Madam Chair, I would like to address you in terms of Rule 67. The sub judice rule, as I said earlier, refers to matters where there is a judicial decision pending and where issues discussed in the House may tend to prejudice the outcome of the case. In relation to the signal jammer, in Parliament's own papers before the court they have conceded the point already. There is a letter from the Secretary of Parliament indicating that it was an error and that it will never happen again - and that matter has been dispensed with.
What is before the court in the SA National Editors' Forum, Sanef, matter now, is the issue about the outside broadcast from this Chamber. Therefore the matter of the signal jammer is no longer sub judice. And that was why the Minister was very happy to issue a public statement on the matter.
He was quite happy to throw a junior official under the bus for it, but now won't come to account to this House for those public statements.
Madam Chair, I must implore you not to allow the executive to put on the shroud of the sub judice rule in an effort to deflect the tough political questions that they need to answer in the House. [Applause.]
The matter is not sub judice and the Minister must please answer the question. [Applause.]