‘Sub-judice’ Omar al-Bashir matter raises rule questions
SUDANESE President Omar alBashir’s attendance of the African Union summit in June and his subsequent arrest warrant have prompted calls from MPs for the removal of the “irrelevant” sub-judice principle.
This followed the Department of International Relations and Cooperation’s (Dirco) scheduled briefing, where it indicated it could not brief the portfolio committee on international relations as the matter surrounding al-Bashir’s departure was sub-judice.
Parliamentary legal advisors then received a query from committee chairman Siphosezwe Masango on whether the committee could request a briefing from the department and whether the sub-judice rule as set out in the National Assembly’s Rule 67 was applicable to the committee.
Parliamentary legal adviser Nathi Mjenxane told the committee yesterday the rule was based on a “principled decision that was taken by the National Assembly to uphold the principle of separation of powers by de- ferring to the courts on matters on which a judicial decision is pending with the judiciary”.
He said committees were an extension of the National Assembly and thus the rules also applied to them.
It was better to err on the side of caution on matters that were under judicial consideration.
DA MP Sandy Kalyan said Rule 67 was disregarded in the house two weeks ago “and even honourable Naledi Pandor stood up and said if this rule is irrelevant it must be deleted from the books”.
DA MP Stevens Mokgalapa said there was nothing stopping Dirco from giving the committee a briefing.
“A precedent was set last week and the speaker allowed a debate on the [al-Bashir] matter.” he said. “The legal department is just treading carefully.”
EFF MP Hlengiwe Hlophe said Rule 67 had become irrelevant and the legal department should clarify this.
Senior parliamentary legal adviser Nthuthuzelo Vanara said it remained in the rule books and was therefore valid and applicable until removed.