Hon members, yesterday, during the debate on the state of the nation address, hon C T Frolick raised a point of order and asked whether it was parliamentary for hon M E George to effectively accuse the hon President of the Republic of "deliberately leading the nation into lawlessness".
I undertook to study the Hansard before ruling on the matter. Having now had the opportunity to study the unrevised Hansard, I wish to rule as follows.
In his speech, hon George stated that -
It appears that the nation is deliberately led into lawlessness, with absolutely no morals and respect for its people. If this statement is read in the context of his speech, it is clear that hon George is either referring to the hon President or the Ministers as a collective.
It creates the impression that the President or his government is inciting lawlessness. Making unsubstantiated allegations about the integrity of any member is unparliamentary. I think it is important to indicate that members should appreciate that their freedom of speech must of necessity be subject to the principle that they may not impute improper motives to their fellow members. All members are honourable and every member should therefore act towards other hon members with the same decorum and respect that he or she expects from them.
Needless to say, this same protection also applies to the President. A member that wishes to bring to the attention of the House any improper conduct on the part of any member should do so by way of a separate substantive motion, comprising a clearly formulated and properly substantiated charge. Except upon such a motion, members should not be allowed to impute improper motives to other members or cast personal reflections on their integrity as members.
In addition, when taking office, the President of the Republic and Ministers take an oath or solemn affirmation to obey, observe, uphold and maintain the Constitution and all other laws of the Republic. To suggest that the President, or his Cabinet for that matter, deliberately leads the nation to lawlessness is a serious allegation and should be brought to the attention of the House by a substantive motion.
The remark made by hon George, that "the nation is deliberately led into lawlessness", is out of order, and I must therefore ask hon George to withdraw his statement unconditionally. Hon George! [Interjections.] Order!
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I address you on the issue, because ...
HON MEMBERS: No!
If you don't want me to address ... I have to address you, Madam Deputy Speaker ...
Hon George, I ask you to withdraw unconditionally.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you said that my statement was out of order; you did not say that it was unparliamentary.
Hon George, when I read my ruling, I said that your statement was unparliamentary. So, now I'm asking you to withdraw the statement.
Madam Deputy Speaker, unfortunately, the statement I made was well considered and it is not an attack on the integrity of any individual. But ...
Order, hon George! I'm asking you to withdraw the statement; that's all I'm asking you to do. I don't want to hear anything else. I'm asking you to withdraw the statement.
Well, unfortunately, I can't withdraw the statement.
You can't withdraw the statement?
No, because you don't allow me to explain. I have not attacked the integrity of any individual. I made a statement that is political, and I stand by it.
Hon George, you are telling me that you don't want to withdraw the statement. Is that what you're saying? [Interjections.] Hon George!
Yes, Deputy Speaker.
I'm asking you to withdraw the statement. Are you saying that you're not going to withdraw the statement?
Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order!
On what basis? Or have you just decided that you'll bully me into withdrawing the statement? [Interjections.]
Order! Hon George, I read a lengthy ruling. Unfortunately, I'm presiding here and I make the decisions.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order!
I'm asking you to withdraw the statement.
Madam Deputy ...
I'm not going to allow any other person to speak on this matter; I'm dealing with hon George now.
I will wait till afterwards, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do rise on a point of order and I shall have that point of order taken.
What do you want me to withdraw, Madam Deputy Speaker?
I want you to withdraw what you said - I read it here; unless you were not listening - that the President ...
I was listening. I'm asking: What do you want me to withdraw?
What you said, that the President deliberately leads this country into lawlessness.
I did not say that. Already your interpretation is wrong. Read the document again. [Interjections.]
Hon George, you don't want to withdraw? Will you please leave the House? [Applause.]
Hon Deputy Speaker, may I address you, please? [Interjections.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have risen on a point of order.
I will not take any point of order from anybody on this matter. Order!
Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a matter of absolute cardinal importance to this House. It interferes with the right of freedom of speech in the House, and it is not a correct reading of the Rule before you. I must make a point of order in order to motivate exactly why I believe you are wrong. What you are doing is narrowing significantly the whole point of freedom of speech in this House, and it is absolutely unacceptable. I think this matter must be debated further.
There's not going to be any debate.
It has to be debated further, because you've made a ruling that we cannot and will not accept.
Hon Deputy Speaker, may I address you, please?
Order! Shall we move to the next item?
Then in that regard, hon Deputy Speaker, we will leave as a whole until the time you want Mr Mluleki George back. Thank you. [Interjections.]
Fine! [Interjections.]
Deputy Speaker, I do rise, for the record, to raise the fact that a member of the DA, hon Kohler-Barnard, made what I believe to be a very silly statement as they were leaving. Excuse my language, but she actually said, "F**k you." [Interjections.]
I don't think we should take that lightly. We are not in a zoo here. We are not animals, and this is not a circus. I am really sorry, Deputy Speaker. I want this recorded, because if and when they return, this matter will have to be attended to. We may not allow a Member of Parliament to say "f you", to use the "f-word" against another Member of Parliament. It is incorrect. Thank you.
Deputy Speaker, it is important for us, as the African National Congress, that we put it on record that you made a ruling, which was well motivated, and that the ruling is fully acceptable to us and that we find it disturbing that members of Cope and the DA refused to accept a ruling and walked out of this Parliament, which is actually a violation of the Rules of this House. They don't want to accept the ruling of this House, so they are trying to make Parliament unworkable. I think this has to be recorded.
Deputy Speaker, may I address you on the point of order or the point made by the Chief Whip of the Majority Party? I would like to just bring to your attention that we are dealing obviously, as we all understand, with a very serious matter. On the one hand, we have the ruling that you have made, in terms of the order of the House, but we also have the provisions of the Constitution, in terms of freedom of speech, and we need to balance those.
The way I understand it - and it is important for me and, I think, for all members in this House also to understand - is that we have always had a ruling from the Chair, since the beginning of 1994, that if a member refers to another member in terms of what you said, then it may be unparliamentary.
The distinction has been that a member was allowed to refer, for example, to another political party. It was in order for the ruling party or for an opposition party to refer to another party's policies and to say that a specific policy is bad. That should be separate, and understood to be separate, from when a member specifically refers to a specific hon member and reflects on the integrity of that member.
All I am asking is this, that you make 120% sure that the statement was made in terms of a direct reflection on the person of the President or on the person of a specific member. If it is not the case, if it is a general reflection on a policy by a party, be it from this side on a policy from that side, then I would ask us to reconsider in terms of the provisions of the Constitution that allow freedom of speech. That is all I am asking. Thank you.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise also to record that the IFP does not agree with your ruling. We think, with great respect, that you are wrong, and I agree with Dr Mulder, but we do not want to walk out.
Thank you, hon members. Let me pre-empt even those members who haven't spoken, because we want to continue to the next item. I made a ruling, a considered ruling, after studying the Hansard and also seeking advice. Now, even if the principle of that ruling is incorrect, the member's responsibility is to take that to the Rules Committee and then question the ruling. I cannot have a situation where I am in the Chair during a debate and make a ruling and have a member of this House stand there and he or she cannot withdraw a comment. That is something that can never happen. [Applause.]
I take your point. If there is a need to review this, the Rules Committee must look at it, and they must tell me whether it was correct or wrong, not the member against whom I have ruled, supported by other parties. Thank you very much. Can we proceed?
Madam Deputy Speaker, may we from the ACDP ask your indulgence for just one minute? I don't want to debate the issue further. I just want to say that we also do not necessarily agree with your ruling, and we do believe that you have given a correct way forward, that the person should have referred it to the appropriate forum to decide. Obviously it becomes intolerable, if the person does not accept a ruling that you give in this House. We, from the ADCP side, do not necessarily agree with your ruling. However, we have decided to stay and participate in the parliamentary process and believe that it should have been taken up at a different forum. Thank you. [Applause.]
Madam Deputy Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the parties that have indicated acceptance of the direction you have proposed. However, I thought it important to indicate that the member not only infringed the ruling of the Deputy Speaker but infringed Rules adopted by the Rules Committee of this House, which state that a member cannot reflect upon a ruling by the presiding officer. Therefore, the member was not just breaching or disagreeing with your ruling, but infringing the very Rules that guide members of this House. [Applause.]