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?