Premium content from before 2023 is now available for everyone!
  1. Committees
  2. Joint (NA + NCOP)
  3. Powers and Privileges
  4. Tabled Reports

ATC210517: Report of the Powers and Privileges Committee into allegations of conduct constituting contempt of Parliament by members of the National Assembly during the mini-plenary on Budget Vote 9: Public Enterprises on 11 July 2019 at E249

Powers and Privileges

Report of the Powers and Privileges Committee into allegations of conduct constituting contempt of Parliament by members of the National Assembly during the mini-plenary on Budget Vote 9: Public Enterprises on 11 July 2019 at E249

 

  1. Background

 

  1. On 10 September 2019, the National Assembly Rules Committee (NARC)referred an incident of allegations of conduct constituting contempt of Parliament by affected members of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) to the Powers and Privileges Committee (the Committee) following its adoption of the Report of the Subcommittee on Physical Removal of Member from Chamber (the Subcommittee). Rule 73(12) requires that when a member has been physically removed from the Chamber in terms of Rule 73, the circumstances of such removal should be referred by the Speaker for consideration to a subcommittee of the Rules Committee.

 

  1. The incident referred to the Committee took place on 11 July 2019 during the mini-plenary debate on Budget Vote 9: Public Enterprises at E249. Members of the EFF were physically removed from the Chamber in terms of Assembly Rule 73(2) following their disruption of Minister Pravin Gordhan’s budget speech when he was prevented from continuing with his speech while at the podium.

 

  1. In terms of Assembly Rule 214, the Committee is required to consider any matter referred to it by the Speaker relating to contempt of Parliament or misconduct or a request to have a response recorded in terms of section 25 of the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act, 2004 (No 4 of 2004) (the Act), except a breach of the Code of Conduct contained in the Schedule to the Joint Rules of Parliament. The Rule further provides that the Committee must table a report in the Assembly on its findings and recommendations in respect of any alleged contempt of Parliament, as defined in section 13 of the Act, or misconduct.

 

  1. Consideration of the 11 July 2019 incident

 

  1. On 11 March 2020, the Committee met to consider, amongst others, the allegations relating to the 11 July 2019 incident. In addition to reflecting on the Minutes of Proceedings of the Mini-Plenary of that day and the unrevised Hansard, the Committee also viewed the video footage of the incident and deliberated on these. It observed the affected members raising repeated points of order objecting to Minister Gordhan participating in the debate on his budget vote.

 

  1. The presiding officer, House Chairperson M G Boroto MP, repeatedly ruled the points of order to be invalid, but the members persisted in raising the same points of order. When the members stood up from their seats and crossed the floor to proceed towards the Minister, the presiding officer initially called upon the Serjeant-at-Arms to remove the members from the Chamber and subsequently the Parliamentary Protection Services to assist in removing the members in terms of Rule 73(2).

 

  1. The Committee concluded, on the basis of the information before it, that there was a prima facie case for the members to answer. It resolved that the affected members be charged for contempt of Parliament and that an external Initiator be procured to present the evidence regarding the allegations against the affected members.

 

  1. The affected members were:

 

Honourable N S Matiase MP;

Honourable N P Sonti MP;

Honourable K Ceza MP;

Honourable R N Komane MP;

Honourable M M Chabangu MP;

Honourable K N F Hlonyana MP;

Honourable T M Langa MP;

Honourable B S Madlingozi MP;

Honourable M R Mohlala MP;

Honourable M K Montwedi MP;

Honourable T P Msane MP;

Honourable D F Mthenjane MP;

Honourable M N Paulsen MP;

Honourable H A Shembeni MP;

Honourable A M Siwisa MP; and

Honourable L F Tito.

 

  1. Soon after the Committee met, the President announced that following the outbreak of the coronavirus the country would be placed under a hard lockdown for one month. This hard lockdown and subsequent restrictions placed on the movement of people impacted on and delayed the procurement processes in respect of the Initiator. On 15 September 2020, the Committee was informed that Advocate N Mayosi had been appointed as the Initiator for the proceedings. The Committee accepted her nomination.

 

  1. Notification of allegations and charges served on affected members and outside legal representation

 

  1. The notification of allegations and charges preferred against the affected members were done in terms of Item 1 of the Schedule to the Procedure to be followed in the Investigation and Determination of Allegations of Misconduct and Contempt of Parliament (the Procedure) contained in the Rules of the National Assembly. The notices were also served to the attorneys of record of the affected members, Ian Levitt Attorneys.

 

  1. The affected members were informed that should they require outside legal representation they might direct the request to the Committee. Furthermore, if the members wished to give an explanation after they had received the notices, they were free to do so orally or in writing to the Committee. Such an explanation could also be presented at the hearing.

 

  1. Theattorneys of the affected members requested an extension with regard to the submission of the written representations and, by implication, the postponement of the hearing. The period for submission of written representations was subsequently extended to 23 November 2020. However, by 24 November 2020, the eve of the hearing, norepresentations were received from the affected members or their attorneys. The attorneys requested that the hearing be postponed to 25 November 2020, which was agreed to.

 

  1. The issue of legal representation is dealt with in Items 1 and 3 of the Schedule to the Procedure. In terms of Item 1, the notice must clearly indicate that the member is entitled to be assisted by a fellow member and that the member may request the committee to allow legal representation by a person who is not a member.With respect to legal representation by a person who is not a member, Item 3states that in complex cases or cases involving complicated evidence or legal issues, and where the committee is of the view that such legal representation might be essential for a fair hearing, the committee may allow the member to be represented by a legal practitioner who is not a member.

 

  1. The Committee received and considered a presentation from the attorneys on the need for outside legal representation and concluded that the request for outside legal representation be granted.In addition, the Committee was informed that the affected members had decided not to attend the hearing as they were of the view that if the hearing continued in the manner it had been unfolding it would be a gross procedural and substantive unlawfulness committed against them. The attorneys also indicated that they would not participate in the hearing. The Committee however took the view that it had been properly constituted in terms of the Act and the rules, and had followed the Procedure stipulated in the Assembly Rules and proceeded to the hearing stage.

 

  1. Honourable M Ndlozi disagreed with the Committee’s view and its decision that the proceedings were not unlawful and could therefore proceed with the hearings. He argued that the political composition of the Committee rendered the Committee conflicted. However, the majority of the members of the Committee did not agree with this view and argued that the Committee was properly constituted in line with the Assembly Rules and the Act.

 

  1. Allegations and charges preferred against the members

 

  1. On 25 November 2020, the Committee proceeded with the hearing in the absence of the affected members.In terms of Item 6 of the Procedure, the Initiator must put the charges to the member and the Chairperson must request the member to plead to the charges. The Item further states that if the member refuses to enter a plea, the Chairperson must enter a plea of not guilty. In the absence of the affected members, the Chairperson entered a plea of not guilty for each of themembers.

 

  1. For the purpose of this report, the charges in respect of the affected members are grouped into two categories, namely, those who had seven (7) charges preferred against them and those who had five (5) charges preferred against them.

 

  1. Honourable S Matiase, K N F Hlonyana and R N Komane had seven (7) charges preferred against themas follows:
  1. Charge 1:allegation that the members were guilty of conduct constituting contempt of Parliament in termsof section 13(c) of the Act in that, they contravened section 7(a) of the Act when they wilfully refused and/orfailed to obey Rule 92(8), Rule 92(9) and Rule 92(11), read together, by persisting with points of order after the presidingofficer, whose ruling was final and binding, had ruled that the matter raised was not apoint of order.This conduct improperly interfered with, or impeded the ability of the House toexercise its authority or functions; continue with the business of the day, and wasdisruptive of the proceedings in the House.

 

  1. Charge 2:allegation that the members were guilty of conduct constituting contempt of Parliament in termsof section 13(c) of the Act in that, they contravened section 7(b) of the Act when they wilfully refused and/orfailed to obey Rule 92(8), Rule 92(9) and Rule 92(11), read together, by persisting with a point of order after the presidingofficer, whose ruling was final and binding, had ruled that the matter raised was not apoint of order.This conduct improperly interfered with the performance by the Minister of his functions as a member of Parliament.

 

  1. Charge 3: allegation that the members were guilty of conduct constituting contempt of Parliament in termsof section 13(c) of the Act in that, they contravened section 7(a) of the Act when, during the proceedings,they wilfully failed and/or refused to obey Rule 64(d), by crossing the floor of the House in front of the benches during theproceedings.Such conduct improperly interfered with, or impeded the exercise or performance bythe House of its authority and functions.

 

  1. Charge 4: allegation that the members were guilty of conduct constituting contempt of Parliament in termsof section 13(c) of the Act in that, they contravened section 7(b) of the Act when, during the proceedings, they wilfully failed and/or refused to obey Rule 64(d),  by crossing the floor of the House in front of the benches during theproceedings.Such conduct improperly interfered with the performance by the Minister of PublicEnterprises of his functions as a member of Parliament.

 

  1. Charge 5: allegation that the members were guilty of conduct constituting contempt of Parliament in termsof section 13(c) of the Act in that, they contravened section 7(e) of the Act when, during the proceedings,they wilfully failed and/or refused to obey Rule 69(a), Rule 69(c) and Rule 69(d) by:
  1. deliberately engaging in conduct that created serious disorder or disruption inthe House;
  2. repeatedly undermining the authority of the presiding officer; repeatedlyrefusing to obey rulings of the presiding officer and repeatedly disrespectingand interrupting the presiding officer whilst she was addressing the House;and
  3. persisting in making serious allegations against the Minister of Public Enterprises without adequate substantiation or following the correctprocedure.

 

By engaging in such conduct, which was grossly disorderly, they created and took partin a disturbance during a meeting of the House within the parliamentary precinct.

 

  1. Charge 6: allegation that the members were guilty of conduct constituting contempt of Parliament in termsof section 13(a) of the Act in that, they contravened section 7(a) of the Act when, during the proceedings,they wilfully failed and/or refused to obey Rule 69(a), Rule 69(c) and Rule 69(d) by:
  1. deliberately engaging in conduct that created serious disorder or disruption inthe House;
  2. repeatedly undermining the authority of the presiding officer; repeatedlyrefusing to obey rulings of the presiding officer and repeatedly disrespectingand interrupting the presiding officer whilst she was addressing the House; and
  3. persisting in making serious allegations against the Minister of PublicEnterprises without adequate substantiation or following the correctprocedure.

 

By engaging in such conduct, they improperly interfered with the exercise or

performance by the House of its authority and functions.

 

  1. Charge 7: allegation that the members were guilty of conduct constituting contempt of Parliament in termsof section 13(a) of the Act in that, they contravened section 7(b) of the Act when, during the proceedings,they wilfully failed and/or refused to obey Rule 69(a), Rule 69(c) and Rule 69(d) by:

I.      deliberately engaging in conduct that created serious disorder ordisruption in      the House;

  1. repeatedly undermining the authority of the presiding officer; repeatedlyrefusing to obey rulings of the presiding officer and repeatedlydisrespecting and interrupting the presiding officer whilst she wasaddressing the House; and
  2. persisting in making serious allegations against the Minister of PublicEnterprises without adequate substantiation or following the correctprocedure.

 

By engaging in such conduct, they improperly interfered with the performance by the Minister of Public Enterprises of his functions as a member of Parliament.

           

  1. The other thirteen (13) affected members had five (5) charges preferred against each one of them, which were identical to charges 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 that were preferred against the three members in paragraph 3) above. The members were honourable Ceza, Chabangu, Langa, Madlingozi, Mohlala, Montwedi, Msane, Mthenjane, Paulsen, Shembeni, Siwisa, Sonti and Tito.

 

  1. Summary of evidence presented by the Initiator

 

  •  

 

  1. At the start of the hearing, the Initiator submitted two formal affidavits which sought to place before the Committee the evidence in relation to the video footage and the unrevised Hansard. The one affidavit was that of Ms Sinovuyo Tshomela who was employed by Parliament as a vision mixer/camera operator in the Broadcasting and Audio Visual Technical Support Division of its Corporate Services Department, and was so employed at the time of the incident. On 11 July 2019, she was working in the broadcasting and audio control room at Committee Room E249 and was responsible for controlling the various cameras which recorded the video footage circulated to the members of the Committee and the affected members.

 

  1. The other affidavit was that of Mr Zonwabele Mngese also employed by Parliament as a technician in the Broadcasting and Audio Visual Technical Support Division at the time of the incident. He was assigned to Committee Room E249 on 11 July 2019 to conduct audio visual checks which entailed ensuring that the microphones and cameras inside the Chamber were recording and functioning properly. Furthermore, that they were transmitting both visual and audio recordings clearly to the control room. In his affidavit, Mr Mngese confirmed that the video footage which was recorded on 11 July 2019 in E249 was a true recording of the events that took place in the Chamber.

 

Witnesses

C Mahlangu (Undersecretary)

 

  1. The first witness called by the Initiator to give evidence was Mr C Mahlangu, the Undersecretary responsible for the sittings of the National Assembly. He stated that he was on duty on 11 July 2019 and was present in the Chamber during the mini-plenary session.He was fulfilling his regular duties as an officer of the House to provide procedural and administrative support to the House and the presiding officer to ensure that the House functioned smoothly. He identified all the affected members with reference to the video footage, as well as from a photo book of members of the National Assembly, which contained photographs as well as the names of each affected members.

 

  1. He stated that he observed honourable Matiase rising several times on the same point of order, which the presiding officer repeatedly ruled to be out of order. Honourable Hlonyana, and Komane also rose on the same point of order. When honourable Matiase stood up and crossed the floor, he was joined by the other members of the EFF.

 

  1. Mr Mahlangu stated that at that point the presiding officer called in rapid succession the Serjeant-at-Arms and the Parliamentary Protection Services to come and in remove the affected members. 

 

M G Boroto (House Chairperson and presiding officer)

 

  1. The second witness to be called was House Chairperson M G Boroto. She testified that she was the presiding officer at the sitting on 11 July 2019 when the incident with which the Committee was seized with took place. She stated that the transcript of the unrevised Hansard was a fair reflection of the events of that day. She testified that honourable Matiase, Hlonyana and Komane ignored her repeated rulings regarding their points of order.

 

  1. She stated in her evidence that honourable Hlonyana said pointedly to her “this man is not going to speak here today.” She viewed that as a threat to Minister Gordhan and the House.

 

  1. When the members stood up and crossed the floor to approach the Minister, she initially called the Serjeant-at-Arms in quick succession, because the members were charging at the Minister and she was uncertain as to what would happen. She did not know what their intentions were and whether they would physically attack the Minister in light of the threats made against him earlier.

 

  1. It quickly dawned on her that the Serjeant-at-Arms would not be able to handle the situation on his own and she therefore called upon the Parliamentary Protection Services to assist the Serjeant-at-Arms in removing the members from the Chamber.

 

  1. As for the other members who came onto the floor, such as honourable N A W Mazzone, A H M Papo, J H Steenhuisen, K E Magaxa, her evidence was that she was not aware as to why they had come onto the floor, but her thinking was that they were probably reacting to the imminent threat facing the Minister. She noted that the members merely stood there and were not interfering with the business of the day and did not disrupt the proceedings. They went back to their seats after the affected members were removed from the Chamber and the business of the day proceeded without further incident.

 

  1. She also testified that while she had witnessed previous disruptionsto parliamentary proceedings, this incident was different as she had never seen members charging at a member standing at the podium.

Mr T Maleeme (Serjeant-at-Arms)

 

  1. The last witness to give oral evidence was the Acting Serjeant-at-Arms, Mr T Maleeme. He testified that he was on duty on that day and observed the proceedings from when they began until the affected members were removed from the Chamber.

 

  1. He stated that he was aware which members the presiding officer had referred to when she asked for his assistance in removing the members, because he had been present in the Chamber and had observed which members had participated in the disruption. When he called the Parliamentary Protection Services to remove the affected members from the Chamber, he was able to instruct them as to which members needed to be removed.

 

  1. He testified that the presiding officer initially called upon the assistance of the Serjeant-at-Arms and while he was approaching the presiding officer she called upon the Parliamentary Protection Services, which then forced him to turn back in order to summon the Parliamentary Protection Services who were stationed outside the Chamber.

 

  1. He said that he was shocked when he saw the affected members approaching the Minister at the podium, as he had never witnessed such an incident since becoming the Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms and the Acting Serjeant-at-Arms.

 

Summary of evidence presented by Initiator

 

  1. As part of presenting the evidence, the Initiator turned to specific charges preferred against the affected members. She dealt with charges that she termed “breaches of points of order” and identified three members who were charged in relation to these breaches, namely, honourable Matiase, Hlonyana and Komane.

 

  1. Points of order were regulated by Assembly Rule 92. In terms of Rule 92(1) a member may raise a point of order at any time during the proceedings of the House in terms of the procedure prescribed in Rule 66, by stating that he or she is rising on a point of order. Rule 92(2) states that a point of order must be confined to a matter of parliamentary procedure, or a matter relating to unparliamentary conduct, and must be raised immediately when the breach of order occurs.

 

  1. Rule 92(11) states that the ruling of a presiding officer on a point of order is final and binding and may not be challenged or questioned in the House. Rule 92(8) states that no member may raise a point of order again or a similar point of order, if the presiding officer has ruled that it is not a point of order or that the matter is out of order. Lastly, members may not in terms of Rule 92(9) disrupt proceedings by raising points of order that do not comply with Rule 92.

 

  1. Section 7(e) of the Act prohibits a person from creating or taking part in any disturbance within the precincts while Parliament, a House or a committee is meeting. The Act defines disturbance as any act which interferes with or disrupts or which is likely to interfere or disrupt the proceedings of Parliament, a House or committee. However, it does not include an act committed by a member in the exercise of his or her privilege.

 

  1. Section 13 of the Act makes it clear that the acts prohibited by section 7 of the Act and other sections constitute contempt of Parliament. It further states that a member is guilty of contempt of Parliament if the member wilfully fails or refuses to obey any rule, order, or resolution of the House.

 

  1. Mr Matiase purportedly rose on a point of order in terms of Rule 92(1). After being allowed to make his point of order, the presiding officer ruled that it was not a point of order, but rather a point of debate. The matter ought to have ended at that point because Rule 92(11) is clear that the ruling of a presiding officer on a point of order is final and binding, and may not be questioned in the House. In the video footage,he is shown to continue with his purported point of order as if the presiding officer had not made a ruling on it. The presiding officer repeatedly ruled against him on his point of order.

 

  1. Mr Matiase continued to state “the Minister’s failure to respect the remedial actions of the Public Protector had rendered him a constitutional delinquent”. He continued with his point of order, and he and the presiding officer were talking at the same time, and often over each other as the record showed. This was aclear breach of Rule 92(9) which provides thatmembers may not disrupt proceedings by raising points of order that do not comply with this rule. The point of order did not comply with the rules as it was not confined to a matter of parliamentary procedure or practice, and was not related to unparliamentary conduct.

 

  1. Mr Matiase also breached Rule 69 that deals with grossly disorderly conduct. In terms of Rule 69(a), (c) and (d), members may not engage in grossly disorderly conduct in the House and its forums, including deliberately creating serious disorder or disruption, repeatedly undermining the authority of the presiding officer or repeatedly refusing to obey rulings of presiding officers or disrespecting and interrupting the presiding officer while the latter is addressing the House, and persisting in making serious allegations against a member without adequate substantiation or following the correct procedure.

 

  1. The rules provide for a procedure to be followed if members want to bring to the attention of the House information that makes certain allegations regarding impropriety or unethical conduct on the part of another member. Mr Mahlangu, in his evidence, referred to Rule 85(2) which states that a member who wishes to bring any improper or unethical conduct on the part of another member to the attention of the House, may do so only by way of a separate substantive motion. A substantive motion must be submitted to the Speaker for consideration. Mr Matiase opted not to use this remedy in respect of his allegations against the Minister.

 

  1. Furthermore, he had another remedy available to him if he felt aggrieved by the presiding officer’s ruling on his point of order, which was to write to the Speaker and request that the principle or subject matter of the ruling be referred to the NARC in terms of Rule 92(12)(a).

 

  1. Honourable Hlonyana was similarly found to be in breach of Rule 92. When she was asked to state what her point of order was, she made it clear that she was rising on the same point of order previously raised by Mr Matiase which had already been ruled out of order by the presiding officer. It was clear that she had not accepted the ruling of the presiding officer as final and binding regardless of the provisions of Rule 92(11).She was therefore in breach of Rule 92(8), which prohibited a member from raising a similar point of order, if the presiding officer had ruled it out of order or as not a point of order.

 

  1. Honourable Hlonyana did not stop there and continued that “This man is not going to speak today. It is not going to happen. It is not going to happen. We are not going to leave the House. We are not going to leave the House, and he is not going to speak today. He is not going to speak”.Her conduct was in breach of Rule 69(a), (c) and (d) as was the case with honourable Matiase.

 

  1. While the Parliamentary Protection Services were removing the affected members from the Chamber, honourable Hlonyana could be seen in the video footage, as identified by Mr Mahlangu, robustly engaging in further forms of grossly disorderly conduct in breach of Rule 69(b), by pushing against the movement of members who were being escorted towards the exit, and thereby physically intervening, or hindering their removal from the Chamber. Through her conduct, honourable Hlonyana improperly interfered with and impeded the performance of the presiding officer in her functions and the exercise of her authority. In addition, she improperly interfered with the performance by the Minister of his functionsand created and took part in a disturbance in the precinct while the House was meeting.

 

  1. Honourable Komane was also implicated in respect of the same points of order breaches as honourable Hlonyana. She rose on the same point of order as previously raised by honourable Matiase, which was in breach of Rule 92(8).

 

  1. Although she was instructed by the presiding officer to take her seat on three occasions,she refused to do so. She disrupted the proceedings by raising a point of order that did not comply with Rule 92. Furthermore, she deliberately created serious disorder and disruption, and repeatedly undermined the authority of the presiding officer by refusing to obey her rulings and repeatedly disrespected and interrupted her.She improperly interfered with the exercise or performance by the House of its authority or functions and improperly interfered with the performance by the Minister of his functions as a member of Parliament.

 

  1. The Initiator found that Ms Komane was in breach of section 13(a) and (c) of the Act and guilty in relation to charges 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7as they relate to honourable Matiase.

 

  1. The other thirteen (13) affected members were charged with identical charges which appear as charges 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in D(3) above in respect of the charges preferred against honourable Matiase, Hlonyana and Komane, which relate to the crossing of the floor during proceedings.

 

  1. Rule 64 provides that members must at all times accord the presiding officers and other members due respect and conduct themselves with dignity and in accordance with the decorum of the House. They are required to not during proceedings pass between the Chair and the member who is speaking, nor to stand in any of the aisles or cross aisles, or to cross the floor of the House in front of the benches.

 

  1. All the affected members crossed the floor on 11 July 2019 during the proceedings in front of the benches contrary to the rule. By so doing, they failed to accord the presiding officer and other members due respect and failed to conduct themselves with dignity and in accordance with the decorum of the House.

 

  1. On the evidence of the video footage and as identified by Mr Mahlangu, each one of the affected members could be seen and was identified as crossing the floor in front of the benches during the proceedings, and thereby improperly interfering with or impeding the exercise or performance by the presiding officer of her authority and improperly interfering with the performance by the Minister of his functions as a member.

 

  1. By crossing the floor, the affected members breached Rule 69, by approaching the podium where the Minister was delivering his speech and remained there until they were physically removed. Some members were seen gesticulating at the Minister and deliberately created serious disorder and disruption.They undermined the authority of the presiding officer and their conduct constituted contempt of Parliament in terms of section 13(c) of the Act in that it improperly impeded or interfered with the ability of the House to exercise its authority.

 

  1. In her evidence, House Chairperson Boroto stated that it was not possible for her to exercise her authority or for the business of the day to proceed with the affected members conducting themselves in the manner they did. Following their removal from the Chamber, the business of the day proceeded smoothly.

 

  1. As the affected members were not in attendance, the evidence presented by the Initiator was not rebutted. The next stage for the Committee was to make findings of guilty or not guilty with respect to each of the charges preferred against the members based on the evidence presented to it.

 

  1. Findings of the Committee

 

  1. Having engaged with the evidence presented by the Initiator, honourable Ndloziargued that the presentation of the Initiator’s summary of evidence was flawed, however, the Committee found the evidence presented by the Initiator persuasive and convincing.
  2. The Committee agreed that honourable Matiase be found guilty of the seven (7) charges preferred against him. Honourable Ndlozi expressed a dissenting view on the matter.

 

  1. With regard to honourable Hlonyana and Komane who similarlyhad seven(7) charges preferred against them,the Committee agreed that they be found guilty of all the charges preferred against them. Honourable Ndlozi expressed a dissenting view on the matter.

 

  1. The other thirteen (13) affected members had five (5) charges preferred against each of them. In summary the charges were as follows:
  1. Charge 1 related to section 7(a) of the Act read together with Rule 64(d);
  2. Charge 2 related to section 7(b) of the Act read together with Rule 64(d);
  3. Charge 3 related to section 7(e) of the Act read together with Rule 69(a);
  4. Charge 4 related to section 7(a) of the Act read together with Rue 69(a), (b) and (d); and
  5. Charge 5 related to section 7(b) of the Act read together with Rule 69(a).

 

  1. In respect of the thirteen (13) affected members, the Committee agreed that they be found guilty of the five charges preferred against each of them. Honourable Ndlozi objected to the decision of finding theaffected members guilty.

 

  1. Mitigating and aggravating factors with respect to sanctions

 

  1. The affected members were notified on 12 March 2021 that the Committee had found each of them guilty on all the charges preferred against them as set out in the charge sheet. In the same correspondence, they were also invited to present to the Committee mitigating factors on appropriate penalties, either in writing or orally, before the Committee reported to the House regarding its findings and proposed penalties.

 

  1. On 17 March 2021, the attorneys requested that the hearing on sanctions be postponed until the outcome of the review proceedings instituted by the affected members against, amongst others, the Committee on 11 December 2020. The request for postponement was not acceded to. The affected members were notified of the date of the hearing and were reminded of the invitation to submit written representations on mitigating factors, if any, by no later than 4pm on 18 March 2021. Alternatively, to indicate within the same time if they wished to make oral representations to the Committee.

 

  1. The affected members did not take up the opportunity to present mitigating factors.

 

  1. With respect to aggravating factors, the Initiator drew the attention of the Committee to the relevant provisions in the Act, namely, 12(1), 12(3), 12(5) and 12(9).

 

  1. Section 12(5) of the Act states:

 

“When a House finds a member guilty of contempt, the House may in addition to any other penalty to which the member is liable under this Act or any other law, impose anyone or more of the following penalties:

 

  1. a formal warning;

 

  1. a reprimand;

 

  1. an order to apologise to Parliament or House or any person, in a manner determined by the House;

 

  1. the withholding, for a specific period, of the member’s right to the use or enjoyment of any specified facility provided to members by Parliament;

 

  1. the removal, or the suspension for a specified period, of the member from any Parliamentary position occupied by the members;

 

  1. a fine not exceeding the equivalent of one month’s salary and allowances payable to the member concerned by virtue of the Remuneration of Public Officer Bearers Act, 1998 (Act No 20 of 1998); or

 

  1. the suspension of the member, with or without remuneration, for a period not exceeding 201 days, whether or not the House, or any of its committees is scheduled to meet during that period”.

 

  1. The Initiator submitted that in the circumstances of this case, the factors to be considered by the Committee in aggravation or mitigation, in determining the appropriate penalty or penalties to be imposed on the affected members included the following:

 

  1. the seriousness of the charges of contempt of Parliament which the affected members had been found guilty of, as well as the nature and severity of their conduct;

 

  1. acknowledgement of wrongdoing and remorse on the part of the affected members, as well as their co-operation with the work of the Committee;

 

  1. any previous incidents involving the affected members; and

 

  1. the interest of Parliament.

 

  1. She submitted that the charges of contempt of Parliament which the affected members had been found guilty of were serious.

 

  1. Honourable Matiase, Hlonyana and Komane were found guilty of seven (7) charges of contempt of Parliament. Two of the seven charges related to persistence in raising points of order in a manner that was contrary to the rules, and further in a manner that was deliberately designed to, and did disrupt the proceedings of the day.

 

  1. The other five (5) charges against honourable Matiase, Hlonyana and Komane related to contempt of Parliament in terms of section 13(c) of the Act in that by crossing the floor of the Houseand charging towards the Minister, the affected members contravened the rules in that they:

 

  1. improperly interfered with and impeded the exercise or performance by the House of its authority and functions, contrary to section 7(a) of the Act;

 

  1. improperly interfered with the performance by the Minister of his functions as a member of Parliament, contrary to section 7(b) of the Act; and

 

  1. created and took part in a disturbance within the parliamentary precinct, whilst the House was meeting, in contravention of section 7(e) of the Act.

 

  1. In addition to honourable Matiase, Hlonyana and Komane, the other thirteen (13) affected members - honourable Ceza, Chabangu, Langa, Madlingozi, Mohlala, Montwedi, Msane, Mthenjane, Paulsen, Shembeni, Siwisa, Tito and Sonti – were found guilty of the same five charges.

 

  1. The thirteen (13) affected members engaged in conduct that required the presiding officer to first invoke Rule 70 by ordering themto leave the House, and thereafter Rule 73 by instructing the Serjeant-at-Arms and then the Parliamentary Protection Services to remove the members.

 

  1. The affected members acted deliberately, and engaged in conduct that created disorder and disruption in the House. They undermined the authority of the presiding officer by refusing to obey her rulings and repeatedly interrupted her when she was addressing the House. During their removal from the House, the affected members were physically intervening, obstructing or hindering their own removal when the presiding officer had ordered such a removal in terms of the rules.

 

  1. Regarding acknowledgment of wrongdoing and remorse on the part of the affected members as well as their co-operation with the work of the Committee, the affected members did not acknowledge any wrongdoing or show any remorse for their conduct.

 

  1. The proceedings of the Committee took place without the affected members or their attorneys being in attendance or having made written representations. While the members could not be compelled to participate in the work of the Committee, the consequence of their decision not to participate was that they did not present any mitigating factors and circumstances to the Committee for its consideration.

 

  1. Honourable Matiase and Sonti had previous findings of guilt for contempt of Parliament, and had penalties imposed on them. They were found guilty of contempt in relation to the incident that occurred in the House on 21 August 2014 that involved 20 members of the Assembly during Question Time to the President, by creating a disturbance in the House and refusing to leave the Chamber when ordered to do so by the presiding officer.

 

  1. The penalty imposed on honourable Matiase at the time was a suspension for 14 days without remuneration in terms of section 12(g) of the Act. The penalty imposed on honourable Sonti at the time was an order to apologise as prescribed by the House and a fine equivalent to 14 days’ salary and allowances payable to her. 

 

  1. While the rest of the affected members had not conducted themselves in a similar fashion as honourable Matiase and Sonti prior to the incident of 11 July 2019, the Initiator submitted that that was outweighed by the serious nature and severity of their conduct, which was intentional and deliberate.She further submitted that the interests of Parliament and the public were advanced by an orderly and robust debate and engagement. However, the conduct of the members was destructive of an orderly and robust debate and engagement. It had the hallmarks of a designed, concerted and carefully co-ordinated effort to, inter alia, disrupt the proceedings of the House.

 

  1. With respect to honourable Matiase, who had been found guilty on seven (7) charges and honourable Sonti who had been found guilty on five (5) charges and as repeat offenders on the same charges - contempt of Parliament - they warranted a penalty that was sufficiently serious. To this end, it was recommended that the penalty set out in section 12(g) of the Act would be appropriate, i.e. suspension of the two honourable members without remuneration for a period not exceeding 30 days, whether or not the House or any of its committees was scheduled to meet during that period.It was submitted that none of the other penalties set out in section 12(5) of the Act would be sufficient.

 

  1. It was noted that the five (5) charges preferred against honourable Ceza, Chabangu, Langa, Madlingozi, Mohlala, Montwedi, Msane, Mthenjane, Paulsen, Shembeni, Siwisa, and Tito, and the seven (7) charges preferred against honourable Hlonyana and Komane were, taken individually, very serious. Contempt in the form of creating or participating in a disturbance, of which the members were found guilty, was in and of itselfa very serious form of contempt and warranted a sufficiently serious penalty or penalties.

 

  1. It was therefore submitted that an appropriate penalty for the 14 affected members in 19) above, would be the penalty set out in section 12(f) of the Act, i.e. a fine not exceeding the equivalent of one month’s salary and allowances payable to each of the members by virtue of the Remuneration of Public Officer Bearers Act, 1998 (No 20 of 1998).

 

  1. The Committee, with the exception of honourable Ndlozi, agreed with the submission and recommendations made by the Initiator in terms of the sanctions for each of the affected members. He requested that the objections of the EFF should be recorded.

 

  1. Recommendations to the House

 

In the light of its findings of guilt against the sixteen (16)affected members, the Committee recommends that the National Assembly impose the following penalties with respect to the affected members:

 

  1. With respect to honourable Matiase and Sonti,who are repeat offenders, it recommends that the penalty set out in section 12(g) of the Act, i.e. suspension of the members without remuneration for a period not exceeding 30 days, whether or not the House or any of its committees is scheduled to meet during that period, be imposed;and

 

  1. With respect to honourable Ceza, Chabangu, Langa, Madlingozi, Mohlala, Montwedi, Msane, Mthenjane, Paulsen, Shembeni, Siwisa, Tito, Hlonyana and Komane, it recommends that the penalty set out in section 12(f) of the Act, i.e. a fine not exceeding the equivalent of one month’s salary and allowances payable to each of the members by virtue of the Remuneration of Public Officer Bearers Act, 1998 (No 20 of 1998), be imposed.

 

The Committee adopts the Report with the Economic Freedom Fighters dissenting.

 

Report to be considered

Documents

No related documents

What's wrong with this page?