‘Appropriate answers’ bid by EFF fails

AN ATTEMPT by the EFF to push for legislation regulating provision of appropriate answers by President Jacob Zuma and his ministers was shot down yesterday.

This emerged when a parliamentary ad hoc committee met to consider a draft bill to amend the Powers, Privileges, and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act.

The exercise was a sequel to a Constitutional Court judgment in which the DA challenged the constitutional validity of the act, saying it was incompatible with MPs’ privilege of free speech and immunity from arrest.

A section of the act allows the Speaker of the National Assembly or chairperson of the National Council of Provinces to direct the “security services” to arrest and remove a person creating or taking part in a disturbance within the parliamentary precinct.

The judgment found the application of section 11 was that MPs could be deprived of further participation in parliamentary proceedings, a move that limited their constitutionally guaranteed privilege of free speech.

Now, the ad hoc committee’s draft bill defines “disturbance” as any act that disrupts proceedings of Parliament or its committees by members of the public.

It excludes any action by MPs in exercising their constitutional privileges.

But it warns that no person may refuse to comply with lawful instruction by a duly authorised staff member regarding the person’s presence at a particular meeting in the parliamentary precinct.

Speaking in the meeting yesterday, the EFF’s Sam Matiase said members of the public seldom caused disturbance in the national legislature.

He said Zuma caused the disturbance by failing to provide appropriate answers during parliamentary questions.

“It is not only him (the president) but it extends to ministers who wilfully and deliberately deflect answering direct questions and choose to respond to questions by innuendos. These are the people who are guilty causing disturbance,” he said.

Committee chairperson Mathole Motshekga warned that the proposal by Matiase could “end up legislating the conduct of individuals we may not be able to foresee”.