Hon members, immediately after the debate on the International Day of Democracy yesterday, the hon Deputy Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, Mr A C Nel, rose on a point of order.
He contended that the hon Mrs D A Schfer had transgressed Rule 66 by stating that the National Director of Public Prosecutions, Adv Menzi Simelane, was unfit for office. Having now had an opportunity to study the unrevised Hansard, I wish to rule as follows: According to the Hansard transcript, hon Schfer said:
The ousting of Vusi Pikoli as the National Director of Prosecutions in favour of a man who has proven himself unfit in every respect, other than having the distinguished qualification of being a supporter of Jacob Zuma, goes to show how far the President will go to protect himself and his cronies from criminal charges.
Hon members, the purpose of Rule 66, a rule made by this House, is to protect the integrity and independence of judges and to prevent unwarranted and unsubstantiated attacks on the honour and confidence of public office bearers, whose removal from office is dependent on a decision of this House.
If there are grounds for an investigation into the conduct of such office bearers, this House has available the mechanism of a substantive motion.
Though the Deputy Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development only mentioned the National Director of Public Prosecutions in his point of order, Rule 66 also applies to the President of the Republic; both of them were maligned by hon member Mrs Schfer when she referred to the National Director of Public Prosecutions' competence and impugned the motives of the President as being criminal. These remarks are unacceptable, regrettable and should be withdrawn. Hon member Schfer, will you please withdraw the offensive remark.