Hon members, on Wednesday, 2 September 2009, hon Deputy Minister Surty rose on a point of order regarding a statement made by the hon Louw, during that day's sitting. The statement concerned what Mr Louw described as unacceptable behaviour by a member of this House, hon L Yengeni, who is also the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Labour. Deputy Minister Surty contended that the statement by the hon Louw was an attack on the integrity of a member of this House and that such an attack had, in terms of the Rules, to be brought by way of a substantive motion and not through a member's statement.
I undertook to study the Hansard and rule on the matter. Having studied the unrevised Hansard, I wish to rule as follows: In his statement the hon Louw stated, inter alia, that the behaviour by the hon Yengeni created an atmosphere of intimidation, and she did nothing to stop these unwarranted personal attacks.
I wish to state at the outset that members enjoy freedom of speech in the House, and members should be allowed to exercise that freedom as much as possible. As regards the duty of members towards their fellow members, members should appreciate that their freedom of speech must of necessity be subject to the principle that they may not impute improper or unworthy motives to others.
All members are hon members, and every hon member should, therefore, act towards other members with the same decorum and respect which he or she expects from them. It is a well-established convention in this House that accusations of improper conduct by fellow members may not be made in the course of a debate or even in member's statements.
A member who wishes to bring to the attention of the House allegations of any improper conduct on the part of another member should do so by way of a substantive motion, comprising a clearly formulated and properly substantiated charge. Except upon such a substantive motion, members should not be allowed to impute improper motives to other members, cast personal reflections on their integrity as members or verbally abuse them in any other way.
This is a mechanism agreed to by this House, and members are not only expected to be aware of it, but to utilise it where appropriate. While I found the statement by the hon Louw was in the main permissible, to accuse another member of intimidation is, however, a serious accusation which the Chair cannot allow. I would, therefore, ask the hon Louw to withdraw the remarks.
Mr Chairman, may I address you, sir? I am not going to conflict your ruling, sir. I simply want to say ...
No, no. Mr Ellis, please take your seat. Is Mr Louw in the House?
Mr Louw is in the House, sir, yes. Mr Chairman ...
Hon Louw, can you respond to the ruling please.
Thank you, Chairperson. I withdraw.
Thank you.