The EFF welcomes the ConCourt judgement on the use of police to remove members of Parliament
18 March 2016
The Economic Freedom Fighters welcomes the Constitutional Court (“ConCourt”) judgement that declares the use of the police to remove members of parliament from the national assembly to be be unconstitutional.
The EFF members of parliament were assaulted and forcibly removed from the national assembly in 2015 during the State of the Nation Address by the police when they demanded that the illegitimate president Zuma answer the #PayBackTheMoney question. The EFF has consistently argued that the forcible removal of MPs from national assembly is unlawful and violates their constitutional privilege of freedom of speech. The EFF had further presented cogent argument in the Rules Committee of Parliament that members of parliament should never be forcibly removed for the things they say, however uncomfortable. The position of the EFF has always been that the only time members of parliament should be removed from the national assembly is when they pose danger to security or lives of fellow members, something which the law provides for.
The ConCourt judgement delivered by Justice Madlanga specifically states that:
“It cannot be all conduct that annoys and tests the patience of the presiding officer and some in Parliament that amounts to interference or disruption. Robustness, heatedness and standing one’s ground inhere in the nature of parliamentary debate. To warrant removal from the Chamber, interference or disruption must go beyond what is the natural consequence of robust debate. Otherwise the very idea of parliamentary free speech may be eroded. In the heat of a debate one must expect that – from time to time – a member’s contributions will not come to a screeching, mechanical halt once the presiding officer has ruled that the member desist from further debate on a subject.”
The existing rules of Parliament, which the Speaker and other presiding officers continuously employ to forcibly eject members of parliament, especially those of the EFF when engaging in robust debate, are not in concert with the view of the ConCourt. The use of burly bouncers against members of parliament interferes with their constitutional performance of their functions. The ConCourt reiterates that for members of parliament to effectively carry out their functions in terms of the Constitution, robust debate must not be stifled.
The EFF will table a proposal to amend the Rules of Parliament in order to align them with the prescripts of the Constitution with regards to the member’s privilege of free speech. The ConCourt expressly states that, “sections 58(1)(a) and 71(1)(a) of the Constitution make freedom of speech in the two Houses subject to “the rules and orders” envisaged in sections 57 and 70. That must mean rules and orders may - within bounds that do not denude the privilege of its essential content – limit parliamentary free speech.”
The EFF urges the Speaker of Parliament, Baleka Mbete, to begin to respect the Constitution and the rights and privileges of members of parliament. The institution of parliament must never be reduced to serve narrow political interests of the ruling party and be abused to protect criminals masquerading as state presidents from accountability.
Issued by Mbuyiseni Quintin Ndlozi, National Spokesperson, EFF, 18 March 2016
