Criticism of parliament over Manana is misplaced

In his column, “Not a new dawn for the battered SA woman” (May 13), JJ Tabane accuses National Assembly Speaker Baleka Mbete of finding it “fit to keep” Mduduzi Manana as an MP despite his conviction and sentence for beating a woman. This is a classic case of not understanding the constitution and the powers it gives the presiding officers of parliament.

As activists in the struggle for a nonracial, nonsexist, democratic South Africa, both Mbete and Thandi Modise continue to fight against sexism and patriarchy in all their manifestations, including gender-based violence.

However, the presiding officers cannot remove MPs from office.

The power to remove public representatives from parliament resides primarily with parliamentary political parties to which MPs belong, or as a consequence of a judgment of a court.

In terms of section 47 of the constitution, MPs lose their membership of the National Assembly if absent without permission for a period specified by the rules of the assembly or if removed by their political party.

The constitution also disqualifies anyone declared to be of unsound mind and anyone who has been convicted of an offence and sentenced to more than 12 months’ imprisonment without the option of a fine.

Manana was convicted of assault and sentenced to a fine of R100 000 or 12 months in jail, to complete a rehabilitation programme and to carry out 500 hours of community service. His conduct is also the subject of an internal parliamentary inquiry.

Tabane claims that the “only parliamentary action [against Manana] was as a result of the official opposition”. This ignores the fact that the speaker, without any compulsion, immediately spoke out on the recent accusations against Manana and swiftly referred the allegations to the joint committee on ethics and members’ interests.

This committee, the disciplinary committee and the powers and privileges committee, to which alleged acts of misconduct by MPs are referred for investigation and sanction, have no powers to recommend expulsion of MPs.

In keeping with the constitution, these committees may only recommend sanctions such as financial penalties and public reprimand by the presiding officers.

The speaker has stressed the importance of public representatives carrying themselves in a manner befitting their status and office as MPs, and also welcomed the NPA’s investigation of the assault.

Moloto Mothapo, spokesman for parliament

DA made its point over Esidimeni

The idea that the DA Gauteng motion of no confidence against premier David Makhura failed this week is absurd. The motion of no confidence was to ensure that the deaths of the 144 Life Esidimeni patients do not fall by the wayside and that those responsible are be held accountable.

In an ideal world the leader would have immediately resigned, especially when he had been warned several times about a looming crisis.

The DA consistently inquired about this potential massacre and the ANC never listened.

Once again, the ANC government substituted honesty and responsibility for comrade cover-ups.

The motion of no confidence did not remove the premier, but it did succeed in uncovering the lack of accountability in the ANC as well as the lack of genuine leadership and the absence of remorse for the lives lost.

The DA still stands on the notion that the motion of no confidence was a success, not in terms of acquiring political points but in terms of holding the executive accountable.

John Moodey, DA Gauteng provincial leader

ANC’s priorities wrong

Patricia de Lille’s overtures, “De Lille ‘wants job in Washington’ for joining the ANC” (May 13), are an insult to the political integrity of any organisation. What will her posting to the US do to improve the lives of the people in the Western Cape and the rest of South Africa?

The ANC needs to start identifying leaders who are closer to the people for the general good.

The time is now for the ANC to put its house in order and make itself bigger than individuals.

Benjamin Seitisho, Qwaqwa

Landless and homeless

To fully address land reform, Mark Oppenheimer, “Six myths about land reform that show the folly of meddling with the Bill of Rights” (May 13), needs to broaden his debate and not limit it to investors or whether the rightful owners can farm or not. All the people, a substantial component of whom were forcefully removed from their original places of residence by the Dutch and British settlers, were used by the illegal occupiers of their lands as cheap labourers and accommodated as such.

After the so-called freedom, some of these labourers were evicted from these lands and up to today have no place to stay or work. Others were cramped into small pieces of land and are staying in yards equivalent to the rooms of the people who inherited their seized lands. Seeing that the question is now no longer whether or not the constitution should be amended to provide for expropriation of land without compensation, Oppenheimer should propose a solution as to how the landless should be housed without restitution of their land?

M Nqoro, Cape Town

Write to PO Box 1742, Saxonwold 2132; SMS 33662; e-mail: tellus@sundaytimes.co.za; Fax: 011 280 5150 All mail should be accompanied by a street address and daytime telephone number. The Editor reserves the right to cut letters