Hon Speaker, in relation to the first question, I think all of us know that our country engages quite extensively on the continent to promote peace and stability.
Last year, President Jacob Zuma asked me to be his envoy in relation to the conflict in South Sudan. In that role, I was able to travel - as the hon member asked what I did in October of 2014 - to South Sudan. There I met with a number of leaders, such as President Salva Kiir, the President of South Sudan, and a number of leaders of his party.
I was also able to travel to Uganda, where I met President Museveni. I also travelled to Ethiopia and met President Merriam de Salan. I also travelled to Kenya.
All the countries in that region are involved in the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, Igad, peace process that is being facilitated by the African Union, AU. I was also able to meet the chairperson of the African Union Commission, Madam Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma. In all these discussions we talked of how peace and stability can be fostered in South Sudan.
We principally addressed two issues. The one issue was reaching a ceasefire in South Sudan, where all the parties can work together to bring a cessation to the hostilities. We also got involved - having being asked by the Sudan People's Liberation Movement, SPLM, in South Sudan - in dealing with the key issues that still face the SPLM in South Sudan itself.
So we have been involved in these two-track processes, and now of late, we have been joined by the ruling party in Tanzania, Chama Cha Mapinduzi, as well as the ruling party in Uganda, trying to bring about unity in South Sudan through uniting the SPLM.
Earlier this year, the SPLM factions, if you like, were able to reach a reunification agreement which provides that the SPLM will reunite and those who are in Kenya, and those who are in Ethiopia, as well as in other parts of South Sudan, will get together in Juba with a view to ensuring that the SPLM is once more united.
At a governmental level, as we speak now, the various components of the SPLM are involved in discussions at the Igad level, trying to finalise a deal that could possibly lead to a major breakthrough. So the whole process is one in which South Africa has been actively involved. Thank you.
I believe hon Masango is taking charge of the follow-up question on behalf of hon Radebe. Hon Masango?
Thank you, hon Speaker. Thank you very much hon, Deputy President, for your elaborate answer, and indeed for your facilitative role in South Sudan.
My follow-up question is: What instructive lessons can we, as a country, learn from South Sudan? Thank you.
I guess the instructive lesson we can get from South Sudan is that peace is the most important aspect of any nation's life - peace and democracy and institutions that are well structured and functioning well. South Sudan is a young democracy. It's struggling with getting to grips with those issues and this is where we can give them a great deal of assistance, but we can also learn what we should not do.
As a country and as a nation, we should continue building and strengthening our own institutions, be they political party institutions, governmental institutions, etc. Those are institutions that we should pay attention to, with a view to ensuring that they are strong, robust and are able to support democracy. Thank you.
Hon Speaker, could the Deputy President please educate us here? We want to know whether the intraparty talks that are being facilitated by South Africa and Ethiopia are indeed running concurrently with the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, Igad, peace process; and if so, are they really taking a direction in which we can see the outcome of a constitutional settlement in the near future? Thank you.
Yes, the two-tracked processes are meant to bring about peace in South Sudan and the intraparty discussions are critically important in that that's where the real problems started; within the SPLM itself. We, as South Africa, and particularly as the ANC, have been paying a great deal of attention to that and assisting the South Sudanese.
The intergovernmental process is also important and that is being processed in Addis Ababa. These two processes are working alongside each other, in tandem, and soon the parties will return to Juba. Once they are in Juba, we believe that that will strengthen the whole process and peace should be restored thereafter, once and for all. Thank you.
Thank you, hon Speaker. Hon Deputy President, it is common cause that in such situations of conflict there will be an increase in instability and in people's movement and so on, which will result in quite a number of people becoming refugees.
So the question is: What is being done in that situation? What is South Africa's role in assisting and facilitating the movement of refugees, particularly in the South African context of the recent xenophobic attacks; and in educating South Africans about the dynamics of the home countries of those citizens, thus creating understanding that they will need to be here should the situation continue to escalate - as it is doing - and that they need a second home. Thank you.
We are keeping ourselves well informed about all those challenges and problems that are arising from conflictual situations such as war, and in particular in South Sudan. Our embassy and all its officials are intricately involved, as are other African countries, and indeed countries from other parts of the world, in assisting those who are going through hardships now.
Many people have been displaced as a result of the war and the conflict in South Sudan. Also, as you know, many people have lost their lives, so we are closely monitoring that situation and, where we can, we are giving as much assistance as possible. It is an important aspect of the work of the country - and in this case, South Africa - which is seeking to assist South Sudan that it stands ready to assist the people of South Sudan in whatever way possible.
In the end, we are not only assisting them with streamlining their institutions, in bringing about peace, but we are also standing ready to assist as much as we can at the humanitarian level. Thank you.
Hon Speaker and hon Deputy President, we acknowledge and commend the role that South Africa is playing in peacemaking and conflict resolution.
Given the protracted peace negotiations and broken ceasefire agreements between both President Kiir and former Vice President Machar's loyal forces, how confident are you, sir, that this round of dialogue will yield long-lasting solutions? What kind of extra resources are needed for you to achieve this objective? I thank you.
The good thing about the South Sudanese conflict is that the two leaders have met on a number of occasions. At the beginning of the conflict, we struggled to get them to meet and talk. We now have achieved a level of success in that they do meet.
As it is now, both of them - I am informed - are in Addis Ababa. They are now involved in a further round of Igad negotiations which is aimed at working out what type of government they will have. As it is now, they are talking about the structure of their government, the nature of their government. I think a lot of success is being achieved.
We continue to work with both of them at a party level. In the next few weeks, we will get both the SPLM in opposition, the SPLM in Juba and the SPLM in Kenya to go back to Juba. That will be a major breakthrough and is already being planned.
With regard to what resources we are going to need, current resources really only involve travelling there and travelling to the various countries in the region to meet people and facilitate the peace process. Beyond that, we have not expended a lot more resources. Thank you.
Particulars regarding use of signal jammers during State of the Nation address
2. The Leader of the Opposition (DA) asked the Deputy President:
On what date was he, as the Leader of Government Business, made aware of the intended use of (a) signal jammers and (b) other additional security measures used during the State of the Nation Address on 12 February 2015? NO466E
Speaker, as members will be aware, the issues that the hon member Maimane has asked about are subjects of legal cases at the moment.
I have been reliably informed that hearings in relation to these matters will be happening in our courts in the next few days. For that reason I feel constrained to answer the question because the matters are before the court and I have been advised that it is best to let that legal process ensue and thereafter one can put forward one's views.
It is safe to say that - I would like to state this as a matter of principle - in Parliament I believe it is correct that we should have a free flow of information. The incident that occurred here, as the President has also said, should not be allowed and should not happen again.
I am prepared to say that. As regards the specific issues that arise in his question, I will be willing to answer them once the legal cases have been concluded. Thank you very much.
Deputy President, I welcome your response and I want to clarify the fact that the matter about the use of the police is, in fact, not yet before the court at this stage.
I think it is also important to note the fact that the Constitution makes provision in section 91(4) that the Leader of Government Business is responsible for the affairs of the national executive in Parliament. We cannot debate the fact that the police and the use of security agencies and signal devices form part of the executive.
I would, as a point of interest, like to find out when, in fact, was the Deputy President informed? Secondly, there was the removal of the entire caucus. It was not just members who were speaking on the day who were asked to leave, but there was the removal of the entire caucus from this House.
I hear the guarantee of the Deputy President. However, I would like to know more specifically whether or not, in future going forward, should similar conditions prevail - that is, I am raising a point of order and asking the question - the Deputy President will be willing in the same conditions to give a guarantee that the use of the same extraordinary security measures such as police action, signal devices and the removal of members, in fact, not be allowed in this House.
I would like to get a guarantee from the Deputy President to ensure that that never takes place, noting his constitutional obligation on this matter. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
MOTLATSA PRESIDENTE: Mme Mmusakgotla, ke dumela gore rre o utlwile karabo yame. Ke tlhalositse fa kgang e, e le kwa kgotlatshekelo. Fa go ntse jaalo, ga go kgonagale gore ke bue ka kgang e e tshwerweng ke kgotlatshekelo. Ke kopa gore Moeteledipele wa Lekokokganetso a amogele gore nka se kgone go araba potso e gonne e kwa kgotlatshekelo. Ke a leboga. [Legofi.] (Translation of Setswana paragraph follows.)
[The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Hon Speaker, I believe that the hon member heard my answer. I explained that this matter is sub judice and therefore it is impossible for me to discuss it. I will emphasise to the Leader of the Opposition that I cannot answer that question as the matter is still sub judice. [Thank you.] [Applause.]]
On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
What is the point of order, hon Steenhuisen?
Madam Speaker, the point of order is that in this House we rely on precedence and convention. There have been rulings in this House made from the Chair before that govern the sub judice rule. I would like to address you in terms of the guide to the procedure where it sets out that, and I quote: The Chair should apply the rule in such a way as to impose minimal limitation on open debate.
This means that members should be allowed to refer to a matter before a court, but cannot discuss the merits of the matter before a court.
I would submit to you, Madam Speaker, that we are not asking the Deputy President to go into the specifics about the merits of the matter before the court. There is a broad principle that we are asking him to answer on, and that is his view on the use of police in this House. It is not about the merits of what happened on the 12th, and it is not about the merits of the case which, incidentally, is still not before a court, but it is a simple question and we are asking for an answer to it.
Hon Deputy President, can you answer the question?
Madam Speaker, I believe I have answered this question. I have answered the question. It could be a matter of opinion on the hon member's side, but it is my view, my opinion and my advice that this matter is before the courts - and indeed there are two cases that are running alongside this matter and they are going to be heard in court. I am quite willing and prepared to answer questions with regard to this matter once those cases have been settled. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
Thank you, hon Deputy President. I think I have to rule that that is the answer of the Deputy President. He will be ready to come back to this House and answer those questions once they are done [Interjections.]
Excuse me, Madam Speaker ...
Madam Speaker, may I address you?
Yes, who is calling me?
Madam Speaker, to your right ...
Hon Chief Whip Steenhuisen, could you take your seat in the meantime.
Madam Speaker, with due respect, do the Rules allow that two questions can be asked from members of the same party at the same time?
No, that was a point of order from the hon Steenhuisen and it was not a question.
Hon Steenhuisen, we cannot put the Deputy President on the floor and extract the answer from him. The Deputy President has given his answer, so that is as far as we can go. We can't dictate beyond that, but he is coming back. He promised that he will come back, but I now want to move on to the next supplementary matter.
May I address you, Madam Speaker on this particular matter? I refer you to Hansard of 1998, second session, column 2(8) where there was a ruling from the Chair, and I quote:
References to cases in the courts and to the facts in the cases would not be a violation of the sub judice rule.
I hear what you are saying, that the Deputy President will come back. We were told last year that the President was going to come to answer questions and we are still waiting for that.
Hon Steenhuisen, let us take the word of the Deputy President in good faith and he will indeed come as he has always done.
Hon Speaker and hon Deputy President ...
... ndiyabona ukuba uligwala kwezi ntsuku Nobhala wam. Phendula nje umbuzo mfondini awusayi kubanjwa. [... I can see that you have turned into a coward of late, my Secretary. Just answer the question, man, you will not be sent to jail.]
In relation to ... [Interjections.]
... andiwazi ke lamankentshana angxolayo apha emva kwam ukuba athunywe ngubani na. [... I do not know who asked the people behind me to keep on yapping.] [Laughter.]
In relation to the original question, media has widely reported that on the said day you intervened through the Minister of State Security. Is that true? If so, does that not constitute a breach of the important principle of separation of powers?
Ayidibananga nankundla zamatyala le into; iya ngqo kwinto yokuba oonondaba batsho kanjalo. Uthini ke apho, Mhlekazi? [This has nothing to do with courts; it has directly to do with what journalists are saying. So what do you say to that, sir?]
Hon Speaker, I would just like to say to the hon Holomisa that ...
... ndifuna ukuba undimamele ohloniphekileyo Bantu, ungathi ndiligwala kaloku nguwe umntu oligwala kuba wabaleka apha kuthi. [Kwahlekwa.] Andiyazi ukuba wawubaleka ntoni kuba bekufanele ukuba ukweli cala. (Translation of isiXhosa paragraph follows.)
[... I want him to listen to me and not say that I am a coward because he is actually the coward here because he ran away from us. [Laughter.] I do not know why he ran away because he was supposed to be on this side.]
Anyway, hon Holomisa, I have heard of such media speculation and I expect that the issue that you are raising will also be raised in one of the court cases that are under way. Without ... [Interjections.] No, no, without you even beginning to say that I don't want to answer these questions, I'm quite happy, willing and prepared to answer all these questions.
To be quite honest, I would like to say that I would like to answer them once these cases are over because there is a view that I would like to put forward in relation to all these matters and the incident that occurred the other day. So, Madam Speaker, that is what I am requesting. I am bound by the advice that I have been given, namely that I should wait until these matters have been finalised. Thank you very much.
Speaker and hon Deputy President, will you please share something with us. The hon Mahlobo was seen giving you a note. Will you share with us what was it that you were telling him? [Interjections.] [Laughter.]
Would you agree with me, Deputy President, that the jamming of the signal was deliberately done so as to hide the ill intentions that you had of assaulting and dragging members of the EFF out of the Chamber?
As I said, Madam Speaker, I'm quite willing and prepared to share all this with members, but I am, as I said, constrained by the fact that this matter is before the court.
In relation to notes that pass amongst members, my own observation is that there are many notes that go around in this House from member to member on an ongoing basis. But as the media have been speculating that there were notes that were passing between the hon Mahlobo and I, I would like to address that once all those cases are over. Thank you very much.
Madam Speaker and hon Deputy President, in the debate on the state of the nation address, SONA, we raised an issue which we thought had nothing to do with the cases in the courts.
It is the question of sections 4, 5 and 11 of the powers and privileges Act, and in our view and judgment this Act is in conflict with the provisions of the Constitution in that those sections grant the Presiding Officers of Parliament powers to usurp executive powers and command the security services of the country. Nothing could be more in conflict with the Constitution.
When is the Presidency going to bring that back? We requested that it be returned to Parliament so that Parliament should amend and expunge those sections and make us consistent with the Constitution. It is dangerous to keep that Act in place because the reason the police could come in here and assault Members of Parliament is because of that anomalous situation. This is very urgent, sir, and could you please do something about this.
Speaker, as I understand hon Lekota, he is actually pleading that something must be done with an Act of Parliament and that we should look into it. I hear him and I'm sure that he is prepared to motivate this even a lot more than he has done.
We are always open to hearing views and suggestions. Speaking for myself, I am happy to hear hon Lekota coming across so constructively by putting forward a view that he would like us to consider. We shall consider what you are suggesting. Thank you.
Madam Chair, on a point of order: I want to demonstrate that the Deputy President's answer is insufficient. It is a fact that the answer is insufficient and we cannot come to terms with an answer of this nature when this House has been ransacked, vandalised ... [Interjections.]
Hon member, I actually ... [Interjections.]
And when is this chair going to be fixed? This demonstrates the violence which was visited upon us. We want answers to this question now.
Hon member, please take your seat now. You have demonstrated your point.
Look at these broken chairs!
Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I am rising on Rule 110(6). Questions to the Deputy President are required to be submitted nine days before the Deputy President appears in this House. That is so that the NA Table can have a look at them, and the Deputy President's Office can also have a look at them and prepare responses to them.
Instead of the Deputy President coming here today and hiding behind the sub judice rule, I think that it would have been far more honest of him to have indicated that, when the questions were tabled in his Office, rather than to wait for the day and to come here and refuse to answer questions in the House. [Applause.]
If the Deputy President had failed to do that, I think that the NA Table should have then ruled these questions out of order to enable the opposition to have put forward other questions or prioritised other questions.
What has essentially happened today is that the Deputy President has been allowed to hide behind a spurious interpretation of the sub judice rule and the opposition has been denied the opportunity to exercise oversight over him. [Applause.]
We have noted your point, hon Steenhuisen, and I'm quite sure that the Deputy President's Office has also taken to heart what you are saying.
Measures to prevent illicit financial flows
3. Mr N F Shivambu (EFF) asked the Deputy President:
With reference to his reply in the National Council of Provinces to question 2 on 27 August 2014, that the Government will not institute any commission of enquiry into the matter of transfer of capital, as state institutions are capable to deal with illicit financial flows and, in light of new revelations by the Global Financial Integrity report and the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa/African Union commission, chaired by former president Thabo Mbeki, what measures, legislative or otherwise, are being taken by the Government to prevent the country from losing billions of rands every year through illicit financial flows?