are enemies of the Constitution, who have tangibly demonstrated
that they do not respect the Rules that govern this House and have continue to violate and defy the Rules, for self- interest, for populism and for misguided relevance.
South Africans have witnessed, on countless occasions, deliberate acts of sabotage and disruption, where important debates are often put on hold or interrupted, through brazen acts of anarchy, violence and intimidation. Hon House Chairperson, ironically, today we are here to debate a motion brought before this House, by the very same group of anarchists, who have no interest in the transformative agenda of this sacred Chamber.
We witnessed, as did the rest of South Africa, brazen attempts to disrupt the proceedings of 9 February, including threatening the safety of the State President. [Applause.] [Interjections.] This is not only treasonous in nature; it was an act of antagonism, which cannot simply be shrugged off as another one of their theatrics. We have to contend with and address these acts of violence, incitement and intimidation, as we cannot continue to be held hostage by a small group of anarchists and mindless disruptors, who only here to frustrate and oppose constructive debate, by any means necessary. The
Rules must be enforced, so as to ensure that the transformative agenda of this Chamber prevails.
Due to the consistent violations and the deliberate disruptions that we have witnessed, parliamentary democracy is now under attack because of this small group of anarchists.
Their agenda is simply to weaken parliamentary democracy and its processes, by defying every Rule that has been written. This is simply an attempt to weaken the authority of Presiding Officers and for the House to degenerate into chaos, impeding us from exercising our Constitutional functions.
We must, therefore, recognise that the ideals of our constitutional and parliamentary democracy are under attack because of this small group, whose destructive agenda must be unmasked and exposed for what it truly is. Theirs is a desperate attempt at more exposure and prominence, at the expense of the electorate.
It is, therefore, our duty to defend the democratic values and ideals of this House, by firstly unmasking the antagonists to democratic norms in our midst, who are here to prevent the advancement of transformative agenda in the material
conditions of our people. For, when they disrupt proceedings, they prevent all of us from engaging in constructive debates, to represent the will of our constituencies and those who have elected us to occupy these seats and make interventions on their behalf.
The National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces adopted the Joint Rules which are aimed at maintaining decorum in the House, which all members are expected to adhere to.
To this end, parliamentary decorum is not only about adhering to the Rules that have been put in place to govern the business of this House. Parliamentary decorum, if properly practiced, is about true respect for others, expressed through genuine efforts to build a cohesive and prosperous South Africa for all.
Parliamentary decorum refers to the appropriate character, which is expected to be exhibited ... [Time expired.] Hon House Chairperson, the ANC rejects this motion with the contempt that it deserves! [Applause.] [Interjections.]
Dr A LOTRIET: Hon House Chairperson, a motion of no confidence is no trivial matter. It means that the confidence between, in this instance, the NA and the Speaker has reached a point where there is no other remedy left. It is in the light of this that such a motion cannot be confined to a single incident. The question we have to ask in discussing this motion and specifically, the content and argument put forward in the motion, is whether this is sufficient ground.
Our view is that the gravity of such a motion has to be preceded by a thorough and comprehensive analysis of the performance of the Speaker regarding a number of critical matters that have an impact on the functioning of Parliament. What are these critical matters?
First and foremost, a deep understanding of the role of the Speaker is required; an in-depth knowledge of the Rules, procedures and conventions of Parliament; an understanding of the way in which this position determines the direction, the tone and the functioning of Parliament. It requires a deep and even intuitive knowledge and understanding of the unique working space of Members of Parliament.
Within this context, the Speaker should allow every party, regardless of its size or its position, a fair opportunity to be part of the debate, allowing each party to be heard and to be respected and at the same time, be firm but fair. It is important that we do not limit our scrutiny to what we see in a sitting in Parliament, in the NA. That is but one part of what Parliament is. The rest or the true test of the Speaker, however, relates to the engine room of Parliament - the committees.
The question we should answer is: To what extent does the Speaker ensure that fairness, respect and opportunity to debate and ask questions are enabled by the different committees? To what extent is an environment created and allowed for the executive to be held accountable? Is this Parliament one where the Presidency can be held accountable? Do the Chairpersons allow all parties to question and interrogate the executive? What has the Speaker done to ensure that this multiparty democracy functions optimally and that proper oversight is done? Is a system allowed, and even promoted where all parties have the opportunity to serve as chairpersons of committees to enable impartial oversight and accountability?
This can only be achieved if there is a health distance between the Speaker and the executive, when the interests of the country and its citizens are placed above the party, when the Speaker serves Parliament and not the party. This is when trust and respect is created - the essence of confidence in the presiding officers.
It is therefore clear that a motion of no confidence cannot be limited to a single incident. Before a motion of no confidence can be considered, the totality of performance must be evaluated and the questions I set out answered. Only then can you do determine whether there is confidence in the Speaker or not.
The motion, as it is tabled today, does not satisfy this requirement. However, after scrutinising and evaluating the performance of this Parliament under this Speaker, we have to say that the Speaker has fallen short of this requirement.
Thank you. [Applause.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Order, hon members. Order!
Mr N SINGH: Hon Chairperson, I think the ANC members think that they are at a rally. Let me also join the Chairperson who was there before you in welcoming the delegation from the UK. And amongst them, I believe, is Lord ... [Inaudible.] ... who I have the pleasure of knowing for about 30 years. We welcome you to South Africa and look forward to some further interaction with you.
Whilst the IFP recognises the importance of holding our elected officials accountable, whether the executive or Parliament, we must also remember the importance of due process and substantive reasoning when making serious allegations, such as those that are before this House against the hon Speaker. It is not enough, we believe, to make accusations and call someone’s removal from office, without presenting substantial evidence or justification for such a move.
The allegations against the hon Speaker are serious and, as the last speaker said, deserves a thorough parliamentary investigation, before any further action is taken. Without such investigation, the motion remains purely political and
the IFP believes that this does not serve our country’s best interest or this institution’s interest. [Interjections.]
While we find that motions of no confidence are more common at the local government level, their impact is less severe than when brought at a national level. We must always be mindful that bringing motions of this nature are entrenched in our Constitution and Rules of Parliament. That demonstrates the seriousness with which we must approach motions of this nature.
We therefore, with the time that is left, urge all opposition political parties to thoroughly consider and refrain from using parliamentary procedures such as the motion of no confidence before us today for political point scoring, without being absolutely sure of how substantive the evidentiary material is, and additionally considering all the facts before us.
We need to protect the integrity of this institution called Parliament. It is our institution, we work by our Rules and we need to follow our own Rules.
I am going to use the word that I used when I was out of the country. I was quite flummoxed when I was a member of a delegation to the Inter-Parliamentary Union, IPU, in Bahrain recently, to learn when I was there that the Speaker of South Africa was to appear before a Human Rights Subcommittee of the IPU to answer a charge of gross human rights violation against certain Members of Parliament. I thought to myself, why do we do this? Why do we not exhaust all the remedies that are available in our own country, in our own institutions, before we go abroad to an international institution?
I am saying this respecting the rights of any hon member or any organisation, to take a matter of complaint anywhere in the world. However, I would have thought that we should start in our own institution, because as hon Lotriet had said, we have not exhausted all our options. This matter is going to come before the Joint Rules Committee. [Interjections.]
We as the IFP do not believe that the issue stated in this motion is substantive enough to call for a motion of no confidence in the Speaker, so we will not support this motion of no confidence. [Interjections.] Thank you very much.
Afrikaans:
Dr P J GROENEWALD: Agb Voorsitter, ...
English:
... this motion originates from the incident that took place on 9 February, when the Speaker asked the members of the EFF to leave the House and they decided to get onto the stage, advancing towards the President. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that the protection services responded, protecting the President from this podium. Then the Leader of the Official Opposition, hon Steenhuisen, then stood up, took a point of order, citing that the Rules of Parliament had been violated and that it was not permissible.
Let me put it very clearly, I then said that I want to congratulate the protection services because they did the right thing. [Interjections.] It is proof that they are properly trained and they would not even wait for permission from the Speaker to enter or not.
There is one very important thing. We must remember and you must remember that they protect the President, not Mr Cyril Ramaphosa. Next year, after the election, we are going to have
a new President and then they will protect that President. So, please, understand something about security.
Having said that, this House is the highest House in legislature in South Africa. We must set an example to the people of South Africa on how we should act towards each other when we have differences. That is what we have to do. We must ask ourselves whether we set that example. How do we solve our differences? By using violence? Yes, that is what happened. [Interjections.]
I have heard a couple of speakers in the previous debate worrying about gender-based violence. [Interjections.] So, if this House, if we set the example that you solve your differences with violence, what do you expect from the people of South Africa? [Interjections.]
Therefore, hon Speaker, I want to say that you, as presiding officer has the obligation to ensure that the integrity and the decorum of the House are protected. You failed to do that. The Rules of Parliament allows these sort of actions.
Therefore, you must ensure that we have proper Rules. For example, you should make the Rule with the parties that, if a
member is asked to leave the House, and he or she refuses, they must be fined with three months’ salary. It is as simple as that. [Interjections.]
I grew up as a fair and just person. I will not blame the Speaker for the incident of 9 February. Therefore, we will not support the motion of no confidence. [Interjections.]
Hon Malema, I want to speak to you. Firstly, I want to say that you are a commander in chief. Your party decided on that name. They respect you for that. There is nothing wrong.
However, you must remember one thing, a commander in chief actually is a person with certain features, like characteristics. [Time expired.] [Interjections.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon member, your time has expired. [Interjections.]
Dr P J GROENEWALD: Can I just conclude? Can I conclude?
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): No, hon member, your time has expired. [Interjections.]
Dr P J GROENEWALD: Thank you. You are lucky, I will ... [Inaudible.] ... you next time. You don’t act like a commander in chief. [Interjections.]
Mr S N SWART: Chair, had today’s motion been motivated by the Speaker’s decision to refuse the secret ballot during last year’s voting on the Phala Phala Independent Panel Report, it would have received much more support. The ACDP was one of many parties that wrote to the Speaker requesting her to reconsider a decision not allow secret vote, and this in view of the ... [Inaudible.] ...to the ANC’s Members of Parliament. The sad results of this subsequent vote is that the impeachment process will go no further than the first step unless a quarter review decides otherwise.
Now, the motion before us seeks to remove the Speaker on the basis of decisions taken following events which unfolded at Sona. In the new level of disruption, the stage was stormed. The intention was unknown and required the urgent intervention of parliamentary and other security agencies. Joint Rule 11(1)(a) says that presiding officers must maintain and preserve the order and proper decorum of the House and uphold the dignity. Rule 2(b)(2) says that members must comply with
rulings made by the presiding officers. South Africans are bone weary of the disruptions in Parliament. They want to hear the solutions to the challenges facing the nation. They wanted to hear what the President had to say. The Rules don’t make provision for an eventuality of Members of Parliament storming the stage, and that is because the powers and privileges had covered us as pointed out by other speakers.
Section 4 states that when there is an immediate danger to the life or safety of any person or damage to any property, members of the security forces may without obtaining permission to enter upon and take action in the precinct. They were allowed to do that and the Constitutional Court upheld this when they said plainly, the hurried entry by members of the security services in terms of this section, without sanction from the Speaker is meant to avert harm to whoever may be at risk. This is crucial. The court also said that surely the privilege contained in the section can never go so far as to give members a license to disrupt the proceedings of Parliament that may be hamstrung and incapacitated from conducting its business and that is the situation we were faced with on that day. The ACDP agrees that it will not support this motion.
Hon Malema, I say this with the greatest love and respect, sir. You are not in charge! There is a ... [Interjections.] There is a God in heaven and He rules in the affairs of men
... [Interjections.] ... He is sovereign and He is in charge. Remember sir - my dear brother, the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
IsiZulu:
Malibongwe igama leNkosi.
English:
Praise the name of the Lord! Amen! [Interjections.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Order, hon members. Order. The hon Kwankwa? [Interjections.] Order, hon members [Interjections.] Order, hon members.
Mr N L S KWANKWA: House Chair, I hope I am audible this time around. [Interjections.] Am I audible?
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon members, there is too much noise.
Mr N L S KWANKWA: My time, Chairperson.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Okay, they must reset it to three minutes. [Interjections.] You may now proceed, sir.
Mr N L S KWANKWA: Thank you very much. With the benefit of hindsight, comrades, we probably should be asking the question: Whether we did not make a mistake by scheduling this motion of no confidence at this point in time. I will tell you why I am asking this question. It is simply because the internal processes of Parliament are yet to kick in to try and investigate what happened on 9 February. Do we not now run the risk of pre-empting the outcome of those processes by the ...
IsiXhosa:
Ninjalo ke ningxole nibe ningazinto apho ngemva.
English:
Perhaps what we should be doing ... [Interjections.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Order, hon members ...
Mr N L S KWANKWA: Yes, I’ll tell you why we are saying this. It is simply because ... Remember this – in essence the motion of no confidence centres around one incident, or an incident that happened on 9 February. It doesn’t say that there is a general pattern of behaviour that demonstrate partiality on the side of the Speaker nor does it actually combine quite a number of incidents where we can say concretely that there is a general pattern of partiality. Also, there issue of the strategic leadership of the Speaker of Parliament is also very important when we consider such a motion. Perhaps what we should do in future is that we should actually show the same respect we show to matters that are in court by saying that when parliamentary processes are still investigating, we shouldn’t be scheduling matters for debate. It is difficult now for us to have an entry point because without an official report of the Joint Rules Committee for instance, which is tasked to investigate the matter. What official position do we take when we discuss this matter? Do we only provide ... [Interjections.] Do we only provide ... No, the question really is about the leadership of the institution and how we run it. Then the question will be ... No, but we are allowed it. We sit in the programming committees but precisely because...
IsiXhosa:
Nina nivumela ezi zinto nibe nisixoxisa imfungumfungu apha.
English:
But the issue about the strategic direction of Parliament is that you must be able to provide credible evidence and say whether the Speaker, through her actions has subverted checks and balances of the executive. If the answer is an emphatic yes, then there are grounds for such a motion to be moved but also operationally, how is Parliament functioning. Is it functioning optimally, yes or no. There needs to be guiding principles and the criteria and questions to answer, because now ...
IsiXhosa:
... kuba ngoku ndiza kuba ngathi ndithetha etywaleni, ndibane ndisithi ...
English:
... I reviewed the video. Is that whet we must do. Sir, we said that we reviewed the video on TV and this is the perspective we are taking. And that is completely wrong.
Because we feel that perhaps this discussion is at this point
in time premature, up until there is a credible report and Parliament has concluded its investigative processes, we are unfortunately not in a position to support it. I am much obliged to you. [Interjections.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Thank you, hon member. The next speaker is the hon Zungula. [Interjections.] Order, hon members. Hon members. Hon members, let’s give the member the opportunity to address the House. [Interjections.] It’s a democratic right to do so. Continue, hon member.
Mr V ZUNGULA: Thank you, Chairperson, the role of a Speaker is paramount for Parliament to be an effective arm of the state. The Speaker ought to be nonpartisan, fair and objective and most importantly, fulfil her task, taking into account the constitutional expectations of Parliament. One of the critical functions of parliament is oversight and accountability over the executive. Parliament, time and time again has been correctly criticised for failing to hold the executive accountable.
The role of the Speaker is to create an environment in which members can fulfil their oversight and accountability
responsibilities without fear. Opposition parties have been spearheading the work of holding the executive accountable but most of those efforts are blocked. As the ATM, we submitted requests for the use of a secret ballot for sensitive motions but the Speaker rejected the use of voting mechanism that protect the members. Even when members of this House receive death threats last December, the Speaker offered no protection to the members. The Speaker has unfairly removed members from the proceedings of this House ...
IsiXhosa:
... ndime apha MaNyawuza, kweli qonga ndiyingxwelerha yezenzo zakho.
English:
Practically, the Speaker has been attempting to intimidate and silence vocal members who speak against wrongdoing. Instead of having a Speaker who protects Members of Parliament, we have a Speaker who is shielding the executive from accountability.
This cripples the whole Parliament and it effectively renders the institution ineffective. MaNyawuza, the country is failing. And because the country is collapsing, it requires Parliament to be effective. And for Parliament to be
effective, your role as a Speaker is important. When you fail as a Speaker, MaNyawuza, to create an environment for members to fulfil their constitutional obligations, Parliament effectively fails the people. When the people are failed, there is no arm of the state that will enjoy the confidence of the people and we will have a failed state. We don’t want our children to inherit a failed state, hence we want an effective Parliament. Parliament can only be effective when it has a Speaker who puts the interests of the Constitution ahead of their own party. The country needs a Speaker of Parliament, not a Speaker of one party that has failed to govern the country. As the ANC ...
IsiXhosa:
... yibani nesazela neentloni.
English:
You have failed to govern the country and you are failing ...
IsiXhosa:
... apha nalapha ePalamente.
English:
As the ATM we support the motion. [Interjections.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Thank you, hon member. Order, hon members. The next speaker is the hon Herron.
Mr B N HERRON: House Chairperson, the events of 9 February during the Joint Sitting of the state of the nation address are an embarrassment. It’s a great privilege to be elected to serve in our nation’s National Assembly, charged with implementing a new constitutional democracy for the benefit of the people of our beautiful country. With that great privilege comes a great responsibility to conduct ourselves in a manner that allows for the work of our democracy to happen.
Parliament is the place for robust debate and contestation of ideas.
We have the freedom to vehemently disagree protected by the ultimate freedom of speech. Members of the 14 parties represented in the National Assembly are delegates of constituencies of South African voters. We champion the mandate we receive in the last election through debates, motions and questions. We can’t use words and arguments to persuade our opponents. When members of this House storm the
stage to prevent the President from speaking, their conduct lacked legitimacy.
On 9 February members of this House engaged in grossly disorderly conduct. That conduct was confusing and threatening. The response from the Speaker may or may not have been right in that moment. Hindsight gives us some benefit but confronted by unprecedented conduct of members storming the stage where the President was seated and where their intentions were not obviously peaceful, the Speaker cannot be faulted for any decisions she made to restore order. Thank you. [Interjections.]
Mr A M SHAIK EMAM: Hon House Chairperson, allow me to acknowledge the present of our hon members from the UK. Thank you for being here. But I just want to say what you are seeing here today is the norm. You will get a lot of fun, excitement in this particular Parliament.
But Chairperson, I think the issue of vote of no confidence against speakers and mayors is the new norm in South Africa. You will find this all over municipalities where political parties are bringing votes of no confidence and I must admit
that this is all motivated by power and control and absolutely nothing else.
The last thing on the mind of politicians when they bring this vote of no confidence is the interest of the 60 or 62 million we are supposed to serve. The question is: what is the Speaker supposed to do in a House like this when it becomes dysfunctional, when there is mayhem and there is chaos even going the extent of breaking the very same furniture, which we have to now repair but we could use that money to deliver services.
Let me ask the question, does anybody realised how many millions of rends we are spending today, which we could have used to serve the 60 million people on the ground just to have futile vote of removing the Speaker of this House. It is just a wasted exercise. S, it’s not about the people. It’s about power. It’s about control, selfishness and greed. That’s what it is all about.
Now what the hon Speaker did on that day is the correct thing to do because the Speaker in this House has the responsibility to protect everybody in this House, including the person on
the podium, which was the President. And if the life of the President was in danger, of course, you have the right to do what you have done. And she must do it again and again if needs be. That’s what she must do. [Applause.]
Now the question I want to ask is: what if the hon Speaker did not do the right thing and bring in the protection services.
And let’s assume the President had to be injured then what happen. The very same political parties in the House would say the Speaker did not perform her duties to the best of her ability. That’s what they would say. So, what the Speaker did in my full view sitting in the south was the correct thing to do. And I want to commend you, hon Speaker, for what you have done. And if you have the opportunity you do it again. [Applause.]
Hon members in this House do not only disrespect the Speaker. They even disrespect all the hon members ... [Inaudible.] ... The NFP will not support this motion. [Applause.] [Time expired.]
Mr V C XABA: Hon Speaker and members of the executive, the mover of this motion seeks to absolves himself from the
obligation of taking the responsibility for the shameful anarchy he and his party caused during the joint sitting for the state of the nation address. The ANC out rightly reject this frivolous motion as nothing else but an attempt to divert our focus on the misconduct of EFF members on the day.
The argument is that the Speaker misconducted herself in that she suppressed the right to free speech and indiscriminated against the members of a particular political party. That is far from the truth. It is also not true that the Speaker called the EFF members’ animals. Malema stands on this podium and makes wide accusation that a member of his party was inappropriately handled.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon member? Hon member? Let me recognise, the hon Shivambu. You may take a seat, hon Xaba. Take your seat, please. Hon Shivambu? [Interjections.] Order, hon members. Is the mic on? [Interjections.] Order, hon members. Can we ensure that the mic that the member had switch on and activated? [Interjections.] Order, hon members. Please, proceed.
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: House Chair, the speaker who is speaking there on the podium says Malema stands here, and he is referring to the commander-in-chief. [Interjections.] He must respect the commander-in-chief. [Interjections.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Order, hon members.
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: If he continues speaking like that we are going to close this country again.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Order! [Interjections.] Order, hon members.
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: If you continue talking like that ... [Inaudible.] ...
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon Shivambu, what is the point of order?
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: The point of order is that he cannot say Malema speaks stands here. He must refer to him in proper title of commander-in-chief
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Thank you, hon member. Mr Xaba, lets refer to each other in respectful terms and not on the first name or surname basis only.
Mr V C XABA: Thank you. Hon Malema stands on this podium and makes wide accusation that a member of his party was inappropriately handled. He did not ask himself why she reported that incident to him and not to the authorities of this Parliament are near the untruth.
The Speaker is criticised because both here and the President come from the same party. The target on the day was the President. The Speaker understands her role fully well. Her understanding is summed up by new south waves Legislative Assembly Speaker Ray Maher when she said, I quote. This is what that Speaker said:
Nothing that happens as were likely to affect my impartiality in the control of this House. I have a job to do and it would be most improper if in my control of this House I have to subject to party discipline and in that way be more sympathetic to members on one side of the Chamber than the other. As far as my political loyalty and
principles are concerned I am subject fully to the control of the party to which I belong. As far as my administration of this House is concerned and my control of the proceedings of this House I am subject only to this hon House whose servant I am.
Through this motion the mover is disguising what actually happened on the day in question. The intention is to mislead the nation. When hon Malema did not get his way he violently bolted into the stage with the intention to cause a fright and they Sheepishly followed him. We don’t know what else he wanted or intended to do. Who would not have suspected that he intended to harm the President.
The EFF members have made hon Malema to think that he is the only person and there is nobody. And he comes and practices that in this House.
Hon John Steenhuisen, stood up to defend the anarchy and chaos. I was disappointed, utterly disappointed. The need for strong and courageous leader grows every day as right minded South Africans. Ordinary people seek better solutions to end poverty and reduce unemployment. The silly tricks that the
members of this House are subjected to is an antithesis of discernible objective of addressing the challenges we face. This is supposed to be the platform for the contestation of ideas.
As Chairman Mao said:
Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend. Mao had used this to signal what he had wanted from the intellectuals of the country, for different and competing ideologies to voice their opinions about the issues of the day.
"To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war." - Winston Churchill.
I had been in this House for three years but I still cannot tell you what the EFF essentially represents other than anarchy and chaos.
Hon members, it must be mentioned that on the day of the state of the nation address the Speaker afforded all members who raised various procedural points to air their views. We
observed how in many instances some members of the EFF undermined the authority of the Speaker to maintain the decorum of the House and to allow the President to address the nation on an occasion convened at his request. It must be said that it was the first time in the history of Parliament that a group of Members of Parliament stormed the stage and worse enough approaching the President of the Republic. The whole nation stood in wonder at what was happening. We have a history in this country of fighting for many years against the oppressing regime of apartheid. We come from a period where human rights were disregarded. A period where the right of freedom of speech and freedom of expression was out looked.
We now have the Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech. However, lay down as a general principle of construction, free speech would not in any way connote the acceptance that you use your freedom of speech to prevent other people from exercising their rights to free speech.
That is both bullying and thuggery. Section 58(1)(a) and section 71(1)(a) of the Constitution make freedom of speech in the two Houses subject to the Rules and orders.
The drafters of the Constitution anticipated that there would be times like this and build in a limitation clause.
Consistent with this approach in DA versus Speaker and the Constitutional Court heard that freedom of speech, I quote: “Can never go so far as to give members a licence so to disrupt the proceedings of Parliament that it may be hamstrung and incapacitated from conducting its business. This will distract from the very reason deter of Parliament”.
This decision was confirmed in de Lille where Mohamed C J had: without some such internal mechanism of control and discipline the Assembly will be impotent to maintain effective discipline and order during the debate.
In terms of the Joint Rules of Parliament, member may not engage glossily disorderly conduct in the House and its forums including using or threatening violence against a member or other person or acting in any other way to the serious detriment of the dignity, decorum or orderly procedure of this House.
In the Joint Rules further provides that:
In the event of violence ensuing in the Chamber as a result of members resisting removal the presiding officer may suspend proceedings and members of security services may be called by the Speaker during such period of suspended proceedings to assist with the removal of members from the Chamber and the precincts of Parliament forthwith provided that the security services may intervene directly anywhere in the precinct and in the Chamber in terms of section 4 of the Privileges Act when there is immediate danger to the life and safety of any person or damage to any property.
I argue that the storming of the stage posed an image a danger to the life of the President. To that extent the Speaker correctly exercised these powers. It is common cause that the EFF is on record that they don’t want President Ramaphosa. And therefore, their storming of Parliament or the stage cannot be interpreted in any other way.
Our message to the EFF is simple, you cannot have your cake and eat it. [Applause.] We would not allow ourselves to be bamboozled by you. On that day the treatment meted against EFF members teaches them the right adequate. The only inference is that the action was not punitive but protective. The mends are
proportional to their actions. It behoves the south to condemn the EFF members for anarchy and thuggery.
The ANC, therefore, will not support this motion. Thank you so much. [Applause.]
Mr S M JAFTA: House Chairperson, the National Assembly may remove the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker from office by a resolution. The procedure set out in paragraph 1 schedule 3 of the Constitution applies to the election of the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker. Section 52 of the Constitution tells us so. The position and election of the Speaker of Parliament is one of the customary markers of our young democracy. It bears reputation that our courts have often reminded us that:
Accountability is necessitated by the reality that constitutional office bearers occupy their positions in authority on behalf of and for the common good of the people.
Hon members, the Speaker is the upper guardian of our people. She is required to remain neutral and fair to all members of the National Assembly. While we believe that objective facts
do not justify the removal of the Speaker, we want to plead with the Speaker to reflect on some of the decisions she has taken in the past, especially the removal of hon Zungula. This was unfair and impulsive. The mode of democracy also complicates this debate. Its effect is to render the removal of the Speaker’s insignificant. We argue this point because the removal of the Speaker will result in the election of yet another ANC-alliance Speaker.
The implication of multi-party system of democracy also compounds this anomaly. This is so because the number of political parties and their compositions in this Parliament attracts the contested space. The National Assembly is therefore bound to be divided across the political divide, especially because a large number of these parties defected from the ANC. In our case, we came into existence primarily because the interest of the people on the ground were no longer taken serious, and many were forced to live in ... [Inaudible.]. For now, we won’t support this motion. I thank you.
Mr M G E HENDRICKS: Hon House Chair, Al Jama-ah does not support the way hon members are removed from Parliament. It
was not acceptable for a man to mishandle a hon female member of the EFF, and touch sensitive parts of a woman’s body. I saw it. It is also unacceptable for a woman to do so.
The latest in the removal episode, which is the subject of debate, is also unfortunate. The issue, hon House Chair, is not the Speaker, but the Rules, the advisor of Secretary to Parliament, the legal advisors and the parliamentary Table. This was the case at the state of the nation address. The safety of the President of the country is of paramount importance and not technicalities that we have heard today. His protection team used artificial intelligence to come to his aid.
Al Jama-ah is happy that the Speaker did not interfere and displayed the wisdom of Solomon. Nothing must stand in a way to keep the President of the country safe. Every action of the Speaker is compliant and she treats all parties with decorum and fairness. The Speaker not only chairs plenary sessions and debates, but most of her work is outside these events. That work - I have not heard - was faulted. Al Jama-ah has full confidence in the present Speaker, and Al Jama-ah wants her to serve her full term. But all hon members must be treated
equally. The leaders of political parties must be treated with more decorum and alternative remedy must be provided in the Rules.
These estranges constituency harms the respect that people have for Parliament. Those removed in this way could just be our next President. Hon Malema has told the nation that he will be their next President. He is of course very bold, but let us wait for the outcome of the 2024 elections. Calling protest in Parliament anarchy is anti-revolutionary, and hon members of the EFF are certainly not anarchists.
The present Speaker needs our support and Al Jama-ah will continue to respect the hon Speaker and her team as she has not fallen short as claimed by the official opposition. The call for the removal of the President and replacement of the Speaker does not serve any purpose as elections are around the corner. Let the streets and the people decide in 2024. We will then know who is in charge. The people are in charge. [Applause.] The streets are in charge. The motion of the EFF is in order to test the waters, but Al Jama-ah cannot support it. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: House Chair, the true test of an effective head of the national legislature is whether an individual can impartially and with integrity carry out our constitutional obligations as Parliament. It would be dishonest for anyone to argue that this House is ran impartially and with integrity. It is not.
This critical role cannot be occupied by an individual who – on numerous occasions - undermined the Constitution, disregarded the role of Parliament as an oversight body, and routinely forgets about the principle of separation of powers. That is why in August 2021 when the President brazenly instructed the ANC members of this House to elect the Speaker, the DA objected to her election. We objected because the President shuffled his deck of cards to remove a deeply compromised Minister in his Cabinet, only to shackle us – as the national legislature – with an individual who could never rise to the occasion. We all knew that a Minister of 19 years, who had always treated Parliament with disdain would not miraculously transform into a defender of legislative oversight.
When the true test of impartiality came, the Speaker failed. She failed on key five metrics. Firstly, the rebuilding of Parliament. Over a year since the fire that gutted the Parliamentary precinct, we are still none the wiser about who is to be held accountable. We are still scrambling for a venue to convene so we can get back to the work of serving South Africans. Secondly, the implementation of the Zondo Commission recommendations. Almost a year after the President tabled the final recommendations, this House is yet to take action against MPs and sitting Ministers who are heavily implicated in that report. Instead, the Speaker has delayed this process.
Thirdly, the strengthening of accountability. Following the scathing findings of the Zondo Commission against Parliament, the DA tabled a series of amendments to the Rules of the National Assembly so that we can reintroduce mechanisms such as interpellations – a stronger form of interrogating the executive as the Constitution expects us to do. It was shot down by the ANC majority for no reason. The DA and other opposition parties, like the IFP, have been calling for the establishment of a portfolio committee that would oversee the growing super Presidency. That has also been stalled by the ANC. The Speaker has also failed – fourthly -on maintaining
order in the House, and this I think it is quite important. The Speaker has no ability to restore order in this Chamber. There are clearly no de-escalation measures in place. That is why the DA was quick to remind the Speaker of the process to follow when members of this House are ejected from the Chamber.
Indeed, the violence and disruption of political parties also has no place in a Chamber where we are expected to show leadership and South Africans are looking to us to show leadership to them. Members, two things can be true at the same time. We must reject the politics of violence and disruption in Parliament. But so too, must we reject the overreach of the executive and the use of armed security personnel as the permanent feature of our Chamber.
The Speaker has failed on the last metric which is the impartiality and integrity. Key bodies such as the programming committee - which are chaired by the Speaker - are often stifled and effective proposals from the opposition are often stifled and blocked by the ANC. Whether it is thus calling for Ministers to answer questions in the House or requiring the portfolio committees to meet in person so that we can do our
work, these are treated as though we are asking favours from the ruling party to do our jobs.
Most recently, the Speaker has been found wanting in handling the impasse between Parliament and the President on the issue of the SABC Board. We have been hearing about the back and forth between the President and the Speaker, and the public broadcaster is yet to have without a board so many months later. In this short space of time that the Speaker has been at the helm of this institution, we have seen its deterioration. It is undeniable.
However, the DA cannot support this motion as it stands. The motion is deficient and it is procedurally flawed. It is in contravention of Rule 90 of the Rules of the National Assembly, which speaks of Rule of anticipation.
If we were to support this motion, it would need to be comprehensive and cover the elements which I have mentioned above, but it does not. That is why we have elected to abstain from this vote today. Our abstinence from this vote should never be construed as a vote of confidence in you, Madam Speaker. Our abstinence is motivated by the fact that the
motion before us today, does not even scratch the surface of why you are ill-suited for this role. Yours will be a legacy of the last Speaker of the National Assembly where the ANC held a majority, and you will be remembered as the Speaker that hastened its decline of this institution.
The constitutional giants that came before you like Dr Ginwala and Mr Max Sisulu built a foundation that is being deliberately obliterated by you and your party. You see, a working Parliament cannot co-exist with a governing party that is packed to the rafters with individuals who are only honourable by name. That is why a working Parliament is not in the interests of the ANC. The only way to rebuild this institution is to remove this governing party that has presided over the destruction of this institution at the ballot box. Oh, and that I can bet you, that we shall. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr M G MAHLAULE: House Chair, I have asked the permission from the Chief Whip of the Majority Party to speak about scrotums because that’s what we are invited to talk about. However, we will characterise people who like talking about scrotums. You know, when we were young we used to go to swimming by the
river and, of course, we will swim naked. The character that analyses other people’s scrotums and anything that is linked to those scrotums is one that had the smallest one. That is why you will see hon Malema saying “I’ve got you by scrotums” is because he understands that we have the biggest and he has the smallest. If he knew that we had the smallest he would be saying this. However, let’s debate the motion.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Order, hon members! Order!
Mr M G MAHLAULE: The EFF have mastered the art of abusing the rules of the House by disguising disruptions as point of orders. While they can afford to boycott the state of the nation address as they don’t respect the people of South Africa who sent them here, some of us cannot as we meant the oath that we affirmed and swore when we became members of this House. This abused of rules has reached alarming levels and anarchy as we saw EFF members storming the stage with placards under the pretext of protesting peacefully and threatening the person of the President. Of course, the EFF has won a reputation of entertaining people as its democracy in action stance prompted as lure of memes on social media platforms.
Yes, the EFF is entertaining for TikTokers, but for rational and caring South Africans the EFF’s attention-grabbing tactics mean that nothing can get done in the National Assembly if the Speaker does not act. Therefore, no one should advocate for what the EFF did during the state of the nation address 2023, primarily because such barbaric behaviour displayed by the EFF is responsible for the low esteem in which this National Assembly is held today in South Africa. As a Speaker of the National Assembly, hon Mapisa-Nqakula, is duty-bound to reverse the current disdain of the National Assembly linked to the EFF’s conduct using her creative thinking, immense patience and tolerance. Unfortunately, the EFF’s only talent is disruptions and anarchy. As the Psychologist Abraham Maslow once said: “If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.”
We can’t blame the EFF though, they can only approach situations with only tools that are in their toolbox. Distraction is the way as they have never build anything. Nevertheless, we must applaud the Speaker for her firm stance to remove the EFF from the Chamber as an effective way of remedying and rebuilding the National Assembly’s decorum that the EFF was so proud of distracting. Unsurprisingly, as it ...
[Inaudible.] ... the EFF proposes a manifesto of mistruth outlined by its third rate politician as the basis for the motion of no confidence in the Speaker. Theirs is based on the complete misunderstanding of the Joint Rules of the Parliament, and the Speaker’s alleged contempt for the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa and failure to act fairly and impartially.
This manifesto of mistruth is disingenuous as it seeks to disguise, hide and defend the consistent unparliamentary conduct of the EFF. Thus, the deliberate mistruth contained in the manifesto should be understood as inganekwane and should be completely deleted from the Hansard to save the Sixth Parliament of the indignity of future generations reading about this embarrassing act. The Speaker is duty-bound to sanitise the EFF’s attention grabbing tactics, but the EFF appears to ignore its overstretched hand when it did the most baseless, undemocratic and un-South African thing in the history of state of the nation address.
Before the state of the nation address, the EFF’s third rate politician was captured in the media stating that his party will show President Ramaphosa what it is made of as if the
National Assembly was a reality show. The EFF has always been willing to break rules of polite decorum expected of members of the National Assembly and disregard to the President’s boundaries during state of the nation address. The Speaker’s actions to restore order and decorum in the House should be commended as it was contingent upon whether the threat of the EFF’s third rate politician in the media to commit violence or cause harm. In a logical sense the remarks captured in the media constitute threat, but determining if the threat was made with the intention to commit violence is unpredictable.
However, it is obvious that the EFF’s decision to climb on the stage was not only infantile disorder, but also established an intention to cause harm to the President and violate the sanctity of the House. As such, the Speaker had no option but to take firm stance that matched up with the EFF’s inappropriate attention-grabbing tactics. While the EFF and other likeminded opposition parties denounced the Speaker’s firm stance the ANC applauds her passion and decisiveness as no party has a right to disrupt a programme of the National Assembly and physically attack the President or any other person in the House for that matter.
Of course, the EFF argues that there is no rule of the National Assembly that empowers the Speaker to invite the members of the security services into the Chamber. This is tantamount to saying that the Speaker should have folded her arms and watch the EFF to bring down the House with their only tool inside their toolbox which is always violence and anarchy. Even more disturbing, the Speaker should have watched without batting an eyelid and maybe even applauded the EFF’s shameful act and embarrassment and humiliate the President on the podium as this is what the party does to anyone it disagrees with. Unfortunately, this is not what we call Clicks or H&M or anything and any restaurant that the EFF does not like and attack it. This is the National Assembly and we shall keep the decorum of this House.
The Speaker does not exist to safeguard the interests of the ANC nor to ensure that any challenge to the ANC’s interest must be punished through the removal of opposing Members of Parliament, MPs, from the Chamber. The Speaker has conducted herself as an open-minded and impartial presiding officer since her election.
Speaker, we know that you are not divisive, but effective. You are not partisan but firm on the difference between right or wrong. Hence the ANC does not support this manifesto of mistruth poorly formulated as a motion from the EFF to use its fake reality show set that is far from reality. The reality that ... [Inaudible.] ... is that the unparliamentary conduct of the EFF which must be removed by vote us in 2024, from this House must be affirmed by the Speaker. Speaker, never listen to these fools to censure you and make you question your capabilities as a legislative leader. I thank you very much. [Applause.]
Mr J S MALEMA: Speaker, whether you like it or not Parliament is the highest stage of protest. Therefore, when people exercise their right to protest even at this level, you should never call that a threat to the President because what we did on the day when we came to the stage we were carrying placards with our hands up. A person with hands up can never be a threat, can only be a threat to nonthinkers and who don’t know how threat gets to be conducted. Therefore, it is entirely wrong to say that the President was under threat.
Secondly, you must be removed not because there are so many things you have to do, there are certain things that if you do this one wrong, it does even have to be subjected to any process to call police on the stage with a gun. What if that policeman discharges that firearm on a Member of Parliament, he gets triggered and discharges a firearm on a Member of Parliament? That will be in your hands because you have a responsibility, Speaker, to protect Members of Parliament and you can’t fail to protect Members of Parliament and still want to proceed to preside over such people that you’ve failed to preside on. You must have a lot of patience which you don’t have, and you should have asked the one who came before you.
She exercised that patience to the latter. Mam Thandi will never do what you did. She gave us an opportunity to raise our voice. She gave us an opportunity to participate in this Parliament without fear or favour.
However, what you did on that day was deliberate to intimidate Members of Parliament. Therefore, once you intimidate Members of Parliament, Parliament will never ever hold the executive accountable. We are here to do one thing and one thing only as to hold the executive accountable and we must do so without fear or favour. We have not broken any law whether you like it
or not. On many occasions the court has agreed with us that the EFF is actually correct even when in the previous Parliament you wanted to take our salaries because we were holding executive accountable, the court said that you are wrong.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon Malema, just take your seat, please. I see a hand of the member at the back. Why are you rising, hon member? Order, order! Order, hon members! Hon member, don’t do that again. I have not recognised you and you have no right to address the Assembly. That member is on his feet on a point of order. Let me hear his point of order.
Mr P M P MODISE: I wanted to check if hon Malema agrees with hon Mahlaule that his scrotum is small ... [Interjections.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): No, hon member, that is not a point of order. That is a point of debate, please take your seat. Continue, hon Malema.
Mr J S MALEMA: I fully agree with him. I agree with what hon Mahlaule said. I agree with that, yes. Now, what is important, Speaker, is that you have to be the most patient person and
impartial person, and you know you don’t have those two qualities. The Parliament can never function because of your attitude towards members of the opposition. On that day you took out people on the basis of being members of a political party. The people you never called their names. The people you never warned before like you did with other members. You warned them, and warned them, and you take them out, but you never did that. All you did was to be impatient with anything that looked red and you remove from Parliament.
As to the issue of sexual harassment that matter was brought to attention and you did some investigation during the President’s Budget Speech. And you did some investigation and you dismissed Members of Parliament, the woman who said “man were touching our breasts”. That matter was raised and someone comes here and says no, we are raising an unfounded allegation. We believe our women ... [Interjections.] ... don’t say two minutes just be patient. I told you that I’m in charge. Whether it is small or big, I’m in charge. He can’t do anything about it. I speak beyond the minutes offered to me.
You know why? I’m in charge. Gungubele, you can jump anytime you want, I’m in charge here ... [Interjections.] ... the EFF
doesn’t have confidence in the Speaker of this Parliament ... [Interjections.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon member, your time has now expired. Thank you very much. Hon member, your time has expired.
Mr J S MALEMA: We want you to fall. It might not be today, but you must know your time ... that you fall. [Time expired.] [Applause.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon member, your time has expired. Order, hon members! Order! Order, hon members!
Please take your seats now. Hon members, please take your seats so that we can proceed. Thank you. Hon members! Hon members, I know that the hon Minister Gungubele showed me his fingers and said the hon Malema only had two minutes. In fact, he saved time earlier in the debate and as we do the Table simply add to the time at the end. Therefore, there was no special privilege granted to the hon member. Order!
Order! A division having been called, hon members, I wish to remind you that in terms of section 52(4) of the Constitution
and National Assembly Rule 28, the Speaker may be removed from office by a majority of the members of the Assembly present today when the resolution is adopted. The bells will be rung for 10 minutes.
Debate concluded.
Question put: That the motion by Mr J S Malema be agreed to.
Division demanded.
The House divided.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon members, please take your allocated seats. Hon Manamela, will you take your seat please. Order, hon members! Please note the voting procedure that will be followed.
The Rules of the NA provides for different procedures for members to cast their votes. This includes voting by electronic means or a manual voting procedure by way of a Whip or by a voice. The rules also stipulate that the Speaker must predetermine the voting procedure.
For this division, the Acting Speaker determined that the manual voting system will be used. Whereby each member will be called up on and requested to voice his or her vote.
In terms of the rules, all members present when the question is put, where the doors barred, must vote or record and abstention. This rule does not apply to a Minister or Deputy Minister who is not a member of the House.
Political parties have been requested to provide the list of members who would be called first when it is their party’s turn to vote. After their party’s list has been called, the remaining members of the party would be called alphabetically.
The secretary will call each member from the membership list starting with those from the majority party. Members will be called by their surname followed by their initials. In order to facilitate the process, I appeal to hon members to indicate their votes only. The speeches are done now. Without making a preamble or statement and also without delaying.
Members must simple indicate their vote by yes, no or abstain. In the event a member’s name is called and they are present
but for whatever reason do not indicate their vote, an opportunity will be provided for such members to raise their hands after the last member is called from the list at which point they will be recognised to cast their vote.
The question before the House is that the motion as moved by the hon Mr JS Malema for the removal from office of the Speaker be agreed to. Those in favour of the removal of the Speaker from office in terms of section 52(4) of the Constitution and National Assembly Rule 28, will say yes, and those against the removal of the Speaker from office will say no, and those who want to abstain will record their vote as such. Voting will now commence and the doors of the Chamber will remain locked until voting is concluded. The secretary will now proceed to call members.
VOTING: [Take in from Minutes]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Order, hon member! Order! Can we ensure that there is a functioning microphone here in front where hon Steenhuisen is?
VOTING: [Take in from Minutes]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Secretary, hold on! Hon Singh, why do you want to be recognised? Take the microphone please.
Mr N SINGH: Hon Chair, I think the vote of hon Luthuli was not recorded. I couldn’t hear him. Hon Msimang and Sithole were also not called.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Okay. We will come back to that. Can you check that secretary, those three members, whether or not their votes were recorded? Can I ask the other members again to be quiet because you are delaying the proceedings. Please proceed secretary.
VOTING: [Take in from Minutes]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Secretary, let us just go back to hon Denner. Her vote was not recorded.
VOTING: [Take in from Minutes]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Order! Can we get silence hon members? As I indicated, those members who are
present but could not indicate their vote when they were called, can now raise their hands, after which I will recognise them to cast their vote.
Secretary, have we ascertained if the three votes from the IFP on the matter that was raised by hon Singh, if those three votes were recorded? While the NA Table Staff is checking, are there any other members who did not vote? There are no hands. The secretary will read the names of a few members just to double-check their votes. Can we have silence please!
VOTING: [Take in from Minutes]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Thank you hon members, the voting session is now closed. Hon Singh, please get a microphone, I can’t hear you?
Mr N SINGH: Chair, you are shouting at me, but hon Msimang and hon Zondo, who are both present here, their names haven’t been called. They are there. Can they please check.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Can we check if those votes have been recorded?
Hon Singh, I am told that the names of the members were called. But just to make absolutely sure that the votes of the IFP is correctly recorded, I have requested the secretary to read the names of the IFP again. We are going to read them again. May I request the other members in the Chamber to remain silent.
VOTING: [Take in from Minutes]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Thank you. The voting session is now closed.
Question not agreed to.
Motion accordingly negatived.
MOTION IN THE NAME OF THE CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Thank you very much, Chairperson, I move:
That the House –
(1) notes that on 1 March 2023, the Constitutional Court unanimously dismissed the application by the President of the Republic, Mr M C Ramaphosa, for direct access to the Court to hear the matter, and for the Court to set aside the report and findings of the Section 89 Panel on the Phala Phala scandal;
(2) further notes that the South African Revenue Service indicated on 6 March 2023 that it could find no record that the US $ 580 000.00 paid by Sudanese businessman Hazim Mustafa for the purchase of buffalo from the President’s game farm - which would later be at the centre of the theft - had been declared when it entered the Republic in December 2019;
(3) recalls that the Assembly resolved on 13 December 2022 not to proceed with the establishment of a Section 89 Inquiry despite the recommendations of the Panel, which found that there exists prima facie evidence that the President may have committed a serious violation of the Constitution by committing a range of crimes as well as serious misconduct inconsistent with his oath of office over the alleged cover-up of the
theft of millions of rands hidden in a sofa on his game farm;
(4) acknowledges that as the Panel’s investigation was limited in scope to the President’s involvement, there still exists an urgent need for the Assembly to conduct - in line with its constitutional obligations to maintain oversight of and to ensure that all organs of state are accountable to it - its own inquiry into the alleged involvement of several government departments and entities in the alleged cover-up;
(5) recognises that as the matters surrounding the Phala Phala game farm theft transverse several government departments and entities – including National Treasury, South African Revenue Services, State Security Agency, and the South African Police Service among others – a single, dedicated forum should be established to conduct a comprehensive inquiry; and
(6) resolves to establish an ad hoc committee in terms of Rule 253, the committee to –
(a) conduct an inquiry into matters surrounding the Phala Phala game farm theft with specific reference to the involvement and response of the various government departments and agencies in the alleged cover-up of the crime;
(b) exercise those powers as set out in Rule 167 that may assist it in carrying out its task;
(c) consist of 11 voting members of the Assembly, as follows: African National Congress 6, Democratic Alliance 2, Economic Freedom Fighters 1 and other parties 2; and
(d) further consist of 14 non-voting members of the Assembly, as follows: African National Congress 2, Democratic Alliance 1, Economic Freedom Fighters 1 and other parties 10; and
(7) sets the deadline by which the Committee is to report to 9 June 2023.
I so move.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Thank you, hon members, as agreed to in the National Assembly committee programme meeting on the 9 March 2023, there will be no debate on this matter. However, I will recognise political parties wishing to make a declaration. The usual times for declaration of votes will apply. The DA. [Applause.]
Declaration of votes:
The LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION (DA): Mr Chairman, today is the last chance that Parliament has to do the right thing on the Phala Phala matter. The ANC has already used the tyranny of its majority to squash the section 89 panel report, and this was done for no other reason than the fact that the report contained truths that were inconvenient for the ANC and truths that were inconvenient for President Ramaphosa. It is worth recounting today what those findings were, of a retired Chief Justice, a retired High Court Judge and a respected advocate. They found that the President had the prima facie case to answer and that he may have committed a serious violation of section 96 of the Constitution, a serious violation of the prevention and combating of corrupt activities act, serious misconduct in that the President acted in a way that is
inconsistent with his office, and serious misconduct in exposing himself to a situation involving a conflict of interest between his official responsibilities and his private business interests.
Now these are extremely serious allegations against any head of state, but particularly against one who rode into town with a promise to end corruption and abuse of what he had termed the “nine-wasted years” that preceded him. The rehearsed refrain that was parroted by the ANC speakers on the day, as the swept the inconvenient truths under the carpet, was that the President was going to set aside the report in the Constitutional Court. While we now know that this is fizzled and failed, as a Constitutional Court unanimously dismissed this application for direct access. But the reality we’ve seen this all before.
When Judge Zondo wrote his final report into State Capture, he reserved the harshest criticism for the sell-outs in Parliament who trampled the oath of office in service of a corrupt President and his Cabinet. Never again, we were told, would Parliament be disempowered as it was in those terrible days. And yet, here we are again, and we ask ourselves: What
has really changed? Then, it was Nkandla. Now, its Phala Phala. Then, it was fire-pools and cattle kraals and now its couches stuffed with dollars. Then, it was President Jacob Zuma and today its President Cyril Ramaphosa. But it is the exact same modus operandi, as long as you can abuse your numbers in Parliament, you can make any scandal or corruption disappear. [Interjections.]
And today the ANC speaker in this debate is going to try and keep this callous charade alive. [Interjections.] They are going to say that the Public Protector has cleared the President when they know that a final report is still awaited. They are going to say we must wait then for that final report when they know that the Nkandla judgement set out very clearly that Parliament must do its job even while others do theirs.
They are going to say there is no need for an Ad hoc committee when they know full well that the independent panel and the Public Protector do not have access to the full power of subpoena of persons and documents that an ad hoc committee of this House would have. And that we know the truth and the truth is that only the ad hoc committee with the powers granted in terms of our rules can get to the bottom of how
these dirty dollars got into the country. How those dirty dollars end up being stuffed into a couch in the President’s private home? Why the theft of those dirty dollars was never properly reported, and why the publicly funded Presidential Protection Unit meant to guard Cyril Ramaphosa, the President was used to recover the dirty dollars of Cyril Ramaphosa the businessman.
But let me tell you, how I urge fellow members of this House today to think very carefully how they vote, because just as it happened then, the Nkandla scandal, the Prasa scandal, and the State Capture scandal, the truth will out on Phala Phala no matter how hard the ANC tries to hold back the tide. There will be time of the day of reckoning for each and every member of this House to account for how you called out your vote today. So, I urge you to support the motion. But at the end of the day, the one thing that every South African must remember is this:
An innocent man should never be afraid of the truth and an innocent President should never be afraid of Parliament. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: House Chair, before I deal with the correctness of the motion that has been tabled here, we want to deal quickly with what the presiding officer did earlier of welcoming the delegation from the British Parliament – a racist institution that formalised colonialism here in South Africa. An institution that is overseeing British territories that are responsible for tax avoidance, profit shifting and illicit financial flows. The majority of Africa and South Africa’s resources are being looted under the custodianship and oversight of this racist institution [Applause.] So, the delegation from the British Parliament is not welcome here.
They represent a neocolonial government. They must not leave here thinking that they were unanimously welcome by the Parliament of South Africa. They are not welcome. And we must tell them that when we take power in 2024, we are going to disengage from that nonsensical Commonwealth Parliament and all these other platforms. [Applause.]
Section 83 of the Constitution obliges the President to defend and respect the Constitution. Section 96 of the Constitution prohibits any member of Cabinet including the President from undertaking any other paid work. In terms of the laws that govern this country the sole currency that can be utilised to
trade goods and services including buffaloes is the South African rand. It is currently not so in Zimbabwe, in Namibia, Lesotho and Eswatini, but in South Africa the sole currency that you can utilise to trade goods and services is the rand.
Now, your President has admitted that he has been selling buffaloes using foreign currency, the dollar. That is a violation of the South African laws. That is beyond reasonable doubt that it is a violation of the South Africa’s laws. It is therefore a violation of the Constitution without any doubt in terms of what should happen.
The Customs and Excise Act here in South Africa also obliges everyone who brings foreign currency to declare that currency if it is above R25 000. There’s US$580, well, now they admitted US$580 000. You can multiply that by 20 and you will know how much it is in rand terms which was not declared. A sitting head of state has willingly and knowingly traded ... he says to the public, to the people of South Africa that I’ve been engaging in trade using foreign currency. And as this institution which is supposed to hold him accountable, we must fold our arms. We cannot do that. We must establish this ad hoc committee to investigate everything including the police
that were involved in chasing the people who wanted to take money from Phalaphala so that we can get the bottom of this. We cannot have a lawless country where the sitting police commissioner is involved in pursuit of criminals in a criminal way. We must and have to establish this committee in a same way that the Nkandla ad hoc committee was established.
We stand as the EFF to support that we should establish the ad hoc committee to subpoena Mr Cyril Ramaphosa who is involved in business. He takes this task of being a President as part time job. We must hold him accountable here. We must subpoena everyone including the police that were involved in this illegal activity. We can tell you that ... [Time expired.]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon member, your time has expired.
Mr N F SHIVAMBU: ... and we are going to take it to a further process moving forward. Thank you very much.
Mr E M BUTHELEZI: Hon House Chair, at the outset, I think it is important that I clearly state without any doubt that the IFP supports the call for the establishment of an ad hoc
committee to investigate the Phalaphala matter. It is important that we allay any and all fears of South Africans that believe the rule of law and the Constitution is being trampled on. South Africans are tired of leaders who say one thing and then do another. Our people are at a point of resentment toward the government. They are giving up on the remaining hope and they are simply drawing a line in the sand which says this far and no further. I appeal to all the members of this House sitting on the majority benches to think long and hard about the decision we are about to take today.
Hon House Chair, with the SA Revenue Service, Sars, confirming that the money found in Phalaphala was not declared compounds the matter and necessitate an urgent need to probe the matter further. Failing to establish such committee will do our country a great disservice and will amount to nothing but sweeping yet another high level scandal under the carpet. We must act with our conscious and our strong convictions of what is the right thing to do. If we are to ignore this request, we are simply saying to South Africans that those who occupy high office are above the law. We cannot spitat the face of justice system. Our President must have known that his conduct must be
beyond reproach as he is an embodiment of our constitutional and social values.
The IFP calls on all Members of Parliament, MPs, in this House to act now and not let something this big and so significant fall through the cracks. We must show South Africans through our actions in this House that we care about the law and we want to see accountability in action. If the ANC opt to reject the establishment of this committee, this will ultimately be the last straw breaking off of the last seal of the ANC that can change and the ANC that can do better. We support the establishment of the committee. Thank you very much.
Mr W W WESSELS: Hon House Chairperson, what is strange is that the ANC as the ruling party in this House did not bring this motion to establish an ad hoc committee. If you believe in the innocence of the president of your party, you would have supported an investigation to clear his name. Why don’t you want it? Why are you denying the opportunity for him to answer in this case and to foresee what the involvement of all departments in this whole matter was? There are very strange things that happened. There are a lot of unanswered questions.
Why don’t you want answers? If you believe in the innocence of President Ramaphosa you would have brought this motion.
On 28 September 2022, when a similar motion was brought by the Official Opposition, the ANC voted against that motion and the establishment of an ad hoc committee and said that it is premature because the section 89 panel is still conducting their business and that report could still serve. Now that the report served, you voted against it although a panel that was appointed with you agreeing to the members of that panel and experts in that panel found that there are prima facie evidence that the President has a case to answer, you voted against that report and for him to answer to it. And now you still say that an ad hoc committee to investigate all the unanswered questions are unnecessary. Why is it unnecessary now?
Chairperson, the fundamental or the founding principle of our constitutional democracy is a separation of powers and that this this national legislature should hold the executive to account. We should conduct an oversight role and we should ensure accountability. This National Assembly did not do that with the Nkandla matter, and they did not do that with the
state capture. During the state capture there were opposing members in this House that warned, provide the allegations that said there must be investigations. The ANC protected themselves and denied, and then it was nine lost years. It is much more than nine lost years because this government has a long time ago lost the moral compact and complete lost their moral grounds. You do not act in the interest of South Africa, but you protect your own party. If you act in the interest of the people out there you would support this motion. You should then support this to clear the name of your president and to see if there is any truth in the allegations. I thank you.
Mr W M THRING: The Bible we carry in our hearts and not necessarily with us physically in our hands. Hon House Chairperson, the ACDP agrees with the establishment of an ad hoc committee to conduct an inquiry into the Phala Phala saga.
It must be noted that the ACDP supported the establishment of the Section 89 Independent Panel which found that Mr Ramaphosa may have committed a serious violation of section 34(1) of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, PRECCA, which imposes an obligation on persons in a position of
authority to report corrupt activities such as theft, fraud, extortion or forgery.
It also suggested Ramaphosa may have committed serious misconduct by exposing himself to a situation involving a conflict between his official responsibilities and his private business, and may have violated the Constitution by acting in a way that is inconsistent with his office.
The ACDP finds it strange and even contradictory that a number of investigations have found widely varying culpability of President Ramaphosa, from having a case to answer to his ‘having done no wrong’.
Let it be known that these Members of Parliament seated here have a constitutional obligation and a mandate to hold the President and Cabinet to account. The ACDP supported the previous calls to hold former President Zuma to account. So, as a matter of principle and consistency, and without fear, without favour, without prejudice and without fear of contradiction, the ACDP says that we can do no other but hold Mr Ramaphosa to account. The ACDP supports the call for an ad hoc committee. I thank you.
Mr B H HOLOMISA: Quiet, quiet. Hon House Chair, hon members, the allegations of a cover up have been greatly destructive of the country’s image, both at home and abroad, and has affected investor confidence negatively, especially given that President Ramaphosa has acted the champion of good governance and now this bomb has burst over his very own head.
Neither is the delay by the Reserve Bank, National Prosecuting Authority, Hawks and police helping the cause to clear the dark cloud hovering over this country. The situation is further complicated by the involvement of police personnel in this saga and the so called cross border investigation into Namibia. It is in the interest of the President that I submit and I daresay to the ruling party that this case must be expedited.
In conclusion, unfortunately the President cannot run away from Parliament, irrespective of whether he is head of these law enforcement agencies. Only transparency in the Phala Phala matter will satisfy the South African public. The UDM supports the resolution. Finally, hon Chief Whip of the Majority, let me advise you ...
IsiXhosa:
... into obungayazi. Ukuba ufuna inyaniso ngenene ukuba kwenzeke ntoni kule nto yasePhala Phala – mamela, naba abantu ekufuneka ubabizile: nguMongameli, nguSihlalo we-ANC ohloniphekileyo uMantashe, Sekela Mongameli we-ANC uMashatile ibengu-Ace. [Uwelewele.] Uyamfuna? Owokugqibela? Hayi khona. Kulungile ke, owokugqibela nguChauke. Ukuba ufuna inyaniso, inene uya kundikhumbula ndime apha. Awukabinalo nedokethi eli, awasazi kwanto. Enkosi.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): The ATM? May I also request the members who want to make declarations to take up the waiting bench, please, just to expedite proceeding? [Interjections.] Order, hon members! Order!
Mr V ZUNGULA: House Chairperson, Parliament has been criticised in the past about failing to scrutinise the actions of the executive, even with Phala Phala, Parliament has done nothing to fulfil its constitutional obligation of scrutinising executive actions. Parliament can’t wait to delegate its responsibility of oversight to other institutions; Parliament must take it upon itself to investigate and satisfy itself that the President and other
institutions did not do any wrongdoing. As we debate, no one has been arrested for the theft in Phala Phala.
IsiXhosa:
Noko ANC niyamthanda xa kunjalo utata wenu uRamaphosa ...
English:
... and you would want to see the criminal that stole from him arrested and this motion will assist you. Therefore you must vote in support of this motion. How can Parliament be exemplary in encouraging citizens to abide by the law yet it refuses to investigate if state institutions broke the law in Phala Phala? Nine months after Phala Phala became public knowledge the citizens are none the wiser whether wrongdoing occurred or not. The role of Parliament in this regard is critical to give confidence to the people that Parliament is a functional institution that fulfils its constitutional obligation. How can Parliament expect institutions that account to it to fulfil their constitutional obligation whereas ...
IsiXhosa:
... yona iPalamente ...
English:
... refuses to do the work the Constitution requires of it? How can Parliament have the moral authority to reprimand departments that fail in fulfilling their constitutional obligation whereas Parliament itself fails to fulfil its constitutional obligation?
To have a country that works, institutions such as Parliament must work; they must do what the Constitution requires. Future generations must inherit institutions that are functional and effective in their mandate. We can’t destroy the future of our country by destroying the institutions that ought to serve our country. If indeed the President and other institutions committed no crime, surely they don’t fear the scrutiny. If they committed a crime then members who vote against this investigation have committed a bigger crime in protecting the wrongdoers. Thank you.
Mr B N HERRON: Hon House Chair, the problem with the proposal from the Chief Whip of the Opposition is that nothing has changed since we debated this proposal six months ago, and nothing has changed since the report by the Independent Panel was rejected by this House three months ago. The only sensible
proposal was the GOOD proposal which the Speaker would not or could not allow because the Rules only allowed for us to accept or reject the recommendations of the Independent Panel that we proceed in terms of section 89 of the Constitution.
You will recall, Chair, that we proposed that the panel’s report be accepted, that the work of the section 89 committee does not commence until such time as the President has concluded his right to review the report. When that proposal was rejected, the choice became politically opportunistic and binary with no room for the interest of justice to be served.
We are back here only because the Democratic Alliance received some information that the South African Revenue Service, Sars, is unable to find any record that the foreign currency which was brought into this country, and then allegedly stolen, was declared. Of course the President was not the one who allegedly brought the foreign currency into the country. So, the DA’s excitement should have been short-lived because a few days later Sars issued a statement confirming that a tax compliant statement was issued by Sars indicating that the
R4 million sale of the of the game at the President’s Phala Phala farm in 2020 was declared.
It is unfortunate that Parliament was forced to choose between a yes and a no response to the Independent Panel recommendations. That choice cannot be circumvented by the proposal to establish an ad hoc committee to conduct parallel investigations to the multitude of investigations that are already underway by competent authorities. The matter may well return to Parliament for a new decision should the Hawks, the Public Protector, the South African Reserve Bank or Sars conclude that the President should be charged with a crime or has acted illegally or in beach of the Executive Ethics Act.
That hasn’t happened yet and we should allow the authorities to conclude their investigations without fear, favour or opportunistic political interference. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr A M SHAIK EMAM: Hon House Chairperson, if you remember in the previous occasion, the NFP supported the need of an ad hoc committee in terms of the Phala Phala game farm. However, subsequent to that a lot has happened. First of all the Public Protector has cleared the President. Secondly – you had your turn and let me have my turn. You had your opinion and let me have mine.
Secondly and very importantly, SA Revenue Service, Sars, has also declared or cleared the fact and indicated that Phala Phala is tax compliant and the President has complied.
The responsibility we are now given to understand in terms of declaring that was on the Sudanese business person and not the President himself.
We must also be cognisant of the fact that the President is involved in many other businesses. He is a shareholder and he cannot be at the same place of his business all the time. That is why you have managers to be able to do what is necessary.
Now, coming back to this the fact that the very same Public Protector put in there as a Chapter 9 by this very House: Are you saying that you do not have confidence into the same Public Protector that has now cleared the president? Is that what you are saying?
So, I think what is important is this that there is a need for an ad hoc committee, but we believe the President should be treated equally like any other citizen. I think what should be important particularly for us as an opposition, and we know
this through politics, if you want to do the right thing you have a lot of enemies, if you want to do a wrong thing you have a lot of friends. Many of them a lot of them in this House currently today.
Now, the point is this: When the President says, he wants to deal and eradicate corruption, do you not think that this is an attempt to want to remove the President so that that would block all the investigations into corruption that has taken place in this country and into the economy. We are talking about trillions of rand that has been lost. I am not saying that the President might not have the case to answer. What we are saying is allow the law-enforcement agencies to conclude the very same ones that we have put in there. If there is any evidence that unfolds, indicating or implicating the President, then indeed we will have the ad hoc committee.
However, this thing of the obsession with ad hoc committees and obsessions through coalitions of overthrowing mayors and speakers must come to an end. We must always consider what is in the best interest of the people on the ground.
So, I can say, you remove the President today, I can assure you, all the corruption that has been going on for all these
years that has brought us to where we are will also be wipe out. [Time expired.]
Mr M G E HENDRICKS: Hon House Chairperson, President Ramaphosa is not a corrupt person. He has not committed an act that is impeachable. He has not committed an act that a Constitution says there must be a gross violation and there has been no gross violation.
Having said that we must take the position of the Leader of the Official Opposition very seriously. He knows that in the Western Cape, they use their numbers. They know that in many municipalities they use their numbers. So, they understand that the ANC does the same thing. So, when they explain to us that the ANC will use their numbers in order to vote against any negative findings when we do have this ad hoc committee, the Leader of the Official Opposition knows what he is speaking about. This House will just waste its time. Al Jama- ah does not support the formation of the ad hoc committee.
Thank you very much, hon House Chairperson.
Mr K E MAGAXA: Hon House Chairperson, the ANC rejects the DA’s Draft Resolution to establish an ad hoc committee to
investigate all aspects of the theft on the Phala Phala game farm. The ANC rejects it on the following basis: Firstly, this Draft Resolution already has a hidden predetermined conclusion that the President is guilty. That makes it difficult to design an ad hoc committee to institute and guide the uncovering of the truth about the Phala Phala game farm theft. More importantly, the predetermined conclusion that the President is guilty violates the President’s rights to presumption of innocence.
This implies that the call for establishing an ad hoc committee is not only contaminated by the opposition party’s biases, but also fails to comply with the fair due processes and therefore, it should be rejected on all grounds.
Secondly and crucially, this Draft Resolution is an opportunistic one. Thus an establishment of the ad hoc committee it advocates for, is called for a wrong purpose. In particular this Draft Resolution is combative and fact-banding as it elevates the Constitutional Court’s ruling and the SA Revenue Service’s findings on the Phala Phala game farm theft as the basis for establishing an ad hoc committee, whilst simultaneously distorting and ignoring the Public Protector’s
interim findings that vindicate the President of any wrongdoing, including being exposed to a possible conflict of interest as unsubstantiated.
The ANC is convinced that the proposed establishment of an ad hoc committee is attempt to launch a reactionary coup intended to high jerk democratic institutions and processes to satisfy the narrow political interests of a racist right-wing parties.
Thirdly and equally important, this ... [Inaudible.] ... risk undermining the authority and the legitimacy of the National Assembly and thus watering down the ability of the National Assembly, to hold the executive accountable.
To be more specific, the scope of this Draft Resolution is a narrow rush attempt which failed to awake to examine the findings of all the democratic institutions that is the Hawks, the Reserve Bank, etc tasked with the responsibility to investigating the Phala Phala game farm theft to determine whether is there any wrongdoing by our President.
While the National Assembly must scrutinise the executive action which duty must be carried out fairly to avoid errors
is determining whether the President is innocent or guilty at the accusations levelled against him.
Fourthly, this Draft Resolution creates a host of unco- ordinated checks and balances with a reactive approach towards the Phala Phala game farm theft. For instance the Hawks and the Reserve Bank, are yet to conclude their findings on this matter. While the Public Protector and SA Revenue Service, Sars, have made their preliminary findings, in addition, opposition parties want to add an ad hoc committee to a host of institutions using different investigation platforms in order in fact to create confusion not necessary to get whether the President is guilty or not.
Furthermore this Draft Resolution gives the impression that the National Assembly is willing to interfere with the work of the Hawks, the Reserve Bank, the Public Protector and Sars, by prescribing to these institutions in support of our democracy by investigating the involvement and response of various government departments and agencies in the alleged cover up of the crime the DA alleges. While the DA has no shred of evidence in this regard. Again the DA wants the ANC to support an establishment of the ad hoc committee based on hearsay of a
cover up to further illustrate the lack of objectivity in the opposition benches!
The EFF calls for Public Protector’s preliminary finding as nonsensical implying that any findings that exonerates the President are not welcomed. What a childish behaviour.
And worse, this Draft Resolution insinuates that these institutions that support our democracy are incapacitated to investigate the Phala Phala game farm theft fully, thus an ad hoc committee must be established.
Hon House Chairperson, in conclusion, expanding the scope of the Phala Phala game farm theft to include the government departments, sate entities such as the National Treasury and the State Security Agencies does not justify the establishment of an ad hoc committee. Besides the proposed ad hoc committee does not have sophisticated investigative functions to deal with the complexities surrounding the Phala Phala game farm.
In conclusion again, hon House Chairperson, I want to affirm the ANC’s position that these opposition is extremely desperate! They do not only have confidence in themselves. We
are only going to the elections next year, but they cannot use this time to mobilise society for their cause, instead they want short, shortcuts because they know for a fact that they are far away from capturing the state and far away from ruling this country. Therefore they are trying to find any way and any shortcut!
Hon House Chairperson, in conclusion, I would like to implore them to go to the ground and mobilise society. We will win these elections come 2024! They will remain the opposition because opposition is what you live for! [Time expired.]
THE HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Order hon members. There was a request for intervention. Some members were showing that the hon member’s time is up. In fact the member had more than one and half minutes still left. He had seven minutes in total for that intervention. So, that do not arise. Order! Order, hon members! Order!
Question put: That the motion by the Chief Whip of the Opposition be agreed to.
THE CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: House Chair, may we please call for a division?
Division demanded.
The House divided.
Bells rung for 10 minutes.
THE HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon members, for this division, the acting Speaker also determined that the manual voting system will be used and in terms of the rules, all members present, when the question is put, with the doors barred we will vote or recall their extension.
This rule does not apply to a Minister or Deputy Minister who is not a member of the House. Political parties have been requested to provide a list of members ... order hon members.
Political parties have been requested to provide a list of members who will be called first when it is their party’s turn to vote. The secretary will call each member from the membership list starting with those from the majority party.
Members will be called by their surname followed by their initials. In order to facilitate the process, let us please adhere to this. I appeal to you to simply indicate your vote as yes or no or abstain, without making a statement, a preamble or using any other way to indicate your vote. It is part of the confusion that the Table is having when you do not clearly indicate your vote.
You are also requested to clearly speak into the microphone because we could not hear some of the votes that the members were recording. If a member’s name is called and they are present but for whatever reason could not vote or did not indicate their vote, an opportunity will be provided at the end for members to do so.
The doors of the chamber will remain locked until the voting session is concluded. The secretary will now proceed to call members. Hon members, please pay attention. May I ask the Whips of the parties to assist us to maintain the decorum of the House so that we can get through this process.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Hon members, would you please take your seats? We want to start the voting process.
Order hon members! Keep the doors closed and do not open the doors for the members who are outside. That is against the rules. Order hon members!
For this division, the Acting Speaker has also determined that the manual voting system will be used. In terms of the rules, all members present when the question is put ... [Inaudible.]
... will vote or record their abstention. This rule does not apply to a Minister or Deputy Minister who is not a member of the House. Political parties have been requested to provide the list of members who would be called first when it is their party’s turn to vote. The secretary will call each member from the membership list starting with those from the majority party. Members will be called by their surname followed by their initials. In order to facilitate the process, - and please hon members let us adhere to this.
I appeal to you to simple indicate your vote as yes, no or abstain. Without making a statement or preamble or using any other way to indicate your vote. It’s part of the confusion table staff face when you don’t clearly indicate your vote. You are also requested to clearly speak into the mic. Because
we could not hear some of the votes that the members were recording.
If a member’s name is called and he or she is present but for some reason has not been able to vote or has not indicated his or her vote, members will be given the opportunity to do so at the end.
The question before the House is that the Draft Resolution in the name of the Chief Whip of the Opposition be agreed to?
Voting will now commence. The doors to the Chamber will remain locked until the voting session is concluded. The secretary will now proceed to call members.
Hon members, please pay attention. May I ask the Whips of the parties - and there are many of you here - to help us maintain the decorum of the House so that we can get through this process.
VOTING: [Take in from Minutes]
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): The hon Deputy Speaker, why are raising your hand?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: House Chairperson, there is a risk of injury in the House. These chairs are not particularly good. When members stand up please have them check before they sit. Otherwise... [Interjections.] ...
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Order hon members!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: ... two or three members disappeared here almost injuring themselves. It’s not safe. It’s a safety matter ntate [sir].
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Order hon members! I will check when they are seated. But they have to do it themselves.
VOTING: [Take in from Minutes]
HON MEMBERS: Howling.
The HOUSE CHAIRPERSON (Mr C T Frolick): Order hon members! Hon members, we have a long evening. The previous process took almost an hour to complete, so we have enough time. Proceed secretary.
VOTING: [Take in from Minutes]
Not agreed to.
Business of the day concluded.
Question not agreed to.
Motion accordingly negatived.
The House adjourned at 20:22.
Audio
No related