ATC241126: Report of the Joint Committee on Ethics and Members’ Interests on the Alleged Contravention of the Code of Ethical Conduct and Disclosure of Members’ Interests: Honourable Gayton Mckenzie, MP: The Minister of Sport, Arts and Culture
Joint Committee on Ethics and Members’ Interest
REPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON ETHICS AND MEMBERS’ INTERESTS ON THE ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION OF THE CODE OF ETHICAL CONDUCT AND DISCLOSURE OF MEMBERS’ INTERESTS: HONOURABLE GAYTON MCKENZIE, MP: THE MINISTER OF SPORT, ARTS AND CULTURE
The Joint Committee on Ethics and Members’ Interests having considered the complaint against the Honourable Gayton McKenzie, MP: The Minister of Sport, Arts and Culture reports as follows.
INTRODUCTION
Ms Levona Steenkamp, (“the Complainant”) submitted a complaint to the Joint Committee on Ethics and Members’ Interests (“the Committee”) concerning the Honourable Minister Gayton Mckenzie, MP, the Minister of Sport, Arts and Culture (“the Member”). The Office of the Registrar of Members’ Interests received the complaint on 11 July 2024 for an alleged breach of the Code on Ethical Conduct and Members’ Interests (“the Code”).
SUMMARY OF THE COMPLAINT
The Complainant states that the Member made a live video on social media which was directed at her. The Complainant states that the Member threatened her with a court order in relation to an allegation that he stole Joshlin Smith. Also, that the Member asked members of his political party (i.e. the Patriotic Alliance) to tell her that, “court papers” were on its way. The Complainant states that because the Member is in a ministerial position he is abusing his power to threaten her as an ordinary citizen.
She states that the threat of legal action by the Member was in response to content that she posted on social media wherein she raised the issue of promises made by the Member, in relation to matters in Beaufort West, that the Member allegedly did not fulfil. She states that he is also inciting violence against her by his party members because she does not believe in the manifesto of the Member’s political party.
As a result of the social media content by the Member, the members of his political party have bashed the Complainant and her family as well as bullying her verbally and attacking her sexuality. She states that because of his live video, other members of his political party have also echoed his words toward her.
She states that it is her constitutional right to choose a political party and that she should not be threatened for not supporting the Member and his political party.
The Complainant asked the Committee to investigate the matter and that the Committee takes the appropriate action against the Member.
SUMMARY OF RESPONSE BY THE MEMBER
The Member was given an opportunity to respond and did so.
The Member states that the Complainant claims that the content of his live Facebook video, was threatening in nature. The Member clarified the following:
1. Nature of the Statement
He states that the video was aimed at informing the public that he instructed his attorney to sue individuals who had been defaming him on social media and to seek an interdict to prevent them from using his name to gain fame. He states that he did not mention the Complainant’s name in his statement but that he was speaking about a number of people who had been defaming him on social media. The Member states that there is no basis for the specific allegation.
2. Context and Background
He states that the Complainant made and continues to make defamatory statements against him. That her ongoing conduct shows that she does not truly feel threatened by him or his party. The purpose of his statement was to notify the public that he is pursuing legal process to address the defamatory conduct directed at him. He states that the statement that he made does not bring Parliament into disrepute. Rather, he states that it is his legal right to seek redress through the courts for defamation. The statement did not use derogatory, racist or sexist language, nor did it incite violence or promote hate speech, which is the requirement found in item 9 of the Code.
3. Compliance with the Code of Ethical Conduct.
The Member states that it is his submission that the statement that he made on social media does not contravene item 9 of the Code. The statement was made in his personal capacity and pertains to a legal matter. He argues that the statement upholds the standards of ethical conduct as required by item 5 of the Code. That, it is legitimate and lawful action for him to protect his reputation from unfounded defamatory statements.
4. Abuse of process.
The Member states that it is his belief that the complaint by the Complainant is an abuse of process. He states that it is yet another attempt by her to defame him and to gain unwarranted attention. He states that the complaint lacks merit.
The Member requests that the Committee dismiss the complaint. He states that he is committed to upholding the highest standards of ethical conduct as a Member of Parliament and as the Minister of Sport, Arts and Culture. Further, that the Complainant will be given an opportunity to defend her actions in a court of law
VIDEO FOOTAGE
The video footage depicts the following:
The Member refers to a lady from Beaufort West which has made allegations. He states that she will “get her papers on Tuesday”. He also refers to a lady who said that he stole Joshlin Smith, in Laingsburg, she will also get her papers. He states further that she will get court papers this coming Tuesday. The Member states that he will post the letters that will go to these people. Further, that there are 34 people who made allegations against him and that the lawyers went meticulously … that he will call all the patriots to come to court on the day when these people have to answer to the allegations before a court. The Member then corrects his comment to state that they will get the court papers on Wednesday. That the people who made these wild allegations against, by saying that he stole Joshlin Smith, must answer to a court of law to say why they made all these allegations against him.
THE PROVISIONS OF THE CODE
Item 9 of the Code provides as follows:
“(1) A Member must not bring Parliament into disrepute when using, engaging in or communicating content on social media platforms.
(2) A Member who is addressing another Member or a member of the public on social media platforms must not use derogatory, racist or sexist language or content that is derogatory, racist, sexist.
(3) A Member, when using social media platforms may not incite violence or promote hate speech.
(4) When engaging in content on social media platforms, a Member may not, like, share, or comment on content that is derogatory, racist, sexist or promotes violence or hate speech in order to promote such content.”
COMMITTEE DELIBERATIONS
1. The Committee noted that the Member does not mention anybody by name in the video. He refers to a lady from Beaufort West, or Laingsburg or 34 people. There is therefore no direct link between the comment made by the Member and its identification of who the person is, or persons are, that the Member is referring to.
2. The only way that a link can be established between what the Member said and to whom he was referring to, is if the person(s) who made the comment against the Member knew to whom he was directing the comment.
3. The allegation by the Complainant that the Member threatened her with court papers, is irrelevant for the purpose of the requirements of the Code. The word “threatened” as an action taken by the Member toward the Complainant should, according to the Oxford Advanced Learners dictionary, indicate “that you will harm someone”. The Committee noted that is not what is depicted in the video footage.
4. There is also no comment in the video footage by the Member where he uses derogatory, racist, sexist language.
5. The comment made by the Member that he will call the “patriots” to attend court on the day when the matter is heard, does not promote violence or hate speech.
The Committee noted that the content of the video footage is not in contravention of the provisions of item 9 of the Code. Further, that the conduct complained of by the Complainant is not evident in the video footage. The Committee therefore found that the complaint is unfounded and that the Member did not breach the Code.
REPORTED FOR INFORMATION
MS. L.S MAKHUBELA MR. J.H.P. BRTIZ
THE CO-CHAIRPERSONS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON ETHICS AND MEMBERS’ INTERESTS