I now turn to the point of order raised by the hon Minister of Higher Education and Training, the hon Nzimande. The hon Minister asked me to rule on remarks made by the hon Lekota to the effect that the President has violated his oath of office.
In his speech, the hon Lekota said more than once that the hon President, or his Office, has violated the oath of office. The hon Lekota said:
With regard to the owners of the Goodman Gallery, their rights were violated. The Office of the President did not defend, again violating the oath of office.
Later on, the hon Lekota said: And yet, we did not hear a word from the President, saying to our nation, saying to those who follow him and who work under him, "It is wrong for you to undermine the judiciary of our nation." This is a violation of the oath of office.
Hon members, as regards the duty of members towards their fellow members, members should appreciate that their freedom of speech must, of necessity, be subject to the principle that they may not impute improper or unworthy motives or conduct on the part of other members, or cast personal reflections on their integrity, or verbally abuse them in any other way. This approach is in keeping with the practice in many other parliaments.
If such accusations made directly or by inference were to be generally allowed in debate in this House, they would not only seriously undermine members in the performance of their duties, but would also undermine the image and effectiveness of this Parliament itself. This is not to say that if a member has good reason to believe that another member may have acted improperly, such matter should not be brought to the attention of the House. However, there are proper ways of doing that.
In such circumstances, it is sound practice to require that a member does this by way of a separate, clearly formulated and properly motivated substantive motion, which requires a distinct decision of the House. At this point, I must indicate that when the President of the Republic takes his seat in this Chamber, the Rules of the National Assembly also apply to him.
Hon members, as we all know, when the President takes Office, he takes the oath of the office, in which he commits, amongst other things, to obey, observe, uphold and maintain the Constitution. As members will be aware, one of the grounds for removal of the President, in terms of section 89 of the Constitution, is a serious violation of the Constitution or the law.
Therefore, to accuse the President of the violation of the oath of office is a serious charge, indeed ... [Interjections.] ... which, if proven correct, could have serious consequences. The remarks that the President has violated the oath of office are, without a doubt, a reflection on the integrity and competence of the President. Except upon a properly motivated, substantive motion, as indicated above, such an allegation cannot be allowed in this House.
Hon Lekota, your remarks that the President has violated his oath of office are out of order, and I now ask you to please withdraw them.