My article had particularly indicated that I "...wishe[d] not to venture into the legal technicalities, as I don't have a legal background, and the outcome will be confirmed by a court of law". One therefore somewhat welcomes Dr Loammi Wolf's response to my article.
The article had also specifically pointed out that other scholars had written on the matter and gave Professor Pierre de Vos' blog entry, which Dr Wolf refers to, as one such scholarly piece.
Unfortunately, Wolf misses the point of my article completely. In fact, if one were to quote verbatim the paragraph that summed up my article then it would be this:
"...there is a clear understanding in a court of law of the separation of powers yet armed SAPS (the executive) are present to maintain order. On the instruction of the presiding officer one can be held in contempt of court and arrested by a member of SAPS if causing any [sic] disruptions; yet no dissatisfaction from the DA in respect of separation of powers here."
Given the above, it would be correct to conclude that my argument suggests that any presiding officer, whether in a court of law or a house of parliament, may order that anyone, present in a court of law or a house of parliament [or even their precincts], may be forcibly removed, from the court or house, on any occasion where any disruption to the proceedings occurs.
She does not in any way refute the comparison nor the argument.
In fact, based on Wolf's logic, one could conclude that any force used in a court of law could spell a police state. Is this true? No. For we all know this is permissible though it does not translate into a police state.
In fact she goes on to state a number of "legal issues" that could easily be disputed. While I wish not to fall into her trap of venturing off the subject at hand, it is worth mentioning one misconception that she states as fact.
Given that it is the only occasion, the opening of parliament and the State of the Nation Address, where all three tiers of the State are present i.e. the Judiciary, the Legislature and the Executive (and one may add the head of the armed forces are also present) there has always been high security at this event.
Furthermore, the blog entry by de Vos is approached with caution, as my article pointed out, because he, and which Wolfe builds on, suggests that "...[the Speaker] was not in control of the security arrangements at parliament during SONA...". de Vos and Wolf make this conclusion based simply on the fact that "...Mbete [had] said at the press conference that during a briefing on security plans for the state-of-the-nation [sic] address, ‘we became aware that there was a plan for certain equipment to be deployed...'".
As if to find Mbete guilty of something, de Vos had gone on to say and quoted Mbete: "But she admitted that: ‘It is an item we received as a report along with many other reports, without necessarily knowing the detail..." [my emphasis]
The issue of the mobile-signal jamming is a dead snake. President Zuma, Speaker Mbete, and a number of other high ranking politicians have said it was wrong. End of story. My article therefore did not even refer to it in the least. Wolf though and following from de Vos beat this dead snake.
More importantly, they insinuate that Speaker Mbete and Chairperson Modise could not have been in control of the security "arrangements" [their word and not "forces"] simply because detail was not given to this particular aspect. Therefore, if one were to falsify their hypothesis, one asks: if the signal-jamming had not taken place what would de Vos and Wolf's reason have been for Mbete not to call in the security forces, which she clearly indicated, during the sitting, she was entitled to under the Powers and Privileges Act before the disrupters were removed?
The DA have applied to the courts, this week only, not even to question the legality of the Speaker's action during SONA. While Wolf is entitled to her legal opinion, it will remain just that because even the DA has backtracked in their court application.
Even worse, she loosely throws around terms such as "police state". She does so like others before her have thrown around notions such as "failed state" or "instability", (gosh now even a "suspended" state - whatever this may mean) without appreciating the deep political implications that such concepts embed. South Africa is far from any of these. That police brutality can be exposed and dealt with proves this notion that SA is becoming a police state wrong.
Yet the most striking part of Wolf's response is her omission. She omits to opine on the points my article raises in respect of the DA Speaker in the Western Cape. In fact, she says nothing about the DA but, it appears, to defend them: "...Wesley Seale felt obliged to lecture the Democratic Alliance...".
While she boastfully declares that "...it is an open secret that the speaker and the president meet every Monday at Luthuli House..." she refuses to mention another open secret that the DA Speaker in the Western Cape attends the DA caucus meetings in the Provincial Legislature.
My article had envisaged a discussion on how to strengthen our democracy through having an opposition that was strong in substance. Dr Wolf chooses instead to engage in scare-crow concepts such as "police-state".
Therefore she appears to be a DA wolf appearing as a specialist sheep. However, this may be a case of the pot calling the kettle black [or a seale calling a wolf]. If anything my article and that of my respondent proves that commentators, whether with a political science background or a legal one, can and never will be politically neutral.
Wesley Seale has taught politics at the University of the Western Cape specialising in democratic theory and practice, and democracy in South Africa.
Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter
