LEKOTA OUT OF STEP
Accusing a president of violating the oath of office is a serious charge, writes MATHOLE MOTSHEKGA
THE image and prestige of Parliament came under attack recently when Cope leader Mosiuoa Lekota sought to push the boundaries of freedom of speech and abused parliamentary privilege when he made the startling allegation that President Jacob Zuma has violated his oath of office”. “This serious charge was among an array of astonishing allegations Lekota bellowed out during the budget vote debate.
Violation of an oath of office by a head of state is a serious constitutional transgression and history is littered with countless examples of presidents who have been impeached or recalled from office in this regard.
Before a president commences the execution of the office, he must take an oath of affirmation to be faithful to the Republic of South Africa and to obey, observe and uphold the Constitution and all laws of the land.
In terms of section 89(1) of the Constitution, a president can be removed by the National Assembly on the grounds of a serious violation of the Constitution and the law. Therefore, due to the constitutional power that Parliament wields in this regard, an allegation by a member of parliament in the House that a head of state has violated his oath of office is a serious matter.
It is for this reason that when Lekota made this claim, Minister of Higher Education and Training Blade Nzimande stood up on a point of order and requested that National Assembly deputy speaker Nomaindia Mfeketo look into the utterances and make a ruling. ANC chief whip Mathole Motshekga called on Lekota to apologise.
An allegation of violation of office by a head of state is a serious claim that cannot be made lightly. In terms of Parliament’s practice and procedures, an MP who wishes to bring allegations of improper conduct should do so by way of a substantive motion in the House alleging facts which, if true, would in the opinion of the Speaker warrant such a decision.
It was therefore not unexpected that last week Mfeketo ruled Lekota out of order and instructed him to unconditionally withdraw his statement. Lekota is crying foul at this sound and sensible ruling, and has vowed to challenge the decision in court. Absurd!
Parliaments all over the world have in place rules, conventions, practices and codes of conduct to which MPs must adhere in order to preserve decorum, respect and prestige of the states’ legislative organs. As the supreme representative institution of the people, Parliament survives on the confidence and respect the public have in it.
Without the public’s confidence and respect, its dignity and integrity is eroded. The rules and practices in Parliament are there to ensure that MPs conduct themselves in an honourable manner.
MPs generally enjoy a high level of freedom of speech and parliamentary privileges, which protect them from legal action arising from statements they make in Parliament. However, such rights and privileges are subject to the agreed rules and principles that guide the day-to-day management of parliamentary business.
Some have sought to wave the “freedom of speech” card in defence of Lekota’s undignified conduct during the debate, giving the impression that the ANC’s insistence that he follow procedure and raise his serious allegation through a substantive motion is tantamount to muzzling or stifling debate. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Parliamentary procedures and practices enjoin MPs who make allegations of such magnitude to follow the route of a substantive motion, which is a formal proposal put before the House for the purpose of eliciting a debate and resolution of Parliament. Essentially, this process places the onus on those who use a parliamentary podium to make serious claims to back them up with irrefutable evidence, or not make them at all.
When ex-Cope leader Mbhazima Shilowa made similar allegations in 2009 and agitated for a vote of no confidence in the president, he was reprimanded and advised by Parliament’s presiding officers to follow the same process. Cope’s substantive motion was duly tabled and debated before being rejected by the House.
The history of parliamentary rulings will show that Lekota’s utterances were contrary to parliamentary conventions and therefore out of order.
In 2007 Democratic Alliance MP Mike Waters was ruled out of order and ordered to withdraw the defamatory claims he made in a parliamentary question to the late minister of health, Dr Manto Tshabalala-Msimang. The allegations were not procedurally made and Walters, who refused to withdraw them, was ejected from the house by former Speaker Baleka Mbete.
In 1996 a Democratic Party MP alleged that former president Nelson Mandela was guilty of “contempt of parliament” due to his absence from the House at the time when he was scheduled to respond to questions. Madiba had attended a funeral. The then Speaker of Parliament, Frene Ginwala, ruled the DP out of order as an allegation of that nature, made against the sitting president, ought to be brought before the House by way of substantive motion.
During the 1997 debate on the withdrawal of the National Party from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, an NP MP referred to Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the then TRC chairman, as “a weeping clown
” with “an incurable bias with respect to the conflicts of the past”.
The MP was ordered to withdraw his statement by Ginwala, as it impugned the competence and honour of the TRC chairman, whose appointment depended on the decision of the House.
During an interpellation debate in 1997, an ANC member alleged that certain individuals in the opposition benches were “spies” for the apartheid government.
Ginwala ruled the member out of order on the grounds that mak
“ing unsubstantiated allegations against the integrity of any member is unparliamentary”.
Usually those who make allegations impugning others’ integrity, competence and honour outside of the established parliamentary processes possess no justifiable reasons or incontrovertible evidence to back them up.
Having been an MP for many years, Lekota ought to know that an allegation of violation of office by a head of state is a serious matter that cannot be made casually or for political posturing.
Therefore, through her ruling, the deputy speaker must send a strong message to Lekota and other would-be transgressors that Parliament is not a shebeen, where spurious allegations are made with impunity. Mathole Motshekga is an ANC NEC member and parliamentary chief whip. This article first appeared in ANC Today