Removal of EFF Members from Chamber; Update on Paulsen Matter; SONA 2023 Incident & Zwane Matter

Meeting report

The Chairperson welcomed all Members and officials in attendance. She noted an apology from Mr Zungula. She asked that the Committee be briefed on a letter that it received, regarding a request to postpone the hearings that was supposed to commence tomorrow.

Adv Victor Ngaleka, National Assembly Procedural Officer, said that the Committee received a letter from the attorneys of the MPs who were charged, requesting postponement of the hearings. The Committee would be briefed on this when it receives an update on the matters.

Adoption of minutes

The Committee considered its minutes of 21 April 2023.

Mr Z Mlenzana (ANC) moved for the adoption of the minutes; Mr D Stock (ANC) seconded this.

Update on Mr Nazier Paulsen (EFF) MP matter

Adv Ngaleka said that the Committee was informed in its last meeting, that the initiator, Adv Naidoo, had scheduled consultations with Mr K Mileham (DA), Ms N Mazzone (DA), Mr D Bryant (DA), Mr C Hunsinger (DA), former Member Ms P van Damme, as well as the Deputy Speaker (who presided at the time of the alleged conduct) and the Senior Procedural Advisor on duty that day. The consultations have taken place and statements were drawn up. The Committee will receive proposed dates from the initiator for the hearing of the matter. 

The Chairperson asked if there were any proposed dates.

Adv Ngaleka replied that the Committee’s staff will work with the Chairperson and the initiator to decide on an appropriate date for the hearing.

Update on removal of Members from the Chamber on 9 and 10 June 2022

Mr Andile Tetyana, Senior Parliamentary Legal Advisor, Constitutional and Legal Services Office, said that in its last meeting, the Committee gave the administrative staff leeway to operationalise the resolution of the Committee. An initiator had been appointed on 5 June 2023, and consultations have been scheduled with witnesses. The initiator had subsequently dispersed the notice of hearings on 22 September 2023.

The attorneys representing the Members involved (i.e., Ian Levitt Attorneys), wrote a letter requesting further detail and made certain proposals to the initiator and the Committee. The administrative staff responded to the letter on Saturday, 23 September 2023, to acknowledge receipt of the letter and to indicate that the State Attorney's Offices would only be open on Tuesday morning, due to the long weekend. Ian Levitt Attorneys had then sent another letter on Sunday, 24 September 2023, which basically said that the Committee should respond to them before noon today. This was not possible, as the Committee was only scheduled to meet from noon today.

He advised the Committee to reflect on the fact that Ian Levitt Attorneys sought postponement of the hearings that were scheduled to start tomorrow up until Friday, 29 September 2023. Ian Levitt Attorneys proposed that the matters be dealt with from 9 October until 13 October 2023. The initiator seemed to be open to the proposed dates. Any application regarding the postponement should be done at tomorrow’s hearing, which will be a hybrid venue for convenience. If the Committee agrees to the proposed dates it would have to be agreed upon and minuted at tomorrow’s hearing.

Discussion

The Chairperson noted that Mr Tetyana had advised the Committee that the decision of whether the hearings should be postponed must be dealt with at the hearing tomorrow. She invited Members to comment.

Ms D Dlakude (ANC) thanked Mr Tetyana for the update. She said that it was fair for Ian Levitt Attorneys to be provided with further detail, as requested. She agreed that the postponement of the hearings should be considered at the hearing tomorrow.

Dr M Ndlozi (EFF) agreed with the proposal to postpone the hearings. He asked Mr Tetyana to provide clarity on why the Committee could not make the decision in this meeting, and why it was necessary to do so in tomorrow’s hearing. He said that the Committee had the correspondence from Ian Levitt Attorneys and the initiator before it, which should be enough for the Committee to grant the postponement to the proposed dates.

The Chairperson asked Mr Tetyana to respond to Dr Ndlozi’s question.

Mr Tetyana replied that the purpose of this meeting was to brief the Committee on the matters before it, but the hearing involved other role-players, such as the initiator. The hearing that is scheduled for tomorrow must still go on, as that will be the proper format to consider the request to postpone the hearings. Anything that relates to the hearing must be decided upon at the hearing.

The Chairperson said that the Committee must be mindful to the distinction between a Committee meeting and a hearing. The hearing includes participants who are not part of the Committee, hence the Committee cannot decide to postpone the hearings in this meeting. She noted that the Members were in agreement to postpone the hearings, but it must be pronounced at tomorrow’s hearing.

Dr Ndlozi said that in court processes postponements can be reached on the basis of the papers before it. He was open to proceeding with tomorrow’s hearing, because the only absent person was the initiator. He questioned why the Committee was asked to decide on the postponement in this meeting, when such a decision can only be made in a hearing. He asked for clarity on the procedure.

Ms Z Majozi (IFP) believed that it was proper to proceed with tomorrow’s hearing, so that the Committee and other participants of this process can formally convey the decision it made to postpone the hearings.

The Chairperson concurred with Ms Majozi, that the Committee agreed with Ian Levitt Attorneys request to postpone the hearings, but this will be formally conveyed in tomorrow’s hearing.

Prof A Lotriet (DA) said that she did not think it was of material importance to proceed with tomorrow’s hearing; especially if there was mutual agreement between the different political parties that the hearings would be postponed. However, it is within the Chairperson’s powers to decide whether this will be officially conveyed at tomorrow’s hearing.

Mr N Xaba (ANC) agreed with the legal advice that the Committee should proceed with tomorrow’s hearing to convey the postponement of the hearings.

The Chairperson noted that all Members agreed with Ian Levitt Attorneys request to postpone the hearings, there were no dissenting views. The proposed dates, from 9 October until 13 October 2023, have been tabled before the Committee. The Committee will convene at tomorrow’s hearing to convey this message. The administrative staff will respond to Ian Levitt Attorneys letter accordingly.

Update on removal of Members from the Chamber on 30 August 2022

The Chairperson asked if the incident of 30 August 2022 would be “packaged” with the incident of 9 and 10 June 2022.

Mr Tetyana replied that they were two separate incidents, and they should be dealt with as two separate matters. Adv Tanya Golden, SC, has been appointed as the initiator for the matter of 9 and 10 June 2022. Adv Norman Arendse, SC, has been appointed as the initiator for the matter of 30 August 2022.

Ian Levitt Attorneys are the legal representatives of the Members that have been charged in both incidents (i.e., 9 and 10 June 2022, and 30 August 2022). The Committee will convene tomorrow to deliberate on the case management of these matters.

The Chairperson noted that the Committee would have to deliberate on the case management of the matters. The postponement of the hearings for the incident of 9 and 10 June 2022 will certainly affect the scheduled hearings for the incident of 30 August 2022.

New matters referred to the Committee by the Speaker

Incident during SONA on 9 February 2023

Adv Ngaleka said that the Speaker had referred two new matters to the Committee. The first matter is the incident that took place on 9 February 2023, during the State of the Nation Address (SONA). Members who got onto the stage during the proceedings have allegedly committed contempt of Parliament.

Members of the Committee received the Speaker’s report, as well as the minutes of the proceedings for that day and the video footage of the incident. If Members agree, then the administrative staff will arrange an initiator for this incident.

Matter concerning Mr M Zwane (ANC) MP

Adv Ngaleka recalled that the Joint Committee on Ethics and Members’ Interest had found Mr Zwane guilty of misconduct, and one of the penalities was that he should have apologised in the House. The Speaker had given Mr Zwane two opportunities to do so, but he had failed to appear in the House to apologise. The Speaker had since referred the matter to this Committee. According to the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act, the matter must be investigated and reported to the House. The Committee would need to follow the procedure, which requires that an initiator should be appointed for this matter. The Committee must indicate whether the administrative staff should proceed to arrange an initiator for this matter.

Discussion

The Chairperson thanked Adv Ngaleka for outlining the new matters before the Committee. She believed that Members have gone through the video footage and Hansard of the incident during SONA on 9 February 2023. She said that the Committee are required to decide whether an initiator should be appointed for this matter. 

Ms Dlakude said that it was fair for the officials to do what they have to do. The Committee will follow suit and proceed with the matters before it.

Dr Ndlozi asked for clarity on what Adv Ngaleka had advised the Committee.

The Chairperson replied that it was not necessarily advice, but Adv Ngaleka had indicated that the Committee must allow the administrative staff to proceed with arranging initiators for the two new matters that the Speaker had referred to the Committee.

Adv Ngaleka explained that when an allegation of conduct constituting contempt has been made, then the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act requires that it must be dealt with in terms of a fair procedure. That fair procedure is scheduled to the Rules of the National Assembly. For purposes of the investigation, the procedure requires that an initiator should be appointed. This Committee is required to make that decision.

The Chairperson invited Dr Ndlozi to raise a follow-up question.

Dr Ndlozi said that it seemed as if the Committee was asked to make a decision on whether to initiate proceedings or not. The matters have been referred to the Committee, and the Committee has been furnished with the video footage and the Hansard. It seemed that the question was whether the Committee agreed to institute disciplinary proceedings against the Members that have been referred. He believed that he was named in the first matter which took place on 9 February 2023, so it was an obvious conflict of interest. He said that the question must be posed properly on whether the Members agreed that disciplinary hearings must proceed, and it must not be assumed.

Mr Xaba concurred with Ms Dlakude. He said that Adv Ngaleka had provided clarity that the Committee must allow the officials to proceed with appointing an initiator. The Members cannot say that the incidents did not happen. The Committee must arrive at a particular determination at some point.

Mr Mlenzana agreed that the Committee should allow the officials to appoint an initiator.

The Chairperson said that the Committee must make a decision on whether to allow the officials to appoint an initiator for the matter which took place on 9 February 2023. It must be a fair procedure.

Dr Ndlozi said that he sought clarity on whether the initiator was appointed to determine if there was a violation of rules, and upon doing so the Committee would decide whether to proceed with disciplinary hearings or not. The question posed to the Committee should be clear so that Members can express themselves accordingly.

The Chairperson told Dr Ndlozi that she would seek advice on his participation in the matter where he has a conflict of interest. She believed that he had the democratic right to do so. She said that the Members will work as a team and look at the matters objectively. She did not think that the Members required any further clarity on the matter which took place on 9 February 2023, especially if they had gone through the video footage and Hansard.

She asked if Members agreed that the officials should be allowed to appoint an initiator for the matter which took place on 9 February 2023, as well as the matter concerning Mr Zwane.

Mr Xaba replied that it was in order. He agreed that initiators should be appointed for both matters.

Ms Dlakude agreed that it was a fair process to be followed.

Ms Majozi concurred with Mr Xaba and Ms Dlakude.

The Chairperson noted that the Committee would allow the officials to appoint initiators for the two new matters that the Speaker had referred to the Committee.

The meeting was adjourned.