STATEMENT: MEDIA BRIEFING ON ISSUES RELATED TO 12 FEBRUARY STATE OF THE NATION ADDRESS EVENT

Members of the Media

Good morning!

We are all disturbed by what transpired at the State of the Nation Address (SONA) last Thursday because our image as a people was tarnished and our reputation as a country damaged. As an institution we cannot accept this. South Africa needs to speak with one voice in condemning conduct which is not consistent with our Constitution. 

What happened was not an accident. It was a premeditated, coordinated act of inflicting a serious assault on our Constitution - an act directed at our democracy. 

It is common cause that in the build up to this SONA, the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) made it known that they were going to disrupt the event of SONA by blatantly disregarding the rules, conventions and practices of Parliament. These actions amounted to an imposition of their will and strategies on all Parties and Parliament without following accepted democratic and procedural practices provided for in the Constitution and our rules. They made several statements in the media confirming their threat and even had a countdown clock proudly displayed on their website. 

It must be emphasised that these threats were not isolated, but consistent with a pattern of behaviour that the nation has witnessed since the beginning of the 5th Parliament.

The basis for making these threats was addressed and is without reasonable cause from the perspective of the parliamentary programme. The EFF wrote to us expressing their intention to continue a question session to the President of the Republic South Africa that was disrupted in the National Assembly. We advised them that this is a special joint sitting called for the specific purpose of dealing with SONA.

Additionally, based on the rules, we indicated that a joint sitting does not deal with matters that are in either of the two Houses, i.e., the National Assembly and the NCOP. Their matter was later referred to a National Assembly Programme Committee that was able to secure a date of a new question time with the President on 11 March 2015. 

Over and above that, we received a day before SONA, answers from the President to questions that could not be completed due to disruptions. These answers have since been sent to the relevant Members that had asked the questions. So, on our part as Presiding Officers, we did everything in our powers to accommodate the concerns that the Members in question had. Consequently, we were, therefore, looking forward to a successful SONA. 

Simultaneously, various sectors of society raised serious concerns about the possible disruption to SONA. Religious leaders took it upon themselves to engage all political parties in Parliament.  Most parties were receptive and cooperative except for a few who believe that they have something to gain from the chaos.  In their media statement issued two days before the SONA (10 February 2015) on why they rejected the mediation efforts of the religious leaders, the EFF, amongst others, boldly declared their intentions to continue with their threats: "We have an appointment with Jacob Zuma on Thursday, the 12th of February and we will never retreat!" 

Obviously, such statements could not be taken lightly. We had to plan and act with all possible scenarios in mind. As we saw, the threat did materialise into action, the intention of which was to stop the SONA.  But they failed.  The Address happened. All what transpired on that day was not something spontaneous, happening in the heat of the moment. The disruptions were well planned, choreographed and synchronised. These actions were meant to embarrass Parliament and South Africa at large.

A similar political stance and strategy has been adopted by the Democratic Alliance (DA) in the 5th Parliament wherein it has embarked on strategies that undermine and disrespect and erode the authority of the Speaker and the Chairperson as the joint heads of Parliament. We want to emphasise that this is not a complaint about exercise of party politics, but about politics that disrespects and undermines legitimate democratic institutions and its authorities.

The strategy by the DA of threatening to put a motion of no confidence against the Speaker and the Chairperson each time their political strategies do not work is ill advised and actually seeks to subvert the democratic processes by wanting to make the Presiding Officers part of their political plans and threatening to sanction them each time they do not get their way.  This amounts to intimidation and, consequently, a possible breach of the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act.

Collectively and cumulatively, these actions were meant to embarrass South Africa in the eyes of the world by disrupting and collapsing SONA, and thereby create a wrong impression that there is a constitutional crisis and chaos in our country, a view that we firmly reject. 

Our democracy was tested but our institution stood its ground. Our democracy triumphed, the disruptions failed. The post-SONA plan of those who conceived the failed disruptions is to shift the blame on the Presiding Officers. This must also fail. 

The Presiding Officers are expected to be impartial and apply the rules fairly.  It cannot be acceptable in a democracy that they are attacked every time they make a ruling against a particular individual or party. This can promote anarchy and disorder, thereby negating the impartiality and authority of the Presiding Officers. 

This is a form of intimidation.  Presiding Officers must not be influenced by the fact that they will be attacked for their decisions and, consequently, apply themselves with a measure of partiality that is created by this cloud or threat hanging over their heads. This is introducing politics of bullying in our discourse and that should not be allowed by South Africa and as Presiding Officers we are firmly against that. This, South Africans, is a threat to our Constitution.

Another key fundamental issue is to ask hard questions about people that either wanted to prevent or disrupt the President of the Republic of South Africa to make his address to the Nation about the plans of government, they are as follows:

Why is there a need by some Parties to seek to deny South Africans a chance to hear the plans made by their government to address aspirations and challenges of society?

On what basis can a Member or an opposition party exercise oversight over the Executive if they have not given themselves a chance to listen to the government's proposals?

How will parties and Parliament perform their constitutional responsibilities of passing laws, exercising oversight over the Executive, and ensuring public involving in decision making occur outside the framework and practices established in our democratic dispensations?

Is the stage not being set for Parliament to become a platform of more political theatrics and less engagement on substantive issues; thereby forgoing the notion of Parliament as a People's Assembly - an agent of change and transformation, and a key instrument in addressing the developmental challenges of our people?

South Africans cannot allow a situation where their institutions breed anarchy and hopelessness. Parliament must be allowed to function effectively. Parliament and the people of South Africa should not be deprived of addressing head on key developmental challenges as articulated in National Development Plan and our project of building a united, non-racial, non-sexist and prosperous South Africa. These are bigger questions that must worry all South Africans as forward looking people, who want government to improve their lives and place our country on an irreversible path of sustainable change as espoused in our Constitution. 

Parliament and its rules are made for Members who behave honourably.  If MPs do not behave in an honourable manner, we have nothing at our disposal in our institution nor in the rules to protect democratic institutions. Even our parliamentary security personnel would not cope because of its size, training, capacity and scope of work. The recent events and pattern of behaviour that has been displayed by some Members in the 5th Parliament has been very instructive in this regard. 

On the day in question, the EFF members were asked to leave the chamber after they openly defied the Chair and insisted on rising on points of order or questions of privilege even after the Chair had given comprehensive rulings on the matter. When the members refused to leave, which is in itself a disregard of the authority of the Chair, the Serjeant-at-Arms and the Usher were asked to assist. When this intervention failed, the Chair called for the assistance of Parliament's Protection Services. 

In terms of section 7(f) of the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act, 4 of 2004 (Powers and Privileges Act) a person may not fail or refuse to comply with an instruction by a duly authorised staff member regarding the presence of persons at a particular meeting in the precincts. Those who were in the House would have seen that at the point that that Parliament's Protection Services got involved the rest of the EFF members formed a wall around the members who had been asked to leave, and started attacking members of Parliament's Protection Services with water bottles and ‘makarapas'. It was at this point that the Speaker ordered the assistance of the Security Services. 

Section 199 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 ("the Constitution") provides for the establishment, structuring and conduct of Security Services. The Security Services of the Republic consist of a single defence force, a single police service and any intelligence services established in terms of the Constitution. 

In terms of section 4 of the Powers and Privileges Act, members of the Security Services may enter and remain in Parliament for the purpose of performing any policing function; or performing any policing function in the precincts, only with the permission and under the authority of the Speaker or the Chairperson. When there is immediate danger to the life or safety of any person or damage to any property, members of the Security Services may without obtaining such permission enter upon and take action in the precincts in so far as it is necessary to avert that danger. On 12 February, the Presiding Officers acted in terms of this section.

It is our firm convictions that the solution to increased involvement of Security Services in Parliament is for the disorderly behaviour of some MPs to stop forthwith.

One EFF Member has proudly boasted in a radio interview that they beat up security personnel. Another Member has reportedly even threatened to bring weapons into the Chamber. With regard, to the recent threat of bringing firearms into the Chamber, we have once again taken that threat seriously and have since directed the Secretary to Parliament to follow up on this threat.  We have to take these threats seriously because, as experience has taught us, they are not empty but real threats.  

Our democracy and Parliament did not envisage this; we have no means at our disposal to control such acts because Parliament is for Honourable Members.  In such circumstances, we have no option but to apply instruments in our society that have been established with the purpose of dealing with acts of grave disorder through the Powers Privileges and Immunities Act and other relevant pieces of legislation. 

We must address the reported signal scrambling as well as the microphones that malfunctioned.  We need to state categorically that Parliament does not own any device that scrambles communication or cellular phone. We have not ordered the use of such devices. Our view as Presiding Officers is that our democracy should not be placed in such a situation where, in Parliament, the use of such devices is even contemplated.  We reiterate that the House is for honourable Members.

However, security services deploy their assets when they do their work as part of their operations. We are not operational in our relationship with the security services. Once the scrambling of the signal was brought to our attention, we asked the Secretary to attend to it.  We will look at tightening and improving our systems in order for us to ensure that this does not become a precedent. The investigation on the microphones that malfunctioned on the day is inconclusive. Our Technical Section has committed to strengthening the back-up system, to prevent a repeat of what happened on 12 February. 

It is our firm convictions that the solution to increased involvement of security services in Parliamentary business is for the disorderly behaviour of some MPs to stop forthwith.  Let us repeat: Parliament's rules and security personnel are meant to service Members that recognise the rules and conventions of Parliament including the office-bearers legitimately elected to lead Parliament. 

The problem is not with the Presiding Officers.  The problem is not with Parliament's rules. The problem is not with our security personnel.  The problem is known.  The problem is some MPs who behave disorderly with the express intention of collapsing Parliament. 

A democracy like ours needs few things if it is to function optimally and endure.

All of us must accept the will of the people which they express when they vote parties and their members into Parliament.  They allocate parliamentary seats to parties in a proportional representation system.

Members and parties must cooperate and tolerate each other in order for Parliament to function even though by its very nature, Parliament is made up different parties which are in competition and disagreement over policies.

We must all respect our institutions - especially the three arms of the State (that is, the Judiciary, Legislative and the Executive).  The reason some democracies survive over years is because of the strength of their supporting institutions.  Conversely,  some democracies fail to consolidate and others even crumble because of the failure or weakness  of supporting institutions due to the disrespect or deliberate undermining of these institutions

 We cannot stand by and watch our democracy collapse in our face.  As Presiding Officers we will be undertaking the following steps:

We will be meeting all political parties to understand better their intentions with the 5th Parliament.   Every plenary sitting should not be turned into a platform for squabbles and walk outs.

The media is an important stakeholder that should also be engaged.  In our view, media reports seem to present those who plan to disrupt Parliament as heroes or victims; and those of us who are trying to bring order and defend our institutions, as aggressors, villains, or party hacks.  We are yet to see any media house condemn acts of disorder in Parliament as acts that threaten our Constitution.  By contrast, the Presiding Officers have been subjected to all sorts of ridicule in the media.

We will initiate a dialogue with the MPs on our electoral system; and how a proportional representation system should function to strengthen our democracy and uphold our Constitution.

We will initiate a dialogue with the MPs on the Oath administered to them when they were sworn it.

We will use the Speakers' Forum to cascade our process to provinces as some of them are faced with a similar challenge.  An example is the incident of July 2014 where a group of EFF members forced their way into the Gauteng Legislature, throwing bottles around, looting, and even assaulting some people.

We believe that these steps will help restore order and integrity to our Parliament.  We count on the support of all South Africans to ensure that our Parliament focuses on the challenges facing our country.

The Presiding Officers are elected by the respective Houses (the National Assembly and the NCOP) in terms of the Constitution.  Acting jointly, they are the Executive Authority of Parliament.  They are empowered by the Powers Privileges and Immunities Act, among others, to exercise joint control and authority over Parliament's precinct.  They preside over the meetings of the respective Houses, which entails maintaining order, interpreting, applying and ensuring compliance with the rules and practices of the House, and ensuring the smooth conduct of proceedings according to laid down procedures and practices.

We want to assure South Africans that Parliament is not in a crisis.  What is a crisis is some political parties failing to understand why they were elected to Parliament in the first place and the persistent stance of not respecting the outcomes of the will of the people.  This is the crisis that requires the collective attention of our Nation.  We are ready and prepared as Presiding Officers to do our part as committed South Africans, without any fear or favour.  But we can only do so much on our own.  Parliament and the whole nation must rally against acts of assault on our Constitution.

We thank you!

Video of the briefing:

Statement issued by Parliament, February 17 2015

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter