Terms & conditions

Julius Malema and the Effniks go to parliament

Andrew Donaldson notes that practices such as the baring of buttocks tend to be frowned upon in the NA

A BUSY week ahead for Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng who will be swearing in new Members of Parliament on Wednesday.

It is an exciting time for the newcomers, especially the youngsters in Julius Malema's Economic Freedom Fighters who've been counting the sleeps and polishing their berets for the occasion.

But it's not going to be all giddy fun and photo-ops. There's homework to be done. The Effniks, if I may, will have to find time, between appointments with the haberdashers and hair stylists, to acquaint themselves with Parliamentary procedure. 

They'll need to bone up on the invective if they are, in the interests of the national discourse, to barrack their ruling party opponents - the rules of engagement call for a higher form of calumny, nothing crude or untoward. 

It is true that parliamentary privilege allows members to let fly with the odd "witticism" here and there, but the Speaker draws the line - and this is a point that cannot be over-emphasised - at the baring of buttocks and slaps to the face, tactics that once worked wonders for Juju when he led the ANC Youth League.

The opportunity for jeering and the blowing of raspberries will soon arise. As we understand it, here at the Mahogany Ridge, once MPs are sworn in, the National Assembly then votes to elect Jacob Zuma to a second term in office as President. He will be sworn in on Friday.

The good news here - in as much as there can be anything good about five more years with our singing and dancing pastor at the helm - is that Zuma will once again be reacquainted with the oath of office that he made in 2009, an oath that he evidently seems to have forgotten. Here's the relevant bit:

". . . I will be faithful to the Republic of South Africa, and will obey, observe, uphold and maintain the Constitution and all other law of the Republic; and I solemnly and sincerely promise that I will always: promote all that will advance the Republic, and oppose all that may harm it; protect and promote the rights of all South Africans; discharge my duties with all my strength and talents to the best of my knowledge and ability and true to the dictates of my conscience; do justice to all all; and devote myself to the well-being of the Republic and all of its people."

Effniks and newbie MPs should be aware that when Zuma is reciting the above, it is permissible to make loud gasping sounds of disbelief or feign violent choking fits.

This may seem a childish and inappropriate response to what should otherwise be a solemn occasion. But it is mere japery when compared to government's latest attempt to shield Zuma from scrutiny over Nkandlagate - namely the cynical decision by the security cluster ministers to take Public Protector Thuli Madonsela's report on the security upgrades at Zuma's country home on judicial review. What could be more abusive and contemptuous of Parliament and the Constitution?

Legal experts have dismissed the whole exercise as laughable, and unlikely to succeed. But Parliament would nevertheless not be able to deal with the matter while it was before the courts. As the Democratic Alliance's James Selfe put it, "It's a delaying tactic that has characterised the presidency of Zuma."

Meanwhile, the Daily Maverick's Ranjeni Munusamy has noted that there is, in effect, no government "security cluster" at present - as the new president has yet to be elected in Parliament, let alone appoint a new Cabinet. "It would seem, however, that the security ministers are quite confident that they will be able to undertake the review, even before they have been sworn in for the new term," Munusamy wrote.

Be that as it may. This non-existent existence, however, strikes me as rather odd. Would we now be disqualified on technical grounds from this weekend's African Union pow-wow in Ethiopia where justice ministers and attorneys-general of member countries are to consider a proposal, in part, to absolve sitting African leaders from their part in genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity?

One would certainly hope so. But just to be on the safe side, the DA has urged the SA delegation to vote against "shielding these leaders from accountability and, in effect, permit such leaders to perpetuate these human rights abuses." This is according to Sandy Kalyan, the party's deputy chief whip and a member of the Pan-African Parliament.

Forgive the naïveté, but how peculiar that the AU should consider such a move at a time when the continent marks the 20th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide. And how distressing that we have a government that would consider supporting it.

This article first appeared in the Weekend Argus.

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