Deputy Speaker, the motion printed in my name on the Order Paper is as follows:
That the House -
(1) notes that during the tenure of President Jacob Zuma as President of the Republic of South Africa-
(a) economic growth has fallen to around 1,4%;
(b) more and more South Africans are constantly and increasingly falling victim to violent crimes;
(c) corruption has been established in South Africa as a constant;
(d) the promotion of the unity of the nation has been seriously compromised; and
(2) in terms of section 102(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 and Rule 102A of the Rules of the National Assembly, passes a motion of no confidence in President Jacob Zuma. The Deputy Chief Justice has said that in the first instance the Assembly is elected to represent the people and to ensure government by the people under the Constitution. [Interjections.]
A motion of no confidence in the President is a vital tool to advance our democratic hygiene. It affords the Assembly a vital duty and power to scrutinise and oversee executive action. This shows that the Constitutional Court recognises the supreme importance of motions of no confidence in the executive as the most powerful tools of parliamentary oversight.
Since this is so, it is very important that, when voting on a motion of no confidence in the President, members of the National Assembly, including members who represent the majority party, should vote according to the dictates of their conscience. [Interjections.] That is why a motion of no confidence must be voted upon by way of a secret ballot. [Interjections.]
The ruling party has betrayed its liberation movement traditions and now rules more by fear and patronage than by consent, but I am convinced that there are enough hon members who represent the governing party who share our distress at how the President has shamed the liberation movement, shamed the country and shamed all of its people. [Interjections.] I believe that they would vote with the minority parties to adopt a motion of no confidence in the President if voting took place by secret ballot. It is a pity, therefore, that the Speaker has turned down Agang's request for such a vote to be taken by way of a secret ballot.
The Supreme Court of Appeal has heard that the Speaker is required by the duties of her office to exercise and display the impartiality of a judge. Of course, the President will not enjoy the confidence of opposition parties, but the Speaker must enjoy the confidence of every member in this House, for the Speaker is not the Speaker of the ANC; she's the speaker of Parliament. She is, or should be, the Speaker of us all.
We have all been witnessing the unthinkable over the last few months. This Chamber should be a bastion of decorum, where the people's chosen representatives gather to debate the affairs of the nation and to make its laws. There should be, on the one hand, the utmost respect for the authority of the presiding officers and, on the other, unwavering impartiality on their part. But this House has descended into chaos.
Our new democracy was a light to the world. We had overcome centuries of colonialism and apartheid. This institution was, until 1994, the stifled, oppressive seat of domination of a single, racist party. It hosted the barest pretext of democracy - a cynical mockery of popular representation.
Then, overnight, this was transformed into a Chamber that drew the admiration of the world. People came from every corner of the globe to witness the workings of a nonracial, nonsexist republic of freedom.
It is an unspeakable tragedy that we seem to be reverting to what this House was in the grim years of apartheid - a hollow sham of democratic gestures, form without substance, words without meaning, ritual without integrity.
We must lead by example, but we have taught the worst possible lesson to an audience on live television. Our people, day after day, witness their elected leaders abandoning all decency, mutual respect, and honour.
It is the Speaker's sacred responsibility to hold this House to the highest standards of democracy. Instead of doing so, she has descended into muddy trenches. What will happen if this paralysis, caused in no small measure by the President, endures for too long? What will happen? What will happen if the National Assembly is frustrated and cut off from fulfilling its constitutional role for too long?
Democracy is a fragile thing. I fear that the habits and practices of lively debate - challenging, but respecting differences - that characterised our postliberation rainbow Parliament, may whither and die on the vine, never to stir again.
If that happens, history may record that the Speaker presided over the funeral.
The danger is that Parliament will have become twisted and torn too far, wounded and damaged too badly, and gone down the road of chaos so far that it will be unable to turn back. Also, a legislature that has torn itself apart and, in the process, rendered itself incapable of fulfilling its oversight role, particularly in respect of the executive, invites executive intervention and takeover.
So this debate is set against the backdrop of no fewer than three High Court applications arising out of the disgraceful scrambling of cellphone signals and the invasion of these hallowed halls by armed plainclothes police.
And now Agang, the UDM and Cope are jointly seeking an order against the Speaker to have her declared unfit to hold the position of Speaker. At the very least, she should not preside over debates on motions of no confidence. [Interjections.]
In the same court case an order will also be sought that a vote on a motion of no confidence should take place by secret ballot, in order to allow members to vote according to their conscience and not according to the dictates of Luthuli House.
This court application was necessitated, firstly, by the Speaker's refusal to recuse herself from presiding over this debate and, secondly, by the fact that she indicated in advance, without hearing the arguments, that she would not allow voting to take place by way of secret ballot.
In our court case we maintain that the Speaker has strayed from the rule of law and the time-honoured conventions which apply to her position - those of impartiality, even-handedness, fairness and discernment. She is like a judge who has become a prosecutor. Agang, the UDM and Cope are asking the court to take the first step along the road to the restoration and recovery of Parliament's dignity and the nation's respect for it.
We are respectfully asking the court to remind the Speaker that she is not above the law and that she should abide by the rules of law which govern ...
Hon Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Yes, hon Nkwinti. What is your point of order?
We have been made to understand that a motion of no confidence in the President of the Republic will be put this afternoon. The hon member who is supposed to put the motion is talking about the Speaker. We think he is confused, hon Speaker. [Interjections.]
Hon Plouamma, in taking the matter out of the court, the ruling of the court dealt with the issue of the recusal of the Speaker and the issue of voting by secret ballot. I think that enabled us to get on with the motion on the Order Paper in your name, hon member.
Hon Speaker, I just want to cut the matter short. For all these reasons, Madam Speaker, I respectfully ask you again whether you are prepared to recuse yourself from presiding over this debate. [Interjections.]
Hon Plouamma, I am presiding.
I guess that is a no.
That issue has been decided. I am presiding and I have no intention of recusing myself. Hon member, you are free to address the motion on the Order Paper as put by yourself.
In that case, Madam Speaker, I decline to move the motion that is printed in my name on the Order Paper. I withdraw it. [Interjections.]
The hon Radebe.
Hon Speaker, I have a point of order.
Hon Plouamma, you are no longer at the podium. I don't see how you think you can play games with the House. You put a motion. The House is ready to handle it. Everybody on the speakers' list is here. Please go and take your seat, hon Plouamma. [Interjections.]
Hon Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not playing games. [Interjections.]
Hon Plouamma, please go and take your seat.
Can't I raise my point of order?
We will do our own work from this Chair with the assistance of the Table.
Can I ...
I request you to go and take your seat.
Hon Speaker, all I'm saying is: Let me read my point of order and you can rule on it. [Interjections.] Then I will go to my seat. [Interjections.] All I'm asking is for you to allow me to read my point of order. You can then rule on it, and I will take my seat. [Interjections.]
Hon Plouamma, you do not know for how long you have been dragging us, the various parties, around on this matter of your motion.
Hon Speaker, you speak as if you are blackmailing me now ... [Interjections.] ... because now you are saying that I have been dragging people around. Is that not blackmail? [Interjections.]
Hon Plouamma, what this Chair and the Table are doing now is considering the situation that you have put us in. That is the situation of putting a motion on the Order Paper, and then saying you decline to move it.
All I'm saying ... [Interjections.] Hon Speaker, I have asked you a question. I asked you whether you would allow a secret ballot. You said no. I therefore said that on the basis of your answer, I withdrew this motion because that was the condition of the motion. [Interjections.]
Hon Plouamma, please go and take your seat. Let us just have our own consultation here. [Interjections.]
Thank you. [Interjections.]
Coward! [Interjections.]
Hon Speaker. [Interjections.] Hon Speaker. [Interjections.] Hon Speaker, can you please call security for that group over there. [Laughter.] [Interjections.] We need security now. [Interjections.]
Madam Speaker! Madam Speaker! Hallo! [Laughter.] [Interjections.] Madam Speaker. Thank you. Madam Speaker, should I come there? [Applause.] [Interjections.] [Laughter.]
Hon Speaker, can you also call me. [Laughter.] I am interested. [Laughter.]
Order, hon members! During the period when we were conferring, I heard somebody saying - and apparently they were saying it to the hon member of AgangSA - "Coward!" Apparently that hon member has since left the Chamber. So, we will have to engage with the hon member when they are back in the Chamber. [Interjections.] [Applause.]
HON MEMBERS: Here she is. Here she is. [Laughter.]
I have been informed that the hon member who has just entered the House shouted to the hon AgangSA member, "Coward!" I am very grateful because the hon member is just getting up. I was wondering whether this was reliable information, that it was her. Hon member?
Speaker, I don't know what you are talking about because I did not say anything. [Interjections.] What did I say? I am surprised that ... [Interjections.] ...
Okay, because I will ... [Interjections.]
... you are saying that I said, "Coward." [Interjections.] What should I withdraw? It is not I who said that word. [Interjections.]
All right, hon member. [Interjections.]
I don't know. I was seated here and that is why I am puzzled ... [Interjections.]
It's okay. Hon member, take your seat; we will then deal with this issue outside and not here.
We now have a motion that was put before us to deal with. I now recognise the Chief Whip of the Majority Party in that regard.
Hon Speaker, in line with Rule 102, any member who moves a motion can, without notice, withdraw the motion after consultation with other parties. We have agreed that he has a right to withdraw it, but that right has been abused because we had all agreed that we would debate the motion. Because he has decided to withdraw it in a malicious way, we do not have any topic to debate, and therefore the motion is off the table.
Madam Speaker, we did confer outside and we concur with the interpretation of the Rules.
I want to say, however, that these sorts of constitutional motions are not motions that must be entered into lightly or trifled with. They are serious motions and have serious implications.
When this sort of thing happens, it actually undermines our ability as Members of Parliament to hold the executive to account properly, and for them to take us seriously when we actually perform our functions. I had arranged for a number of my members to speak. We called this a three- line whip today and we had some great speakers lined up. However, so be it - the motion has fallen away. We will be back another day. Thank you.
Speaker, indeed we did agree that now that the AgangSA representative has withdrawn the motion, there is no need to debate it.
However, he must really stop playing games. We are serious here. We don't want to be playing games. We are an opposition and, yes, we want the motion of no confidence in President Zuma. However, playing games will not assist the House. We don't want AgangSA to play games. They must dissolve and maybe go and do something else and stop wasting our time. [Laughter.]
I am aware that some hon members are itching to say something, but I have recognised the Chief Whips of the three biggest parties. In fact, we are agreed that the motion is off the table and therefore ... [Interjections.] The IFP wants to say something, and the NFP.
Madam Speaker, we are indeed one of the biggest parties in the House ... [Interjections.] [Laughter.] The IFP aligns itself with the proposal that the motion falls away and that there is, in fact, nothing to debate.
Having said that, Speaker, let me say that we spent quite a long time preparing to debate this motion. I request that next time our time is not wasted in this manner by any party, and that they should warn us in time if they want to withdraw a motion. Thank you.
Speaker, I am sure that in future all those people will be generous enough to refer to all parties, because we were also consulted.
Be that as it may, we want to concur with the fact that the mover has withdrawn the motion and, as that is the case, we have nothing on the table to be discussed. However, this was a critical matter and we would have discussed some critical and very pertinent issues. In future, he must put the motion and we will debate it.
Agb Speaker, die standpunt van die FF Plus op hierdie aangeleentheid is dat dit die taak van hierdie Huis is om die uitvoerende gesag tot verantwoording te roep. Maar daar is ook 'n plig en 'n verantwoordelikheid op agb lede van hierdie Huis om verantwoordelik op te tree as hulle die uitvoerende gesag tot verantwoording wil roep.
Ek dink dit is onverantwoordelik van 'n agb lid om 'n mosie te stel, en dan hier by die podium te kom, en dan skielik die mosie te onttrek. Dit is nie die regte manier om die uitvoerende gesag tot verantwoording te roep nie. Daarvoor is die Rels daar.
Ons sal dan aanvaar dat die mosie van die tafel is. Maar ons doen 'n beroep op agb lede dat hulle verantwoordelik moet optree, want hierdie is nie 'n kinderhuis of 'n plek waar ons soos kindertjies kan speel met die Rels wat ons moet gebruik om die uitvoerende gesag tot verantwoording te roep nie. [Applous.] (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Dr P J GROENEWALD: Hon Speaker, the opinion of the Freedom Front Plus on this matter is that it is the duty of this House to call the executive to account. But the hon members of this House also have a duty and responsibility to act responsibly if they want to call the executive to account.
I think that it is irresponsible of an hon member to move a motion, and to then get to the podium and suddenly withdraw said motion. This is not the correct way to call the executive to account. That is what the Rules are there for.
We will therefore accept that the motion has been withdrawn. But we call upon hon members that they should act responsibly, because this is not a children's home or a place where we can play like children with the Rules that we must use in order to call the executive to account. [Applause.]]
Speaker, we in the smaller parties are placed in a very difficult position when there are a lot of motions and debates on the Order Paper.
I spent a lot of time preparing for this debate, and I had some nice things to say about the President and some not so nice things. I want to share the sentiments of other speakers and express our regret that the motion was withdrawn at such a late stage. I sat up late preparing for it, especially considering I had some other commitments as well. I think we need to take it very seriously when we have motions like this. Thank you.
Speaker, I think, as an addition to what other members have said, I would like to say that it would be a useful lesson for us to ask ourselves how we factor in the Rules and safeguarding mechanisms so that we don't have to come to this again. [Applause.]
Thank you, hon Godi. Hon members, I really believe that we have come to the end of expressing ourselves on this matter, which was the last business of the House today. I would like us to agree to adjourn the House. [Applause.]
Motion, with leave, withdrawn in terms of Rule 102.