(1)With reference to his reply to question 1588 on 21 July 2017, (a) what is the case number under which the matter, relating to the specified trip, appears on the court role and (b) on what grounds does the sub judice rule, as defined by the Supreme Court of Appeal on 18 May 2007 in the Midi Television case (details furnished), prevent him from answering the specified question as part of his constitutional obligation to account to Parliament in line with section 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996;
(2) whether, in light of his constitutional obligation to account to Parliament and the specified judgment, he will reconsider his response to question 1588 on 21 July 2017; if not, on what grounds; if so, what are the comprehensive details?