Hon members, there is another ruling for 23 October. During Members' Statements, on Tuesday, 23 October 2012, the hon Chief Whip of the Majority Party rose on a point of order to ask, with reference to the statement made by the hon Lekota, whether it was parliamentary for a member of the House to make unsubstantiated allegations about the President, rather than to bring them to the House by way of a substantive motion. I asked for an opportunity to consider the statement and report back to the House. Having now had an opportunity to study the unrevised Hansard, I wish to rule as follows.
The hon Lekota indeed made allegations against the President that can only be made by way of a substantive motion, consisting of a properly formulated charge and prima facie evidence, as required by the Rules. He said, among other things, that the President "is illegally refusing to be bound by section 165(5) of the Constitution, which binds all persons to obey a judicial order". He also said that "Cope requests the Speaker that impeachment procedures against the President be instituted for defying a lawful judicial order".
The hon Kilian correctly quoted Rule 105 as entitling a member to address the House on any matter. She omitted, however, to mention Rule 63, which governs unparliamentary language and which includes, through rulings and practice, the prohibition on reflections against the integrity and character of members of the House.
What concerns me about this incident, in addition to its disruptive effect on the proceedings of the House, is that in the recent past the hon Lekota was admonished about exactly the same transgression of the Rules and practices. The hon Lekota is a long-standing member of this House, a former presiding officer who administered similar rulings in the NCOP, and a former Cabinet Minister, no less, who, as a senior politician, is alive to the consequences of his conduct and speech. In addition to the ruling made with reference to his remarks, he will therefore also be aware of the numerous occasions over the years when precisely the same ruling was given by other presiding officers.
In view of all of this, it is difficult not to conclude that the hon Lekota is deliberately acting in defiance of the Rules and established practices of the House, and is challenging the authority of the Chair. Such contraventions of the Rules have consequences. Therefore, I will appeal to the hon Lekota to adhere to the procedures of this House. The President, though not a member of the House, enjoys the same protection under the Rules. Should he consider the issues he referred to in his statement as important, he will have to use the correct and applicable Rules to bring them before this House.
Finally, for the reasons outlined above, I rule that the allegations by the hon Lekota were unparliamentary, and I ask him to withdraw his statement that the President acted illegally by refusing to obey a court order. Hon Lekota, would you please withdraw the statement?
Madam Deputy Speaker, this matter is now before the courts, as you know. We have a matter coming up before the courts on 29 November, precisely because the ruling you made against me previously was not only unconstitutional, but contrary even to the Rules of this House. To ask me to withdraw on a matter that is before the courts is to ask me to go ahead of the outcome of the court proceedings. I am not in a position to do that, because it would amount to the fact that I must withdraw my case in the courts. [Interjections.] I can't do that.
Also, I find it very significant when the Ministers on the other side of the House abused me as they did and as you have also correctly ruled now, that it has taken this long to wait until I acted in a certain way for it then to become convenient to do it, so that you enable yourself to rule against me and compel me to go against sub judice issues. I am not prepared to do this. All of us must be equal before the law. [Interjections.] It cannot happen in this way. I am sorry. [Applause.]
Hon Lekota, I am asking you to withdraw what you said. It is not connected to what the Ministers said. You are entitled to your opinion. I am asking you to ... and you are not saying that you did not say what you said. Could you please withdraw what you said? I understand what you are saying about the case.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I confirm indeed that I said what I said. As you know now, in fact, in that statement I said we are tabling a substantive motion in this House on that issue. I am not withdrawing it. There are facts to back up what we are talking about. That too is a matter before the courts of the nation. [Interjections.] I am not prepared to ...
Hon Lekota, all I am saying is that you were supposed, as you know very well, to bring what you said then in a substantive motion, which you didn't do, and I have been asked to rule, which I am doing. Please will you withdraw the remarks?
No, Madam Deputy Speaker. That would be tantamount to asking me to withdraw the case that I have brought against your ruling in the courts. [Interjections.] I am not doing it. I cannot do it.
Hon Lekota, some of the issues raised may indeed be before the courts. However, the Rules and practices of the House, as they obtain currently, must be upheld, until a different decision is made. At the moment, the court hasn't heard the case, and I am sure that I can say equally what you are saying. So, please, I am asking you to withdraw the remarks. [Interjections.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, I don't want to appear to defy you. I must just submit. I will not repeat this again, but I am not able and I am not prepared to withdraw what I said. [Interjections.]
Hon Lekota, because I think I have asked you to withdraw the remarks four or five times, could I request you to leave the Chamber? [Applause.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I kindly address you on this issue? The hon Lekota says that the matter is sub judice in the courts. Could you not postpone your final decision until after the court case? [Interjections.]
No, I cannot, hon Van der Merwe. Hon Lekota, I have asked you to leave the Chamber please, so that we can proceed with the matter.
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I please address you on the matter? We find it very inappropriate for the matter relating to the Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs and the Minister of Mineral Resources to have been placed on the backburner for several weeks; yet you come here before the National Assembly and you rule on a matter that was before the Assembly last week. You are acutely aware, and your advisers are acutely aware, of the fact that this matter is sub judice at present before the courts. So, we would like to request you to reconsider. You have given your ruling on the matter, but we want to ask you to please pend the execution thereof until the court has made its finding on the unconstitutionality of the ruling, as we presented it to the courts. [Interjections.]
Hon member, I hear what you are saying. Just as a courtesy, let me respond to the delay about the ruling on the Ministers' remarks. This House is quite aware that part of the ruling I made some weeks ago in early September. The fact that the two Ministers' rulings were not made is, as I said in this House, that I could not do the ruling in their absence. This is why I have said today that whether they were here or not, I was going to do the ruling. It was done so many weeks ago. Other people who spoke on that very topic withdrew. Now, the Ministers are not here. I am unable to drag them to the House. This is why I am doing it in their absence today. As far as the court is concerned, there would be chaos in this Chamber if the Rules were not upheld, court or no court. It is definitely not only me who understands that the hon Lekota took me to court. It should be the hon Lekota himself who abides by the Rules until the court makes a decision. [Interjections.] He hasn't done that. Why must it be the Chair who now has to say that the Rules can be messed with until the courts decide? Please, I am not entertaining any discussion on this. I took a considered view, after looking at all aspects of this. If Mr Lekota is not able to withdraw the remarks, which is simple ... because now he has even brought a substantive motion, which means that he knew when he was doing that that he was supposed to do it only by way of a substantive motion. If he is unable to withdraw, he knows what must be done. If you defy the Chair's ruling, you leave the Chamber. Please, Mr Lekota.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not prepared to withdraw the statement. You yourself would have known that you are before the courts of the land, because you made this very selfsame ruling you are making now. What you are now doing, in fact, is to say that ...
Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order ...
... whether the courts have ruled or not, you will do the same thing that is before the courts. You are not prepared to wait to get the ruling of the courts on the matter. But when it comes to these Ministers - they have not been here for more than a month - you were not making a ruling on the matter.
On a point of order ...
I am not going to take the point of order, hon member. Sorry.
Now, it suits you to make this ruling regarding me. That is why you did it when they are not even here. I have been pleading with you. I have been going to your office, because my reputation is at stake. You did nothing. The law says that only the President can deploy the armed forces. I told you about that. You are not saying anything about it. You are not commenting on the fact that I could never, as a Minister, deploy the armed forces. You found the President doing so.
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think this is really abuse of the House.
I am not prepared to accept this. I am sorry.
Hon Lekota, could you please leave the House? [Interjections.] I am not going to take ...
Madam Deputy Speaker, could I address you, please?
I am not going to take any point of order.
May I address you, please?
You are not going to address me. I am not going to entertain this.
I am not rising on a point of order; I am asking to address you.
No, I am not going to entertain this matter. If it is on this matter, I am ...
Is there no freedom of speech in your House, then? [Interjections.]
Hon Lekota, could you please leave the Chamber?
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have requested to address you on this matter.
Hon Watson, I have not allowed you to address me.
Therefore, I ask you: Are you now causing freedom of speech to be dismissed in this House?
However you interpret that, I am not entertaining it.
No, no.
Hon Lekota, please leave the House.
I have the right to address you, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interjections.]
Hon Lekota, please leave the House. Is there a Serjeant- at-arms in this Parliament? Could you please lead Mr Lekota out of the House? [Applause.]
The member thereupon withdrew from the Chamber.