So Many Questions

Pikkie Greeff, national secretary of the SA National Defence Union, said the union supports the call for mass action to remove the president. Chris Barron asked him . . .

The minister of defence, Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula, says you should be charged with treason for your call on members to participate in mass action to remove the president. She’s right, isn’t she? No, she’s wrong, because I made no such call.

Do you believe the president should be removed? I am saying that the president, given the judgment against him, is not a fit and proper person to be in office. If he is to be removed it should be by lawful means.

Do you support the call for mass action? What we support is that every citizen in this country, including a soldier, has the right, according to the Defence Act, to participate in any public protest action in their private capacity and time.

Protest action the aim of which is to remove the president from office? No . . . to obtain a lawful means to have him step down.

Aren’t members of the defence force sworn to protect the legitimately elected, sitting head of state? No. They are sworn to uphold the constitution. And they have rights, as any other citizen does.

Including the right to participate in the president’s removal? They can participate in anything they want in their private capacity.

Does the code of military discipline only apply to soldiers when they’re in uniform? No. It applies at all times. Go and read the Constitutional Court case of 2001 and 2007, which gave soldiers the right to participate in public protest and other action in their private capacity and time.

Even if it is aimed at removing the sitting head of state? They can participate in any action. Why does it matter what a soldier does in his private time?

Doesn’t your call at the very least amount to incitement? No. It can never be incitement to remind people what their civil rights are.

Isn’t this a dangerous game to play? No. Why?

Surely once soldiers believe they have the right to participate in action that may lead to the overthrow of a sitting head of state, then we’re in trouble? Don’t come with words like “overthrow”. Any insinuation of unlawful means is rejected.

Aren’t the armed forces in a democracy bound not to get involved in politics? Not in their private capacity. Do you think soldiers are not allowed to vote? They are allowed to participate in any political party or activity in their private time.

Is it OK for them to take part in mass action against parliament, too? In their private capacity they can do whatever any other citizen may do lawfully.

Even if they contravene the code of military discipline which you say applies at all times? They always adhere to military discipline.

Even in 2009 when they stormed the Union Buildings? Nobody stormed the Union Buildings. Ask yourself who fired on them unlawfully? And then ask if a single soldier has ever been convicted. In fact, 271 of them have been acquitted of charges of public violence.

What about those who were not acquitted? They are still at home on special leave with full pay and benefits.

How many? Five hundred and fifty six.

Have you had second thoughts about the call you made to your members? No, I stand by my statement. Go and read it.

You still support any call for mass action to remove President Jacob Zuma from office? Mass action and any other lawful means.

To remove Zuma from office? Which doesn’t mean that our members will necessarily support the call. They have their own political views and are free to disagree with their union.

But you speak for them? We also said this is not a political stance but a moral and a constitutional stance in support of constitutional, democratic values of the rule of law.

Should it be their call to decide whether a sitting president deserves their constitutional obligation of allegiance? What you are saying is that they are not allowed to make their own decisions in their private capacity.

What I’m saying is aren’t they constitutionally bound to protect the office of the president as long as he is still the president? They are supporting the president. They will take orders from the president. Until the day that he is not president anymore.

So they’re expected to take orders from the president when they’re in uniform but when they take off their uniform they can join a march to remove him? That’s not my decision, that’s the Constitutional Court’s decision.

That they can march to remove the president as long as they’re not in uniform? It says they can march for anything they want to in their private capacity. That’s in the court judgment.

That the armed forces can participate in a march to remove the president? It doesn’t say that. It says they have the right to publicly protest.