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.