MickeyD
RIP
That date was only proposed after the PoP during SONA. And there is no guarantee that he will physically be in the House on that day. Replies can be written or oral.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Which is the most hair-raising South African mountain pass you've driven?
SONA 2015
- Thread starter rwenzori
- Start date
ZCFOutkast
Expert Member
You're joking right?
Zuma will answer parly questions in March http://www.citypress.co.za/news/zuma-will-answer-parly-questions-march/
EFF leader insists Zuma must answer questions at state of nation address http://www.bdlive.co.za/national/20...t-answer-questions-at-state-of-nation-address
Then again you and your DA gang view EFF actions as "breakign Parly down". Anyway we're celebrated globally!
ZCFOutkast
Expert Member
Questions can be written or oral - at anytime of the year - is what you meant to say.
MickeyD
RIP
A crisis will develop and he'll jet off into the sunset... bookmark this!
Anyway we're celebrated globally!
As what? (as opposed to 'for what')
MickeyD
RIP
So can replies.
Kosmik
Honorary Master
Did you watch the SONA? Because if you did, it should be self-evident. The EFF raised the points of order and privilege and were wrongfully evicted for it. The DA then stood up and asked for clarity on the matter of the security forces used to evict the EFF. When this was not forthcoming or sufficiently explained, they walked out in protest of the Speaker and the ruling parties abuse of powers against parliament. They didn't actually disrupt the SONA but raised the point when it was shown that the speaker was abusing her power and trampling over the constitution.
ZCFOutkast
Expert Member
Wrong context.
ZCFOutkast
Expert Member
The attitude of Maimane and Steenhuisen was the same as EFF. Are you implying the EFF got clarity on the question they asked?
Personally I thought, Malema, aside, those of the EFF who asked questions were very polite and obedient in comparison to Mamaine&Steenhuisen. Didn't badger the speakers as much as those two.
But I don't think the EFF really wanted to "disrupt" the proceedings
They wanted Mbete to disrupt the proceedings - which she did
Also in terms of the parliamentary practice they were following it would be against the spirit of a question of privilege to allow JZ to speak once it is established that he is not answering the question.
The issue is sadly not getting much coverage: a question of privilege is much like a point in limine in contrast to a point of order and there really are three questions of parliamentary privilege which the Speaker defied:
[1] Whether the President is in control of the House during the SONA: Mbete claimed that Zuma called the meeting and it was his meeting - this is unconstitutional and violates the customs of the House as the president merely summons Parliament
[2] Whether a person who has failed to answer to the National Assembly on any question ought to be pressed to answer on their attendance at Parliament for another item of business: it is my view that such a convention is not in step with our jurisprudence but it remains a question of privilege to be determined by either the joint rules committee or the House (but not the singular person of the Speaker); unfortunately the ANC have failed to behave properly and cause a summons for Zuma to appear before SCOPA to answer the question of Nkandla.
[3] Whether armed persons may enter the House at the request of the Speaker in order to apply force against members of the Assembly while the House is sitting: there was no threat to life or limb or property which necessitated the deployment of force and the arrival of the white shirt thugs actually put everybody's life in danger.
The failure of the Speaker to answer a question of privilege gives rise to a point of order for a member of the House to raise.
By persisting in Speaking with an unanswered question of privilege Zuma defied Parliament and as a former MP he knows the Rules (or ought to) so really can't feign ignorance.
bekdik
Honorary Master
I have a huge problem with the use of anonymous armed persons in parliament. Surely if the enforcers are members of some legitimate group such as army; police or parliament, then they need to be in uniform so as to identify themselves?
Um no
the attitude of the EFF was to force the Speaker and Zuma into answering whether he will answer
the attitude of the DA was that once the Speaker abused Parliamentary process they would disengage - therefore they walked out
In my view the EFF's attitude walking into the House was wrong and the EFF are generally wrong, however the method used to seek an answer was correct in terms of the Rules and depends on an answer to a jurisprudence question which the ANC has avoided being raised for some 20 years [before 1994 pitching up at Parliament with an unanswered question saw you hauled into the "Committee Examination Room" (which I believe has since been turned into a general office) quite close to the Senate chamber. Department Heads would arrive and go straight to the CER with outstanding written replies (often non-answer answers, but it is besides the point)] namely whether a person who is failing to deliver information to Parliament will be compelled to do so and how. The Constitution envisages Parliament summonsing people - but Zuma hasn't been summonsed - and it is my view that the nature of business at Parliament means that it is not sensible to interrupt one item of business to finalize another unless there is a rational requirement for the first to be settled prior to moving onto that item, therefore that what is appropriate is for Zuma to be summonsed to Parliament to answer on Nkandla failing which he should be detained by Parliament and criminally charged for contempt before the High Court.
In my view though the EFF is a consequence of the ANC's failure to deal with the ANC's skeletons and the fixation with protecting Zuma is going to be the death of not only the ANC but the good conscience of many good people.
True
Anonymous_Coward
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2009
- Messages
- 229
- Reaction score
- 24
Now they never will get hold of Zuma as Zuma will find convenient excuses not to attend any more Parliamentary sittings.
Those of you who think otherwise, wake up... this just won't happen. The horse has bolted.
Those of you who think otherwise, wake up... this just won't happen. The horse has bolted.
ZCFOutkast
Expert Member
You are entitled to personally demand identification of anyone acting in that situation you know. I found it silly that the DA chose to badger the Speaker&Chair instead of sending one of them over to demand identification as is open to any common citizen of this country then go back to the speaker with evidence-based questioned. Which is why Thandi Modise's answer to them was perfect - "I can't go to each and every one of them to identify themselves". Afterall, she's busy chairing, but half the DA parliamentarians could've easily done that in 5 minutes. Which they didn't do. They prefer costly enquiries and court cases to establish such things, then later brag about rulings the majority of the public couldn't be bothered about.
bekdik
Honorary Master
I would have thought it was up to those convening the meeting to check the bona fides of anyone entering the house, after all, the chairpersons have on many occasions said that those attending were by their invitation ...
ZCFOutkast
Expert Member
First the DA should have walked out since they were not consulted about use of force, secondly armed men not immediately identifiable by uniform walked into the house. Thirdly, they saw for themselves other innocent EFF MPs being dragged out. So there were three stages of parliamentary processes being abused which gave the DA reasons to walk out but they didn't.
Instead they tried first to verbally justify the reasons for their walking out in case their constituency gets mixed signals that they are walking out in solidarity with the EFF which is why the Chair told them walk out on your terms not mine and they were then flatfooted on national television.
Walking out because the Speaker or Chair or both couldn't clarify something is less than the 3 weightier reasons I've given you above. The bruised EFF had already given interviews to the journalists about SAPS involvement by the time DA got a riddled answer which prompted their walkout. News writings at the bottom accompanying the feed had already been publishing that before Mmusi got his answer so to what effect was it? The boat had already sailed.
Um no, are you a complete ****ing moron?
The DA members could not simply walk around demanding to know the identity of somebody - who by the way was armed and in an act of committing assualt, I dare you to go up to a thug who is busy committing an act of assault and demand there identity - without DISRUPTING the House while the House is sitting. The course of action when somebody enters a chamber - any chamber presided over - is for that person to bow and if a member of the chamber queries their identity or right of presence it is through the presiding officer
ZCFOutkast
Expert Member
You're evading the point. Ad hominem reasoning rears its ugly head again. DA were cowards, and they sought to create their own reasons as well as an environment to walk out, when they had 3 clear reasons before that, actually four including the physical abuse of men&women during a SONA. Resorting to insults will not change that fact.
So being charitable to a corrupt and abusive presiding officer and affording them audi alterim partem is not appropriate in your warped view?
The DA, Chief Justice (according to reports) and Holimisa did not walk out "in solidarity with the EFF" they walked out in solidarity with Parliament. Your inability (repeatedly demonstrated) to appreciate and understand what Parliament is and represents puts you in no better a league as Zuma and Mbete.
Cowards? On what basis
- also take a look at the meaning of "ad hominem" and while you are at it "reasoning". I am insulting you, you ****ing moron, not using an insult to discredit your argument - ergo no ad hominem. I've thrown out your argument with reason and logic and insulted you for other reasons.
They walked out at the appropriate time after establishing an appropriate basis to walk out - namely that the Speaker had determined to abuse Parliament. The assaults committed on Members of Parliament gives rise to action against the person who committed assault until the questions raised by the DA were raised there was not a clear basis to attribute the behaviour to the presiding officers.