Speaker not responsible for ministers’ replies

Several court judgments show National Assembly Speaker Baleka Mbete is doing an excellent job,

It is inconceivable how the speaker is attributed blame for ‘chaos’ in the National Assembly.

THE opinion piece “Speaker fuels crises by shielding inept leaders” by DA chief whip John Steenhuisen (March 19) contains several factual inaccuracies which suggest more needs to be done to educate people about the role of the speaker in terms of the constitution and the National Assembly rules.

The author seems to believe that to eliminate political bias, speakers should be barred from holding leadership positions in their parties. He erroneously draws parallels between our constitutional democracy and the British parliamentary system, in which the speaker resigns from any political role.

The two systems are mutually exclusive and such a dispensation is not supported by South Africa’s constitutional framework.

The appointment of the speaker is regulated in section 52 of the constitution, which states that the National Assembly must elect a speaker from among its members. The constitution provides for the necessary checks and balances to ensure integrity in the functioning of constitutional positions and institutions.

For the first time since 1994, the National Assembly last year overhauled its rules to bring them firmly into line with the democratic constitution and best democratic principles elsewhere in the world.

Although it would be inevitable, in line with our electoral system, that a speaker would be an MP of a certain political party, there is no space for political bias, as the speaker’s primary role is to enforce the rules of the National Assembly as created by several political parties.

Steenhuisen’s argument is undermined by the absence of reference to any specific transgression of the rules or the constitution the speaker is allegedly guilty of.

His claim that the speaker is responsible for the chaos by certain parties or MPs is incongruent with the facts and has been found wanting in court judgments such as EFF v Speaker and Tlouamma v Speaker in the High Court in Cape Town.

In the latter case, the court held thus: “A reading of Hansard extracts provided by the parties clearly shows a history of conduct on the part of members of parliament which is indicative of disobedience and defiance of the chair, concerted irregular interjections, a refusal to accept rulings made by the speaker, and disruptions of parliamentary sittings. It is inconceivable how the speaker is attributed blame for ‘chaos’ in the National Assembly.”

Steenhuisen believes that a mere symbolic act of a speaker resigning from a political party, rather than the strength of the regulatory checks and balances, would magically cure perceived bias. This ignores the fact that even in the UK, where his preferred practice is in place, it has not prevented similar criticism being levelled at incumbent speakers.

Steenhuisen further alleges that the speaker is guilty of “shielding” ministers from accounting to parliament by not coercing them to answer questions to his satisfaction.

The role of the speaker is to facilitate debates, maintain order and ensure adherence to the decorum of the National Assembly.

In the interest of impartiality, the speaker neither participates in debates, nor possesses powers to dictate to MPs how they should ask their questions, or to ministers on how to respond. Hers is to ensure that constitutionally enshrined oversight instruments are effectively utilised to ensure collective and individual accountability by the executive.

Parliament is by its nature a politically charged platform and it is thus unavoidable that oversight and its concomitant inquisitive nature would be conducted in similar vein.

Asking the speaker to do more than what she ought to by imposing her will on the substance of the discourse, as Steenhuisen suggests, would undermine her neutrality and put her role in an untenable position.

In 2009, Canada’s House of Commons stated: “The speaker ensures that replies [to questions] adhere to the dictates of order, decorum and parliamentary language. The speaker, however, is not responsible for the quality or content of replies to questions. In most instances, when a point of order or a question of privilege has been raised in regard to a response to an oral question, the speaker has ruled that the matter is a disagreement among MPs over the facts . . . As such, these matters are more a question of debate and do not constitute a breach of the rules or of privilege.”

In the end, the electorate, to whom MPs and ministers account, would be the judge of how their representatives have executed their constitutional functions. The mission of parliament includes ensuring effective oversight over the executive by strengthening its scrutiny of actions against the needs of South Africans.

Recent advances on oversight, such as the SABC probe and intervention on social grants, are in no small measure due to parliament, under this speaker, effectively executing its constitutional function without fear, favour or prejudice.

Speaker Baleka Mbete is the most experienced and longest-serving presiding officer. “An incumbent in this position, usually an experienced politician, is always mindful of constitutional duties and the commitment to act impartially, equitably and without bias,” the court asserted when dismissing claims of political bias in Tlouamma v Speaker.

Reflections on the constitutional role of the speaker are a welcome part of strengthening our democracy. However, such should be done with regard to facts and in the context of our constitutional framework.