DA heads to court after parliamentary violence
The upshot of last night’s violence in Parliament is that the DA plans to be in court today to challenge the deployment of the SA National Defence Force and police during the State of the Nation Address, says an SABC News report. It says DA Leader Musi Maimane explained the DA plans to launch a review application regarding the use of the police and the army... 'the decision to do that is fundamentally irrational; it has no basis in law.
It violates the separation of powers and, ultimately, it puts members of Parliament at great risk because now we must come to Parliament with masks because the army is here.’ A report in The Mercury quotes him as saying: ‘The Constitution of this republic makes it clear that the army and the police cannot enter this chamber. Inside there, they pulled tear gas, and they protected Jacob Zuma using the military and police.
It has become quite clear that Parliament is now a broken institution and that (Speaker) Baleka Mbete is simply there to protect Jacob Zuma.’ According to a News24 report, NCOP chair Thandi Modise apologised for breached security after the DA alleged tear gas had been used in the chamber, explaining that what was used was in fact pepper spray. It should not have happened, she said.
Full report in The Mercury (subscription needed)
Parliament was transformed into a gladiatorial arena for the third year in a row, notes a report in The Mercury. EFF MPs and parliamentary protection services officers exchanged blows. Profanities and fists flew as the EFF parliamentarians were escorted from the building after disrupting proceedings yet again. The chaos began after the EFF refused to allow the President to address the chamber. It was the eighth time in three years that the EFF has disrupted proceedings when Zuma appeared in Parliament.
Opposition parties closed ranks against Zuma, refusing to give him the platform to deliver his 10th State of the Nation Address.
EFF leader Julius Malema made it clear that they would not leave the House without a fight. He said they would never allow Zuma to come and address the national legislature when he had breached the Constitution. Malema told Mbete that she was refusing to deal with Zuma because of ANC infighting. COPE MP Willie Madisha was the first to be kicked out of Parliament after he refused an order from the Speaker to leave. Malema said they would not be addressed by Zuma because he was corrupt. 'Sitting in front of us here is an incorrigible man, rotten to the core. The fact that the majority voted against the Constitution (on the Nkandla report) does not make the majority right,' he said.
Full report in The Mercury (subscription needed)
EFF MPs, and COPE and the DA to a lesser extent, ran the show in the National Assembly the minute Zuma stepped into the chamber, says a Business Day report. In a tense one-and-a-half hour stand-off with the two presiding officers – Mbete and Modise – EFF MPs ran rings around the two officials, rising on points of order to make the same point: Zuma was not fit to address the House.
One after the other, EFF MPs rose to reinforce one message: Zuma had violated the Constitution and did not deserve to address Parliament.
The rejection of the plea by the DA for a minute’s silence in remembrance of the 94 Life Esidimeni psychiatric patients, who died at unlicensed NGOs in Gauteng, reinforced the EFF’s message. So did COPE leader Mosiuoa Lekota who said all those who were in Parliament had taken oaths of office. ‘But none of us has broken that oath,’ said Lekota, except Zuma. In a parting shot delivered before Julius Malema and his EFF MPs were kicked out of the National Assembly, he told Mbete: ‘You are prepared to chase out people who want to protect the Constitution. Your conduct has failed you to be a candidate for President because you are irrational, impatient and you are partisan.’
Article disclaimer: While we have made every effort to ensure the accuracy of this article, it is not intended to provide final legal advice as facts and situations will differ from case to case, and therefore specific legal advice should be sought with a lawyer.





