Deputy President hiding behind sub judice rule to avoid accountability

4 March 2014

Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa's refusal today to answer my question on the use of signal jamming devices and other security measures in Parliament on 12 February, on the grounds that the matter is sub judice, is nothing more than a political ploy to avoid executive accountability.

I asked the Deputy President to guarantee that the Executive will never again be allowed to use similar measures in violation of our Constitution and the sanctity of Parliament. The brutal removal of an entire caucus from the House by disguised members of the security services can never be allowed to happen again.

National Assembly (NA) Rule 67 was never intended to be used to obstruct the functioning of Parliament.

Invoking this rule to avoid addressing these gross violations of our Constitution is contrary to the spirit of our democracy.

The 2004 Guide to Procedure is clear that the rule should be applied in such a way so "as to impose the minimum limitation on open debate," and does not prohibit the discussion of matters before the court, but rather their merits. 

This does not preclude the Deputy President from engaging with the House on this important matter, a position supported by a ruling made by the Speaker of Parliament in 1998. Nor does it preclude the Deputy President from condemning the gross violation of the constitutional right to freedom of expression, and the separation of powers that took place during the President's State of the Nation Address.

As the Leader of Government Business, responsible for the affairs of the national executive in Parliament in terms of section 91(4) of the Constitution, the Deputy President must accept responsibility for the role of the Executive in the events of 12 February.

South Africans deserve answers to these questions of national importance. Yet the ANC under President Zuma has made a mockery of question time and are evasive in their answers.

Today the Deputy President fell far short of addressing this issue, and failed to provide any guarantee that similar measures will not be implemented in the future. I am forced to conclude that the door is being left open by the Executive to resort to these measures in the future.

This underscores the need for the DA's application in the Western Cape High Court for an interdict against the summoning of police to remove Members of Parliament from the National Assembly chambers.

The independence of Parliament must be respected, and cannot be compromised by the Executive to serve their personal agendas.

Statement issued by Mmusi Maimane MP, DA Parliamentary Leader, March 4 2015

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