ATC240325: Report of the Powers and Privileges Committee on allegations of conduct constituting contempt of Parliament by members of the National Assembly during debate on Budget Vote 1 – The Presidency on 9 & 10 June 2022

Powers and Privileges of Parliament

Report of the Powers and Privileges Committee on allegations of conduct constituting contempt of Parliament by members of the National Assembly during debate on Budget Vote 1 – The Presidency on 9 & 10 June 2022

Background

On 2 September 2022, the National Assembly Rules Committee (the Rules Committee) adopted the Report of the Subcommittee on Physical Removal of Member from Chamber (the Subcommittee) and agreed with its recommendation that the Report be referred to the Powers and Privileges Committee (the Committee) for investigation and report. The Committee was asked to inquire whether the conduct of the affected members on 9 and 10 June 2022 amounted to contempt of Parliament in terms of the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act, 2004 (Act No 4 of 2004) (the Act).

The Subcommittee’s Report noted that during the sittings of the National Assembly on 9 and 10 June, on Budget Vote 1 – The Presidency, several members of the Assembly were physically removed from the Chamber in terms of the Assembly Rules. According to Rule 73(12), whenever a member has been physically removed from the Chamber in terms of this rule, the circumstances of such removal must be referred by the Speaker to the Subcommittee for its consideration.

The members who were physically removed on 9 June 2022 were:

Hon E N Ntlangwini
Hon A Matumba
Hon W T I Mafanya
Hon N Tafeni
Hon B Mathulelwa

On 10 June 2022, the following members were physically removed:

Hon P Marais
Hon N N Chirwa
Hon S Tambo
Hon B Mathulelwa
Hon N Tafeni
Hon M K Montwedi
Hon E N Ntlangwini
Hon Y N Yako
Hon P Madokwe
Hon B S Madlingozi
Hon A Matumba
Hon C N Mkhonto

The Report noted that the affected members disregarded the authority of the Chair when they were called to order by the Speaker for their grossly disorderly conduct, the invasion of the floor of the Chamber by a member, the physical interference with the Serjeant-at-Arms while carrying out an instruction of the Speaker and the throwing of water bottles by members at staff.

The Subcommittee found that there was sufficient evidence, based on the unrevised Hansard, the video footage, the Minutes of Proceedings of the National Assembly, and the Speaker’s report that the members who had been physically removed from the Chamber had violated the Assembly Rules and the Act.

Consideration of the matter by the Powers and Privileges Committee

In terms of Assembly Rule 214, the Committee must deal with a contempt matter in accordance with the procedure in the Schedule to the Rules of the National Assembly (the Schedule) and must table a report in the Assembly on its findings and recommendations. If the Committee finds a member guilty of contempt, it must recommend an appropriate penalty from those contained in section 12(5) of the Act.

On 21 April 2023, the Committee met to consider the matter and resolved that as per Item 5 of the Schedule, a duly qualified person who is not a member of the Committee should be appointed as an initiator for the hearings on the matter. The role of the initiator is to present the evidence regarding the allegations and may cross-examine the member and any witness giving evidence on behalf of the member. At the conclusion of the hearing, the initiator may address the Committee on the evidence presented to it and may propose an appropriate penalty to be recommended by the Committee in its report.

Advocate Tanya Golden was appointed as the Initiator and Advocate Penny Magona-Dano was appointed as her junior.

Notices of the hearings and charges served on the affected members

In line with the provisions of the Schedule, the affected members were informed that they were entitled to be assisted by a fellow member or could request the Committee to allow them legal representation by a person who was not a member. Any such legal representation would be at the cost of the affected members. The members, through their attorneys, requested to be allowed legal representation, which the Committee agreed to.

The notices of hearings and charges preferred against the affected members were served on the members and their attorneys on 22 September 2023. Furthermore, the affected members were notified that if they wished to give an explanation after they had received the notices, they were free to do so either orally or in writing at the hearings.

The hearings were initially held on 15 and 16 January 2024, and subsequently on 12 and 14 March 2024.

The charges preferred against the members were that their conduct constituted contempt of Parliament in terms of section 13(c) and 13(d)(i) of the Act, in that as a member of Parliament and during the sitting of the National Assembly convened on 9 June 2022 for the purposes of the President, Mr Cyril Ramaphosa, to address the National Assembly on his Budget Vote they breached the Act and the rules of the National Assembly.

The members charged for the incident of 9 June 2022 were:

Ms E N Ntlangwini;
Ms B Mathulelwa;
Ms W T I Mafanya; and
Mr A Matumba.

(See Annexure A for the charges preferred against the members)

The charges preferred against 10 members for their conduct on 10 June 2022, during the debate on Budget Vote 1 – the Presidency, were that they breached the Act and the Rules of the Assembly, and thereby committing contempt of Parliament.
The members charged for the incident of 10 June were:

Hon P Marais
Hon N N Chirwa
Hon S Tambo
Hon B Mathulelwa
Hon N Tafeni
Hon M K Montwedi
Hon E N Ntlangwini
Hon Y N Yako
Hon A Matumba

(See Annexure B for charges preferred against the members)

Charges that were preferred against Ms Mkhonto were not proceeded with due to her being mistakenly identified as Ms Mokgotho, who had resigned from Parliament. It was subsequently confirmed that Ms Mkhonto was not in the Chamber on 10 June 2022. And Ms Tafeni had also resigned.

APPLICATION FOR POSTPONEMENT OF HEARING

Before the charges were put to the members, the legal representative of the affected members, Advocate ka-Siboto, requested and was given an opportunity to raise points in limine. He stated that he was repeating arguments Advocate Ngcukaitobi had made in a previous hearing related to a different matter. He suggested that there were challenges with the processes of the Committee. It was their contention that the Speaker should have been called to given evidence in the proceedings and to be cross-examined by his clients on her rulings on the days in question.

He suggested that the alternative to the Speaker not giving evidence before the Committee was to let Part B of their high court application run its course first and the court must then decide whether the Speaker must give evidence to the Committee. That meant that the proceedings should be postponed pending the finalisation of the court proceedings.

The second point in limine was that as a matter law it was untenable to have the political opponents of the EFF deciding their fate. The ANC and DA had an interest in the matter as political opponents of the EFF.

He argued that there would be no prejudice to the Committee if it were to postpone the proceedings until Part B had been completed, which was anticipated to be completed by February, March, or April.

Advocate Golden noted that although Advocate ka-Siboto had prepared a written submission for his in limine points, which he had addressed to the Committee, he had not made her aware and neither was she informed by the EFF’s legal team that they would take legal points in limine, and neither was she given a copy of the written submission.

She placed on record that it would have been appropriate to warn her of that and also to send her the submission ahead of the hearing so that she was not taken by surprise.

She reminded the Committee that several of Adv ka-Siboto’s points, or submission were made to the Committee at the hearing related to the incident of 30 August 2022. That hearing was finalised on 14 December 2023.

The charges were put to the affected members in relation to their conduct on 9 and 10 June 2022. They all pleaded not guilty to the charges preferred against them.

On the issue of the Speaker giving evidence and being cross-examined, she had indicated previously, including in correspondence, that they did not intend to call the Speaker to prove the charges or allegations against the affected members. The reason for that was quite simply the evidence of the Speaker was not required to prove the charges against the affected members. They would rely largely on the video recording of the incidents of 9 and 10 June. Furthermore, she would lead the evidence of Mr Xaso, who was the sole witness she would call and the affidavits of other witnesses whom she did not intend to call.

In relation to the request to postpone the hearing in order to allow for the Par B application to run its course, she indicated that the judge in the interdict application by the affected members dismissed it and gave a go ahead for the hearings to proceed. The issue of the Speaker was also a central issue in the interdict application, and it was dismissed. In her view, there was absolutely no basis in law or for any other reason for the Committee to suspend the hearing and postpone it in order to allow for the Part B review application to proceed in the High Court.

She cautioned that practically speaking if the proceedings of the hearing were to be postponed then it would mean that the review application would run at its own pace and on its own time. No one had an idea when that application would be finally determined.

The Committee concurred with the view that it had not been interdicted from proceeding with the hearing and therefore the hearing should proceed. Furthermore, the Committee was of the view that at that stage there was no need for the Speaker to be called to give evidence. As regards the composition of the Committee, members confirmed that committees were constituted in terms of the principle of proportional representation and to date there had been no finding by a court against the Rules of the Assembly. Dr Ndlozi agreed with the legal representative of the affected members that it would be fair to allow the matter to stand down until the review application had been concluded by the court.

Summary of evidence presented to the Committee

Before proceeding to call her first and only witness, the initiator indicated that the evidence of commissioned affidavits of Mr M Xaso, the Secretary to the National Assembly, Mr T Maleeme, the Acting Serjeant-at-Arm, Mr N Stander, the Control Language Practitioner, Ms L Ann Bryan, the Control Language Practitioner, Mr S Makana, Chamber Support Officer, and Mr T Mekoa, the Manager of Parliament’s Broadcasting and Technical Support Unit would be submitted at the appropriate time.

The legal team of the affected members had no objection to the submission of the technical affidavits of Messrs Mekoa, Stander, and Ms Ann-Bryan. As regards the rest of the affidavits, the legal team of the affected members indicated that they would decide that based on the evidence to be given by Mr Xaso on whether the officials who deposed to those affidavits should be called to give evidence.
After the charges were put to the members, the initiator called her only witness, Mr M Xaso, the Secretary to the National Assembly to give evidence concerning the charges put to the affected members. Mr Xaso is the Chief Advisor on matters of parliamentary procedure in the Assembly. He plays that role in relation to joint sittings, Assembly sittings and committees of the House or joint committees of the two Houses. He has the responsibility to ensure that proceedings run smoothly in accordance with the Constitution, the rules, parliamentary procedure and practice, and any applicable law.
He stated that administratively, he reports to the Secretary to Parliament, and in relation to House duties and matters of procedure in the House he works directly with the Speaker.

In his evidence, Mr Xaso stated that he was present at the sittings of the Assembly on 9 and 10 June 2022 and had played an advisory role with regard to the proceedings. The sittings were convened to debate Budget Vote 1 – The Presidency. The programme of the House had been determined beforehand by the National Assembly Programme Committee. The item would have been discussed at the weekly meeting of the Chief Whips’ Forum and finalised by the Programme Committee. It was standard practice that orders of the House were decided beforehand by the Programme Committee.

He recalled the events of that day as they were shown in the video footage. To give context to how matters panned out on those days, he explained the procedure that is followed when a member has to be removed from the Chamber, which is found mainly in Rule 70. The rule is applied by a Presiding Officer when a member refuses to abide by the instructions of the Presiding Officer, or the member is acting in a disorderly manner. When a member acts in such a manner, the Presiding Officer may order the member to leave the Chamber. If the member refuses to leave, the Presiding Officer may instruct the Serjeant-at-Arms in terms of Rule 73 to remove the member from the House. If the Serjeant-at-Arms fails to remove the member, the next step would be for the Speaker to call upon the Parliamentary Protection Services to remover the member from the Chamber.

There was an expectation that members would not interfere with the removal of their colleagues from the Chamber. The rules state that in the event of such interference, the Speaker may order the members to be removed from the Chamber forthwith. Once the removal had taken place, the circumstances of that removal must be reported to the Subcommittee on Physical Removal of Member from Chamber, which was a Subcommittee of the Rules Committee. The Subcommittee reports to the Rules Committee, which deliberates and takes a decision on the processing of the report, specifically its recommendations. With regard to the matter before the Committee, the Rules Committee had agreed with the Subcommittee’s report that the members’ conduct be referred to the Committee for investigation and report.

Regarding the incident of 9 June 2022, Mr Xaso identified Mr Matumba, Ms Ntlangwini, Ms Tafeni, Mr Mafanya and Ms Mathulelwa on the video footage as members who were physically removed from the House on that day.

He testified that the affected members spoke without being recognised, insisted on making unparliamentary and abusive remarks about the President, refused to withdraw unparliamentary remarks such as money launderer. When the members refused to leave the Chamber as directed by the Speaker, the Speaker called upon the Serjeant-at-Arms to remove the members, but they refused to leave. The Speaker then directed the Parliamentary Protection Services to remove the members. He noted that Mr Matumba and Ms Mathulelwa physically resisted to be removed from the House.

With regard to the events of 10 June 2022, he identified Ms Marais, Ms Chirwa, Ms Ntlangwini, Ms Mathulelwa, Ms Tafeni, Ms Yako, Mr Tambo, Mr Montwedi, and Mr Matumba as the members who were physical removed on that date.
He stated that the authority of the Speaker included maintaining the decorum of the House by ensuring that there was strict observance of the Assembly Rules. The Speaker was vested with the power and authority to deal with points of order, and to rule on them. Her rulings and that of other Presiding Officers were final and may not be challenged. A member who felt aggrieved by a ruling, could request that the ruling be referred to the Rules Committee for consideration and report. In considering the ruling, the Rules Committee must confine itself to the principle or subject of the ruling and not the ruling itself which was final.
At the sitting of 9 June, members spoke without being recognised and persisted in speaking although ordered to take their seats, made similar points of order that had been ruled out order by the Speaker, refused to withdraw unparliamentary remarks they had made and were asked to withdraw, refused to leave the Chamber when they had been asked to do so by the Speaker, refused to leave the Chamber when requested by the Serjeant-at-Arms to assist them to leave as instructed by the Speaker. They had to be removed by the PPS. Some members violently resisted to be removed or interfered with the PPS who had been instructed to remove members from the Chamber.
When Ms Chirwa refused to leave the House as ordered by the Speaker, the Speaker directed the Serjeant-at-Arms to remove Ms Chirwa, but Mr Tambo interfered with the Serjeant-at-Arms from carrying out the Speaker’s instructions. At that point, the Speaker ordered the PPS to remove Mr Tambo forthwith as he was in breach of Rule 73(5). He was forcibly removed from the Chamber as he was resisting being removed. Ms Chirwa violently resisted being removed by the PPS, who had to use reasonably necessary force to remove her.

Ms Mathulelwa was observed in an exchange and resistance with the members of the PPS. She was trying to prevent Ms Chirwa from being physically removed from the Chamber. Ms Mathulelwa and Ms Tafeni were instructed to leave the House for obstructing the removal of a member. Ms Mathulelwa also crossed the floor of the House, which is not permitted in term of Rule 64(d).

The Speaker had great difficulty in restoring order and maintaining the decorum of the House and the affected members contributed to the disruption and delayed the business of the House. The Speaker made various rulings before she ordered the members to leave the House, which they refused to do.

The Speaker had no choice but to ask the members to leave the House in order to restore order to the proceedings. When they refused to do so, she asked the Serjeant-at-Arms to assist the members to leave the House. When they still refused to heed the Serjeant-at-Arm’s request to leave as ordered to do so by the Speaker, the Speaker then had to call the Parliamentary Protection Services to remove the affected members.

Lastly, Ms Yako and Mr Mafanya were ordered to leave the House but refused. The Serjeant-at-Arms was instructed to assist them to leave the House, but they still refused to do so. The Parliamentary Protection Services had to be called in and escort them out of the House.

Adv ka-Siboto requested Mr Xaso to briefly restate what happens when a member has been physically removed from the House. He stated that the circumstances of the removal of the member is referred to the Subcommittee on Physical Removal of Member from Chamber. The Subcommittee would then meet and express itself on the circumstances that led to such a removal. It would look at the conduct of the member concerned, the ruling of the Presiding Officer, and the manner in which the member was removed. The relevant and applicable rule in such circumstances is Rule 73.

At the conclusion of its deliberations, the Subcommittee reports to the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee considers the report and decides what ought to happen to the report and its recommendations. If the Rules Committee is of the view that the matter should be considered by the Committee, it refers it to the Committee for investigation and report. The House makes the ultimate decision on matters referred to the Committee.

Adv ka-Siboto sought to imply that the Committee was both a complainant and a judge in the matter before it as it first applies its mind on whether a member must be charged or not, and then sits in judgment on whether a member is guilty or not. Mr Xaso responded that it was up to the Committee to answer that question.

Mr Xaso disagreed with the notion that the Committee may have preconceived ideas of guilt or not of the affected members just because they formed an opinion that the members had a case to answer based on the initial evidence before it as submitted by the Presiding Officer, the report of the Subcommittee, unrevised Hansard and the video footage. He pointed out that there had been cases where the Committee had decided that there was no basis to charge members. One such case related to the SONA of 2020.

Adv ka-Siboto pointed out that the Committee had charged a member who was not in the House on the day in question, i.e. 10 June, and that member was Ms Mkhonto. Mr Xaso indicated that if they had misidentified Ms Mkhonto, he would concede that after verification. Furthermore, he agreed that if it was not Ms Mkhonto who was removed from the Chamber on that day, she would have been improperly charged. But that was his personal opinion as it was up to the Committee to make that determination.

It was put to Mr Xaso that the Speaker was not always consistent in applying the rules. In some instances, she would merely ask members to desist from whatever impermissible conduct they were engaged in, but in others she would ask them to withdraw from the House. He responded that it was not always necessary to caution members as it was not required by the rules. It would depend on the nature of the transgression. If it was considered a minor incident, a caution would sometime be sufficient, but it was not a requirement.

With regard to the physical removal of members who were alleged to have interfered with the removal of a colleague, Advocate ka-Siboto noted that the Speaker did not follow the procedures prescribed by Rule 73, which required that the member must first be ordered to leave the Chamber, if he or she refuses, the Serjeant-at-Arms must be requested to remove the member. Mr Xaso responded that Rule 73(5) and (6) provides that a member who interferes with the removal of a member may be removed from the Chamber forthwith. The Rules do not suggest that the Serjeant-at-Arms must first be called.

Mr Xaso explained repeatedly that there was a procedure for members who felt aggrieved with a ruling of a Presiding Officer, which was to write to the Speaker and request that the principle or subject matter of the ruling be referred to the Rules Committee.

Adv ka-Siboto called his only witness, Mr Tambo, to give evidence on his behalf and that of some other members. Mr Tambo contested that he not supposed to was treated without courtesy before he was removed from the House. He was of the view that he should have been asked to leave the House. He indicated that the Serjeant-at-Arms was not asked to assist him to leave the House.

Mr Tambo testified that he had stood up when the Serjeant-at-Arms came to remove Ms Chirwa and that he interacted with him on the basis that there could not be another situation where female members could be removed by male members of the PPS. In his view, he wanted that to be related to the Speaker. He had no intention to interfere with the staff member but to raise an objection regarding males removing female members.

During cross-examination, Mr Tambo admitted that after an order was made by the Speaker for Ms Chirwa to be removed from the Chamber, he exchanged chairs with Ms Chirwa from sitting to her right and then to her left. He also admitted that he interacted with the Serjeant-at-Arms that the ruling of the Speaker may not be effected by a male, and had to be effected by a female member of the PPS.

He furthermore admitted that the Serjeant-at-Arms did not proceed to remove Ms Chirwa after his interaction with him. Mr Tambo also stated that he was aware that the Serjeant-at-Arms did not have the power to act on his own, but on the Speaker’s instruction.

Mr Tambo admitted that he had observed the Serjeant-at-Arms approach a member ordered to leave the House speaking respectfully to the member and then return to the Speaker. It was only then that the PPS staff would be called by the Speaker to remove a member.

Findings of the Committee

Having engaged with the evidence presented by the initiator, including the video footages of 9 & 10 June 2022, the unrevised Hansard, the Reports of the Subcommittee and the Speaker, the Committee found the evidence persuasive in terms of the arguments and evidence put forward.
The Committee found that the affected members had disrupted and delayed proceedings beyond what was reasonable when members interject and heckle, disregarded blatantly the rulings and authority of the Speaker by refusing to withdraw unparliamentary remarks, to leave when ordered to do so by the Speaker and the Serjeant-at-Arms and had to be physically removed from the Chamber.

It further found that some members physically and violently resisted being removed or interfered with the removal of their colleagues. It regarded that conduct as egregious.

The Committee noted that the issue of the composition of the Committee was before the court, but the Assembly Rules regarding the matter were not suspended.
Furthermore, the issue before the Committee was a narrow one. It was to look at the evidence presented and decide whether contempt had indeed been committed by the affected members.

Lastly, the Committee found all the charged members guilty as charged.

Aggravating and mitigating factors with respect to penalties

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

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:

a formal warning;
a reprimand;
an order to apologise to Parliament or House or any person, in a manner determined by the House;
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;
the removal, or the suspension for a specified period, of the member from any Parliamentary position occupied by the member;
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 Office Bearers Act, 1998 (Act No 20 of 1998); or
the suspension of the member, with or without remuneration, for a period not exceeding 30 days, whether or not the House, or any of its committees is scheduled to meet during that period.”

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

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 (the Speaker) by refusing to obey her rulings.

The initiator submitted that the affected members warranted a penalty that was sufficiently serious. To this end, she recommended that the penalty set out in section 12(g) of the Act read with section 12((9) of the Act would be appropriate for Ms Ntlangwini, Mr Tambo and Mr Montwedi, i.e. suspension of the three affected members without remuneration for a period of one month, whether or not the House or any of its committees was scheduled to meet during that period. She suggested that the penalty of suspension without remuneration begin from 1 April to 30 April 2024. Furthermore, the three members were repeat offenders and none of the sections prescribed by the Act would be sufficient to deter the members.

She submitted that a further appropriate penalty for five affected members, i.e. Ms Marais, Ms Mathulelwa, Ms Tafeni, Ms Chirwa and Mr Matumba, would be a fine equivalent to a month’s salary and allowances in terms of section 12(5)(f) of the Act. These members either physically resisted to be removed from the House or interfered with the removal of a member.

Lastly, a further appropriate penalty for Ms Yako and Mr Mafanya, would be a fine equivalent to 50% of their salary and allowances in terms of section 12(5) of the Act. Although the PPS had to remove the members, they did not physically resist being removed.

A further appropriate penalty for all the charged members was an order to apologise in person and physically in the House to the President, the Speaker, and the people of South Africa in terms of section 12(5)(c) of the Act.

The legal representative of the affected members addressed the Committee and argued in mitigation that the charges were preferred against the affected members in an inconsistent manner which was clear from the evidence presented. He submitted that an appropriate penalty for all the affected members would be a reprimand in the House in terms of section 12(5)(b) of the Act.

The Committee found the submission of the Initiator persuasive on aggravation, and reached consensus that her proposed penalties be agreed to.

Recommendations to the House

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

An order to apologise in person by all the affected members in the House to the President, the Speaker and the people of South Africa as determined by the House as set out in section 12(5)(c) of the Act before 29 March 2024;
With respect to Ms Yako and Mr Mafanya, a fine equivalent to a 50% (fifty percent) of their salary and allowances in terms of section 12(5)(f) of the Act with effect from 1 April 2024;
For Ms Marais, Ms Mathulelwa, Ms Tafeni and Ms Chirwa, a fine equivalent to 30 days of their salary and allowances in term of section 12(5)(f) of the Act with effect from 1 April; and
Suspension of Ms Ntlangwini, Mr Tambo and Mr Montwedi without remuneration for a period of 30 days, whether or not the House or any of its committees is scheduled to meet during that period starting from 1 April to 30 April 2024 as set out in section 12(5)(g) read with section 12(9) of the Act.

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

Report to be considered.

ANNEXURE A

Charges preferred against members for incident of 9 June 2022

1. Charges preferred against Ms Ntlangwini were that:

Charge 1

“You contravened section 7(a) of the Act when during the proceedings you wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69(d) of the Rules of the National Assembly when you called the President a “money launderer” and accused him of criminal conduct. Your conduct disrupted the proceedings of the National Assembly and improperly interfered with the performance by the House of its authority and functions.”

Charge 2

"You contravened section 7(a) of the Act in that you wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69(c) when you repeatedly undermined the authority of the Presiding Officer or repeatedly refused to obey rulings of the Presiding Officer. You disrespected her and interrupted her when she requested you to withdraw the improper statements you made about the President."

Charge 3

"You contravened Section 7(a) of the Act in that you wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 73(1) when you refused to leave the Chamber when ordered to do so by the Presiding Officer. You created serious disorder and disruption in the House in contravention of Rule 70 and/or Rule 69(a)."

Charge 4

"You contravened Section 7(a) of the Act in that you wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69(f) when you acted in a manner seriously detrimental to the dignity, decorum, and orderly procedure of the House."

Charge 5

"You wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 70 and Rule 73(1) and (2) when you failed to respect the authority of the Presiding Officer when she ordered that you leave the Chamber. You refused to leave the Chamber after the Serjeant-at-Arms requested your removal."

2. Charges preferred against Mr Mafanya were that:

Charge 1:

"You wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 92(8) and (9) of the Rules of the National Assembly when you continuously proceeded to raise a point of order when the Presiding Officer had ruled that no member may raise a point of order again until the President had delivered his Budget Speech."

Charge 2:

"You wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69(a) when you deliberately created serious disorder and disruption in the House when you refused to obey the authority of the Presiding Officer when she ruled on the points of order."

Charge 3:

"You wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69(c) when you repeatedly undermined the authority of the Presiding Officer and/or repeatedly refused to obey her rulings and you disrespected and continuously interrupted the Presiding Officer while she addressed the House."

Charge 4:

"You wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69(f) when you behaved in a manner which was seriously detrimental to the dignity, decorum and orderly procedure of the House."

3. Charges preferred against Ms Mathulelwa were that:

Charge 1:

"You wilfully refused and failed to obey Rule 92(8) and subrule (9) when you continued to raise a point of order despite the fact that the Presiding Officer had ruled that no points of order would be allowed until the President delivered his Budget Speech."

Charge 2:

"You wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69(d) when you made serious allegations against the President by calling him a criminal without adequate substantiation or following the correct procedure."

Charge 3

"You wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69(c) when you repeatedly undermined the authority of the Presiding Officer and you repeatedly refused to obey the ruling of the Presiding Officer when she instructed you to withdraw the statement that the President was a criminal."

Charge 4:

"You contravened Section 7(a) in that you wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69(a) when you deliberately created serious disorder and disruption in the House."

Charge 5:

"You wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69(f) when you acted in a manner which was seriously detrimental to the dignity, decorum and orderly procedure of the House."

Charge 6:

"You wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 70(1), read with Rule 70(2) when the Presiding Officer ordered you to leave the Chamber immediately, and you refused to do so. You again refused to leave the Chamber after the Serjeant-at-Arms requested you to do so. You were then removed by the Parliamentary Protection Services (the PPS), after they were instructed to remove you by the Presiding Officer."

Charge 7

"You wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 73(4) and (5) when you refused to leave the Chamber when requested to do so by the Serjeant-at-Arms and when you physically resisted and physically fought with members of the PPS when they tried to remove you from the Chamber."

4. Charges preferred Mr Matumba were that:

Charge 1

"You wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69(a) of the Rules of the National Assembly when you deliberately created serious disorder or disruption in the House."

Charge 2

"You contravened Section 7(a) when you deliberately breached Rule 69(c) when you repeatedly undermined and disregarded the authority of the Presiding Officer and repeatedly refused to obey rulings of the Presiding Officer and/or you repeatedly

disrespected her and interrupted her whilst the latter was addressing the House."

Charge 3

"You contravened Section 7(a) in that you further contravened Rule 69(f) where you behaved in a manner which was detrimental to the dignity, decorum and orderly procedure of the House."

ANNEXURE B

Charges preferred against members for incident of 10 June 2022

Charges against Ms Ntlangwini were that:

Charge 1:

“You contravened Section 7(a) of the Act in that you wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69(a) when you deliberately created serious disorder and/or disruption in the House.”

Charge 2:

“You contravened Section 7(a) of the Act in that you wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69(c) when you repeatedly undermined the authority of the Presiding Officer and/or repeatedly refused to obey the rulings of the Presiding Officer, or repeatedly disrespected and interrupted the Presiding Officer while the latter addressed the House.”

Charge 3:

“You wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69(f) when you acted in a manner that was seriously detrimental to the dignity, decorum and orderly procedure of the House.”

Charge 4:

“You wilfully refused and failed to obey those 70(1) and (2) when you disrespected the authority of the Presiding Officer when she asked you to leave the House and when you refused to do so.”

Charge 5:

“That you wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 73(1) and (2) when you refused to leave the House when the Serjeant-at-Arms requested you to leave.”

2. Charges against Mr Matumba were that:

Charge 1:

"You wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 92(6), (8) and (9) when you refused to accept the ruling of the Presiding Officer that no points of order may be raised, and you deliberately continued to disrupt the proceedings of the House by raising points of order that do not comply with the rules. Your conduct disrupted the proceedings of the National Assembly."

Charge 2:

"You wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69(a) when you deliberately created serious disorder and disruption of the House when you refused to obey and respect the authority of the Chair."

Charge 3:

"You wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69(b) when you physically intervened and physically prevented and/or obstructed and/or hindered your removal from the House after the Presiding Officer ruled that you leave the House. You physically pushed the Serjeant-at-Arms away when he approached you to leave the House."

Charge 4:

"You wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69(c) when you repeatedly undermined the authority of the Presiding Officer and/or repeatedly refused to obey the rulings of the Presiding Officer, and you repeatedly disrespected and/or interrupted her while the latter was addressing the House."

Charge 5:

"You contravened and failed to obey Rule 69(f) when you behaved in a manner which was seriously detrimental to the dignity, decorum and orderly procedure of the House."

3. Charges against Ms Mathulelwa were that

Charge 1:

"You wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69(a) when you deliberately created serious disorder and/or disruption in the House."

Charge 2:

"You wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69(b), when you physically intervened and prevented and/or obstructed and/or hindered the removal of EFF members, Ms Chirwa and Mr Tambo by the PPS."

Charge 3:

"You wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69(e) when you used violence against the PPS, who were called in to remove you from the Chamber. You physically fought with the PPS members and pushed them out of the way to stop them from removing you from the Chamber."

Charge 4:

"You wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69(a) when you deliberately created serious disorder and disruption in the House."

Charge 5:

"You wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69(c) when you repeatedly undermined the authority of the Presiding Officer and refused to obey the rulings of the Presiding Officer and/or you disrespected and interrupted the Presiding Officer while she addressed the House."

Charge 6:

"You wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69(f) when you acted in a manner which was seriously detrimental to the dignity, decorum and orderly procedure of the House."

Charge 7:

"You wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 64(d) when you crossed the floor of the House in front of the benches and when the mace was still in the House. Your conduct improperly interfered with or impeded the exercise or performance by the House of its authority and functions."

4. Charges against Ms Marais were that:

Charge 1:

"You wilfully refused and failed to obey Rule 69(a) when you created serious disruption and disorder in the House when you continued to shout at the Presiding Officer."

Charge 2:

“You contravened section 7(a) in that you wilfully refused and/or failed to obey rule 69© when you repeatedly undermined the authority of the Presiding Officer and/or repeatedly refused to obey rulings of the Presiding Officer. You repeatedly disrespected and interrupted the Presiding Officer while she addressed the House.”

Charge 3:

"You wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69(f) when you acted in a manner which was seriously detrimental to the dignity, decorum and orderly procedure of the House."

Charge 4:

"You wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 73(1), (2), (4) and (5) in that you refused the instruction of the Presiding Officer to leave the House. You continued to refuse to leave the House when the Serjeant-at-Arms requested you to do so. You continued to shout and disrupt the proceedings even when the PPS were called in to remove you from the Chamber."

5. Charges against Ms Chirwa were that:

Charge 1:

"You wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69(a) when you deliberately created serious disorder and/or disruption in the House."

Charge 2:

"You wilfully refused and failed to obey Rule 69(c) when you repeatedly undermined the authority of the Presiding Officer and/or repeatedly refused to obey rulings of the Presiding Officer and you disrespected and continuously interrupted the Presiding Officer when she addressed the House. You continued to shout at the Presiding Officer even though she ordered you to leave the House, which you refused to do."

Charge 3:

"You wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69(f) when you acted in a manner seriously detrimental to the dignity, decorum and orderly procedure of the House."

Charge 4:

"You wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69(e) when you used violence against the PPS when they attempted to remove you from the Chamber. You physically fought with the PPS to prevent your removal from the house. You also contravened Rule 73(4) and (5) when you refused to leave the Chamber when requested to do so by the Serjeant-at-Arms and the PPS."

6. Charges against Mr Tambo were that:

Charge 1:

"You wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69(a) when you deliberately created serious disorder and interruption in the House."

Charge 2:

"You contravened Section 7(a) in that you wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69(d) when you made serious allegations against the President that he was a criminal without adequate substantiation or following the correct procedure. You also continued to disregard the authority and instruction of the Presiding Officer when she warned you of the relevant rule which you had breached by calling the President a criminal."

Charge 3:

"You wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69(c) when you undermined the authority of the Presiding Officer and/or repeatedly refused to obey her rulings as the Presiding Officer and/or you repeatedly disrespected and interrupted her while she addressed the House."

Charge 4:

"You wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69(a) and (c) when you refused to take your seat after the Speaker repeatedly told you to sit down."

Charge 5:

"You wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69(f) when you behaved in a

manner, which was seriously detrimental to the dignity, decorum, and orderly

procedure of the House.”

Charge 6:

"You wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 73(5) when you physically blocked the Serjeant‑at-Arms from approaching member Ms Naledi Chirwa who was also asked by the Presiding Officer to leave the House. By doing so, you physically intervened and prevented and/or obstructed and/or hindered the removal of Ms Chirwa from the Chamber."

Charge 7:

"You wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69(e) when you physically fought and/or physically resisted your removal from the Chamber by the PPS pursuant to an instruction from the Presiding Officer that you be so removed. You also contravened Rule 73(1) (2) and (5)."

7. Charges against Mr Montwedi were that

Charge 1:

"You wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69(a) when through your conduct you deliberately created serious disorder and/or disruption in the House."

Charge 2:

"You wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69(c) when you repeatedly undermined the authority of the Presiding Officer and/or repeatedly refused to obey rulings of the Presiding Officer and you continuously interrupted the Presiding Officer when she addressed the House."

Charge 3:

"You wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69(f) when you acted in a manner seriously detrimental to the dignity, decorum and orderly procedure of the House."

Charge 4:

"You wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69(e) when you fought with the Parliamentary Protection Services when they attempted to remove you from the Chamber. You also contravened Rule 92(8) when you refused to leave the Chamber when requested to do so by the Serjeant-at-Arms."

8. Charges against Ms Yako were that:

Charge 1

"You wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69(a) when you deliberately created serious disorder and/or disruption in the House."

Charge 2:

"You wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69(c) when you repeatedly undermined the authority of the Presiding Officer and repeatedly refused to obey her rulings. You repeatedly disrespected and interrupted the Presiding Officer."

Charge 3:

"You wilfully refused and/or failed to obey Rule 69(f) when you behaved in a manner which was seriously detrimental of the dignity, decorum and orderly procedure of the

House."

Documents