From the debate on President Jacob Zuma's State of the Nation Address, National Assembly, Monday, February 15 2010

Mr MLULEKI GEORGE (COPE MP): Hon Deputy Speaker, Mr President, Mr Deputy President, members of government and hon colleagues, it is indeed refreshing, exciting and recommitting to remember the role played by one of our stalwarts in ensuring that today we can all stand here, in this Chamber, enjoying the fruits of their work. In this regard Cope wants to extend a word of gratitude to the ruling party for dedicating the State of the Nation Address to President Nelson Mandela. It is indeed befitting his contribution to the achievement of democracy in our lifetime.

Twenty years ago South Africa was full of enthusiasm, with hope for a better life. However, it is regrettable that, as we celebrate one of the most important moments in the struggle for freedom, the enthusiasm we once had is no longer there. It is further regrettable that the current President of the Republic has betrayed, and continues to betray, the hopes of the people of South Africa.

President Mandela was not only the embodiment of integrity, but also struggled that all leaders must strive and lead with integrity. The recent events affecting the President of the Republic are the direct opposite of what President Mandela struggled for. Cope is vindicated for its decision not to vote for the current President of the Republic when this House voted nine months ago. [Interjections.]

President Mandela was an architect and champion of women's emancipation and respect. Our President does not seem to agree with this important political position. In fact, it looks like he has made it his responsibility to contradict this important principle. Our President pretends to emulate President Mandela and yet he continues to contradict him. President Mandela has never bought votes with food parcels and empty, unrealistic promises. [Applause.] [Interjections.] He did not do this, because at all times he maintained his integrity.

When required by the laws of this country, President Mandela complied and subjected himself to the rule of law through our courts, and yet the current President went through every trick available to present himself as someone above the law. [Laughter.]

South Africa yearns for leadership and under the current President this is nowhere to be found ...

The MINISTER OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (ANC MP, NALEDI PANDOR): Madam Deputy Speaker, on point of order: I understand the hon member earlier indicated robust debate. However, the hon member is making unsubstantiated allegations against the hon the President and I believe he is actually infringing Rule 99 of the Rules of the National Assembly. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (ANC MP, NOMAINDIA MFEKETO): Hon member ... [Interjections.] We must have robust debate, but that debate must be general. The President, when he is in this House, is protected, as any other member. You cannot directly accuse him. General debate, yes, but I am asking you to refrain from accusing the President, please. [Interjections.]

Mr M E GEORGE: Thank you very much.

Ms J D KILLIAN (COPE MP): Hon Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: Rule 99 is not the applicable rule. Hon Minister Pandor certainly quoted the wrong rule. Secondly, I want to make the point that the hon member has freedom of speech in this House. Thank you. [Applause.]

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION (DA MP, IAN DAVIDSON): Madam Deputy Speaker ...

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is that on the same issue?

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: On the same issue. Madam Deputy Speaker, I would just like to read Rule 99:

A member may give notice of a motion on behalf of an absent member, provided he or she has been authorised to do so by the absent member.

What are you talking about? [Laughter.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon members ...

The MINISTER OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: I can reply. The hon member is probably correct that I have cited the wrong rule. [Interjections.] Hold on a moment. Unfortunately for the hon members who cannot listen to others ...

Mr MIKE ELLIS (DA MP): Madam Deputy Speaker ...

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is a member on the floor. [Interjections.]

The MINISTER OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: They know they are in trouble, Madam Deputy Speaker, so they cannot allow me to speak. [Interjections.] No member of the House can make an allegation impugning the integrity of any person who may be removed by virtue of a vote of this House. That is in the Rules. Find it - that is the rule I am referring to. [Interjections.] You well know that.

Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: May I ask, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the next time I stand up on a point of order and you rule me out of order, would you please give me the opportunity to explain to you in exactly the same way that you have given the hon Pandor the opportunity to explain?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will do that if you need that. But, hon members, I have ruled on this matter. Continue, hon George.

Mr M E GEORGE: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.

It is very clear from the State of the Nation Address that with President Zuma at the helm the people of South Africa are leaderless. It is very unfortunate that this happened when we celebrated President Mandela. President Mandela was a custodian of high moral values and set a very good example as the head of the Republic.

Hon Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon member perhaps talking about defence when he The MINISTER OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY VETERANS (ANC MP, LINDIWE SISULU): says that the country was leaderless? [Laughter.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Continue, hon George.

Mr M E GEORGE: It is very disturbing that the State of the Nation Address is extremely quiet about this important leadership quality. It appears that the nation is being deliberately led to lawlessness, with absolutely no morals and respect for its people.

The first nine months of the current government under President Zuma has been characterised by despondence, in-fighting in government, poor people becoming poorer ...

Mr C T FROLICK: Madam Deputy Speaker, the hon member has just referred to a deliberate action by the hon the President of the Republic, and that is an infringement of Rule 63 and Rule 66. Can you rule on that, please? [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

An HON MEMBER: Hon Deputy Speaker, I was wondering, when Mr Muleleki George was speaking about morals, can he tell us what happened to the 4x4s? [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon George?

Mr M E GEORGE: The President appears to be an absent leader. This, Mr President, cannot be allowed to continue forever.

Mr C T FROLICK: Madam Deputy Speaker, I raised a point of order in line with Rule 63 and Rule 66 of the Rules of the National Assembly, where the hon member reflected on deliberate action from the President to lead people to lawlessness, and I respectfully request you to ask the hon member to withdraw the statement. [Interjections.]

Mr M J ELLIS: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: Mr Frolick is 100% wrong. As Members of Parliament we are entitled to freedom of speech. [Interjections.] We certainly can reflect on the behaviour and actions of individual members. The ANC does it to us all the time. And Mr Frolick is jumping up and down about nothing. We have every right in this debate to take on the President of this country. [Applause.]

Mr C T FROLICK: Madam Deputy Speaker, for the sake of Mr Ellis, it is "the hon member Frolick". But it is quite clear, Madam Deputy Speaker, in terms of interpreting Rule 63 and Rule 66, that the member mentioned deliberate action on the part of the President, and that is unparliamentary. It requires a substantive motion to justify what the hon member has said. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Can we allow the hon George to continue? [Interjections.] Order! If all of us were to stick to the rules of this House, we would not have the disruption that we are having. Hon Frolick, I will check that and come back with a ruling.

Mr M E GEORGE: Hon Deputy Speaker, we call on the President and his government to prevail in the so-called nationalisation of the mines. We know, as everyone else does, that this call is not an innocent one, but meant to benefit a tiny privileged group within the ruling party.

The name of President Mandela must not be used for mischievous intentions, and the President of the Republic has a responsibility to provide leadership on these matters. Mr President, when some in the alliance attack Ministers, please prevail in this regard. We regret that this was deliberately left out of the State of the Nation Address.

The nation cannot afford to spend another day discussing the so-called private lives and uncontrollable desires of individuals. Thank you. [Interjections.] [Applause.]

[CUT]

The issue was returned to the following day in the National Assembly after President Jacob Zuma had delivered his reply to the debate on his state of the nation address, Tuesday, February 16 2010:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (NOMAINDIA MFEKETO): Hon members, yesterday, during the debate on the state of the nation address, hon C T Frolick raised a point of order and asked whether it was parliamentary for hon M E George to effectively accuse the hon President of the Republic, of "deliberately leading the nation into lawlessness".

I undertook to study the Hansard before ruling on the matter. Having now had the opportunity to study the unrevised Hansard, I wish to rule as follows.

In his speech, hon George stated that, "It appears that the nation is deliberately led into lawlessness, with absolutely no morals and respect for its people." If this statement is read in the context of his speech, it is clear that hon George is either referring to the hon President or the Ministers as a collective.

It creates the impression that the President or his government is inciting lawlessness. Making unsubstantiated allegations about the integrity of any member is unparliamentary. I think it is important to indicate that members should appreciate that their freedom of speech must of necessity be subject to the principle that they may not impute improper motives to their fellow members. All members are honourable and every member should therefore act towards other hon members with the same decorum and respect that he or she expects from them.

Needless to say, this same protection also applies to the President. A member that wishes to bring to the attention of the House any improper conduct on the part of any member should do so by way of a separate substantive motion, comprising a clearly formulated and properly substantiated charge. Except upon such a motion, members should not be allowed to impute improper motives to other members or cast personal reflections on their integrity as members.

In addition, when taking office, the President of the Republic and Ministers take an oath or solemn affirmation to obey, observe, uphold and maintain the Constitution and all other laws of the Republic. To suggest that the President, or his Cabinet for that matter, deliberately leads the nation to lawlessness is a serious allegation and should be brought to the attention of the House by a substantive motion.

The remark made by hon George, that "the nation is deliberately led into lawlessness", is out of order, and I must therefore ask hon George to withdraw his statement unconditionally. Hon George! [Interjections.] Order!

Mr M E GEORGE: Madam Deputy Speaker, may I address you on the issue, because ... ?

Hon MEMBERS: No!

Mr M E GEORGE: If you don't want me to address ... I have to address you, Madam Deputy Speaker ...

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon George, I ask you to withdraw unconditionally.

Mr M E GEORGE: Madam Deputy Speaker, you said that my statement was out of order; you did not say that it was unparliamentary.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon George, when I read my ruling, I said that your statement was unparliamentary. So, now I'm asking you to withdraw the statement.

Mr M E GEORGE: Madam Deputy Speaker, unfortunately, the statement I made was well-considered and it is not an attack on the integrity of any individual. But, ...

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon George! I'm asking you to withdraw the statement; that's all I'm asking you to do. I don't want to hear anything else. I'm asking you to withdraw the statement.

Mr M E GEORGE: Well, unfortunately, I can't withdraw the statement.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You can't withdraw the statement?

Mr M E GEORGE: No, because you don't allow me to explain. I have not attacked the integrity of any individual. I made a statement that is political, and I stand by it. 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon George, you are telling me that you don't want to withdraw the statement. Is that what you're saying? [Interjections.] Hon George!

Mr M E GEORGE: Yes, Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm asking you to withdraw the statement. Are you saying that you're not going to withdraw the statement?

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION (DA MP, IAN DAVIDSON): Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order! 

Mr M E GEORGE: On what basis? Or have you just decided that you'll bully me into withdrawing the statement? [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Hon George, I read a lengthy ruling. Unfortunately, I'm presiding here and I make the decisions.

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order!

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm asking you to withdraw the statement.

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Madam Dep ...

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm not going to allow any other person to speak on this matter; I'm dealing with hon George now.

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: I will wait till afterwards, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do rise on a point of order and I shall have that point of order taken.

Mr M E GEORGE: What do you want me to withdraw, Madam Deputy Speaker?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I want you to withdraw what you said - I read it here; unless you were not listening - "that the President ..."

Mr M E GEORGE: I was listening. I'm asking: What do you want me to withdraw?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: What you said, that the President deliberately leads this country into lawlessness.

Mr M E GEORGE: I did not say that. Already your interpretation is wrong. Read the document again. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon George, you don't want to withdraw? Will you please leave the House? [Applause.]

Mr MBHAZIMA SHILOWA (COPE MP): Hon Deputy Speaker, may I address you, please? [Interjections.]

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Madam Deputy Speaker, I have risen on a point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will not take any point of order from anybody on this matter. Order!

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a matter of absolute cardinal importance to this House. It interferes with the right of freedom of speech in the House, and it is not a correct reading of the Rule before you. I must make a point of order in order to motivate exactly why I believe you are wrong. What you are doing is narrowing significantly the whole point of freedom of speech in this House, and it is absolutely unacceptable. I think this matter must be debated further.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There's not going to be any debate.

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: It has to be debated further, because you've made a ruling which we cannot and will not accept.

Mr M S SHILOWA: Hon Deputy Speaker, may I address you, please?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Shall we move to the next item?

Mr M S SHILOWA: Then in that regard, hon Deputy Speaker, we will leave as a whole until the time you want Mr Mluleki George back. Thank you. [Interjections.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Fine! [Interjections.]

[COPE AND DA MPS THEN WALK OUT OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY CHAMBER]

The MINISTER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES (NOSIVIWE MAPISA-NQAKULA): Deputy Speaker, I do rise, for the record, to raise the fact that a member of the DA, hon [Dianne] Kohler-Barnard, as they were leaving, made what I believe is a very silly statement, and excuse my language, but she actually said, "Fuck you." [Interjections.]

I don't think we should take that lightly. We are not in a zoo here. We are not animals, and this is not a circus. I am really sorry, Deputy Speaker. I want this recorded, because if and when they return, this matter will have to be attended to. We may not allow a Member of Parliament to say "F you," to use the "F-word" against another Member of Parliament. It is incorrect. Thank you. 

The CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY (MATHOLE MOTSHEKGA, ANC MP): Deputy Speaker, it is important that for us, as the African National Congress, we put it on record that you made a ruling, which was well motivated, and that the ruling is fully acceptable to us and that we find it disturbing that members of Cope and the DA refused to accept a ruling and walked out of this Parliament, which is actually a violation of the rules of this House. They don't want to accept the ruling of this House, so they are trying to make Parliament unworkable. I think this has to be recorded.

Dr CORNE MULDER (FF+ MP): Deputy Speaker, may I address you on the point of order or the point made by the Chief Whip of the Majority Party? I would like to just bring to your attention that we are dealing obviously, as we all understand, with a very serious matter. On the one hand, we have the ruling that you have made, in terms of the order of the House, but we also the provisions of the Constitution, in terms of freedom of speech, and we need to balance this.

The way I understand it, and it is important for me also to understand and I think for all members in this House, is that we have always had a ruling from the Chair, since the beginning of 1994 that if a member refers to another member in terms of what you said, then it may be unparliamentary.

The distinction is that a member was allowed to refer, for example, to another political party. It was in order for the ruling party or for an opposition party to refer to another party's policies and to say that a specific policy is bad. That should be separate, and understood to be separate, than when a member specifically refers to a specific hon member and reflects on the integrity of that member.

All I am asking is this: That you make 120% sure that the statement was made in terms of a direct reflection on the person of the President or on the person of a specific member. If it is not the case, if it is a general reflection on a policy by a party, be that from this side on a policy from that side, then I would ask us to reconsider in terms of the provisions of the Constitution that allow freedom of speech. That is all I am asking. Thank you.

Mr KOOS VAN DER MERWE (IFP MP): Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise also to record that the IFP does not agree with your ruling. We think, with great respect, that you are wrong, and I agree with Dr Mulder, but we do not want to walk out. 

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon members. Let me pre-empt even those members who haven't spoken, because we want to continue to the next item. I made a ruling, a considered ruling, after studying the Hansard and also seeking advice. Now, even if the principle of that rule is incorrect, the members' responsibility is to take that to the Rules Committee and then question the ruling. I cannot have a situation where I am in the Chair during a debate and make a ruling and have a member of this House stand there and he or she cannot withdraw a comment. That is something that can never happen. [Applause.]

I take your point. If there is a need to review this, the Rules Committee must look at it, and they must tell me whether it was correct or wrong but not the member whom I have ruled against, supported by other parties. Thank you very much. Can we proceed?

Mr STEVE SWART (ACDP MP): Madam Deputy Speaker, may we just, from the ACDP, allow your indulgence for just one minute? I don't want to debate the issue further. I do just want to say that we also do not necessarily agree with your ruling, and we do believe that you have given a correct way forward, that the person should have referred it to the appropriate forum to decide. Obviously it becomes intolerable, if the person does not accept a ruling that you give in this House. We, from the ADCP side, do not necessarily agree with your ruling. However, we have decided to stay and participate in the parliamentary process and believe that it should have been taken up at a different forum. Thank you. [Applause.]

The MINISTER OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (NALEDI PANDOR, ANC MP): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would want to appreciate the remarks of the parties that have indicated acceptance of the direction you have proposed. However, I thought it important to indicate that the member not only infringed the ruling of the Deputy Speaker but infringed rules adopted by the Rules Committee of this House, which state that a member cannot reflect upon a ruling by the presiding officer, and, therefore, not be breaching or disagreeing just with your ruling, but infringing the very rules which guide members of this House. [Applause.]

Source: Unrevised transcript, Hansard

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter