PROCEDURAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

Third Session – Second Parliament January to December 2001

4

Parliament of the Republic of South Africa

Produced with the assistance of:

The European Union

Parliamentary Support Programme

Tel: (021) 422-0080

PRESIDING OFFICERS & OTHER OFFICE BEARERS1. Motion of support for speakers..................................12. Parliamentary counselor replaced...............................1PROCEDURAL & RELATED ISSUES3. Speaker’s debates ........................................................24. Sequence of party motions.........................................25. Declarations on racism ..............................................2

(a) Signing and tabling of Declaration on the UnitedNations World Conference Against Racism and Houseresolution thereon

(b) Conference on racism organised by Inter-ParliamentaryUnion in Durban and debate on Final Declaration

(c) Debate on report on World Conference Against Racism6. Unparliamentary language: racial insults....................37. Debates on matters of public importance and

urgent public importance...........................................3(a) Guidelines for approving requests (b) Debate requested by parties and by more than one

Member(c) Debates requested during recess

8. Appointment of ad hoc committee to introduce powers and privileges bill ...........................................4

9. Sequence of business at the start of a sitting day........410. Abstention of party minuted although no division ....411. Notices of motion not allowed on matter referred to

committee relating to a charge against a member ......5PARLIAMENT’S INVESTIGATION INTO THE GOVERNMENT ARMS

PROCUREMENT CONTRACT

12. Introduction and chronological overview of developments .............................................................5

13. Charges against member brought before committee ..714. Separation of powers between parliament and the

executive ....................................................................715. Criticism of parliament by the executive and

response by Speaker and SCOPA...............................816. Powers and functions of committees, and relations

with house .................................................................817. Status of confidential documents before committees.....918. Role of Speaker in investigation process.....................9QUESTION TIME IN THE HOUSE19. Trial period for new guidelines for questions

extended ..................................................................1020. Questions to deputy president postponed................1021. Additional supplementary questions allowed ...........10PARLIAMENT & THE EXECUTIVE22. Ministerial and executive statements ........................1023. Final report of ad hoc committee on report 13 of

the public protector .................................................1024. Ministerial directive not supported by portfolio

committee on justice................................................11MEMBERS25. Appointment of sole member of party as deputy

minister ...................................................................1126. Delay in new member taking oath...........................1227. Disciplinary steps against member for abuse of

travel facilities ..........................................................12

LEGISLATION & COMMITTEES28. Introduction of bill not certified by state law

advisers ....................................................................1229. Minority committee reports.....................................1230. Legislative procedures and legislation affecting

parliament ...............................................................13(a) Amendments to the Constitution(b) Other statutory amendments

31. Joint committee of parliament impeded in its work....1432. Consideration of amendments proposed by the

other house to bills ..................................................1433. Language of bills......................................................1434. Bill referred back to committee for report the

same afternoon ........................................................1535. Lapsed bill revived and recommitted .......................1536. Change of name of department and portfolio

committee................................................................1537. Referral of constitution amendment bill to

portfolio committee on defence ...............................1538. Tagging of bills ........................................................1539. Private members’ bills ..............................................1640. Introduction of bills by committees .........................16BUDGETARY MATTERS & MONEY BILLS41. Constitutional amendment adjusting definition of

money bill ...............................................................1642. Establishment of joint budget committee ................1643. Budget with finance committee for extended period...1744. Referral of money bills by resolution to committees

other than the finance committee ............................1745. Delay in tabling annual reports – explanations

submitted in terms of public finance management act............................................................................17

PROGRAMMING OF BUSINESS46. Guidelines for fast-tracking of bills approved in

programme committee.............................................1747. Fast-tracking of bill..................................................18RELATIONS WITH OTHER BODIES & PARLIAMENTS48. Addresses by heads of state and heads of government .1849. Consideration of constitutive act of african union

and draft protocol of pan-african parliament ...........1850. Parliamentary delegation to israel/palestine..............19STATUTORY FUNCTIONS OF THE NATIONALASSEMBLY51. Extension of period of operation of sections of

criminal law amendment act....................................1952. Filling of vacancies in commissions..........................19

(a) Commission on Gender Equality(b) Human Rights Commission(c) Magistrates Commission(d) Judicial Services Commission

53. Approval of recommendations by parliamentary committees in terms of statute.................................20

THE CHAMBER54. Audiovisual facilities ................................................20

Parliament of

the Republic of

South AfricaCONTENTS

PROCEDURAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLYA record of recent events and developments of a procedural nature in the National Assembly of the Parliamentof the Republic of South Africa. This periodical is intended to be published quarterly; however, owing to pres-sure of work and reduced staff capacity, this was not possible in 2001. Accordingly this fourth issue covers thewhole of 2001.

Compiled by: Staff of the National Assembly Table, Parliament of the Republic of South Africa.PO Box 15, Cape Town 8000. This material may also be found on the webpage of the Parliamentof South Africa: http://www.parliament.gov.za

ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE TEXT ..................20

1

PRESIDING OFFICERS ANDOTHER OFFICE BEARERS

1. MOTION OF SUPPORT FOR SPEAKER

On 14 May an open letter to the Speaker by theleader of the UDM, Gen BH Holomisa, was pub-lished in the Press alleging improper interference bythe Speaker into the parliamentary process of investi-gating the procurement of arms by the Government,and bias in conducting the business of the House.

On the following day, the Speaker made a state-ment from the Chair asking the House to examine theallegations and determine what action it wished totake, possibly considering the matter of privilege. Shepointed out that such grave charges could have seriousconsequences and attacked the integrity of the Houseand Parliament. She called upon Members to considerand determine how the matter should be pursued.

On 23 May the matter was discussed at the ChiefWhips’ Forum. It was agreed that it was necessary totake action to resolve the matter, since the allegationshad been widely publicised and were damaging to theOffice of Speaker and the image of Parliament. Thefollowing options were considered:

Substantive motion: This would mean that thematter could be debated on the floor of the House,and amendments could be moved. The questionwould be decided by the House, which would possibly dispose of the matter.

Referral to a committee by House resolution; oneof the following:

● The Rules Committee, with the Speaker recusingherself as Chair;

● the Chief Whips Forum, which would have tobe assigned this function notwithstanding theRules, which do not cover such a function. TheSpeaker would have to recuse herself as a mem-ber;

● the Rules Subcommittee on Powers andPrivileges, which would also have to be specifi-cally assigned this function by House resolutionand be instructed to report directly to theHouse. Here, too, the Speaker would have torecuse herself;

● a task group appointed from among its membersby one of the above structures; or

● an ad hoc committee, with clear terms of refer-ence, composed either proportionately in accor-dance with the numerical strength of parties; ormodelled on the Disciplinary Committee andconsisting of one member per party, presidedover by the Deputy Speaker; or a committee tak-ing proportionality into account, but giving noparty an absolute majority. The resolutionappointing the committee should specify names,to avoid the Speaker having to appoint members.

The Chief Whips Forum having considered theseoptions, on 7 June the Chief Whip of the MajorityParty moved: That the House – (1) noting –

(a) a letter widely circulated outside this House andauthored by BH Holomisa, MP, on behalf ofand in his capacity as leader of the UnitedDemocratic Movement;

(b) the unsubstantiated allegations contained in theletter and the media, concerning the conduct ofthe Speaker;

(c) that this is the first ever Parliament in a democ-ratic dispensation and the first ever SouthAfrican Speaker functioning in a democraticand multi-party representative House, guidedby an internationally admired and challengingconstitutional framework;

(d) that, as we are a new democratic order, it canbe expected that our new democratic institu-tion will be faced with new and complex proce-dural and constitutional issues; and

(e) that it is internationally regarded as good prac-tice and convention that in the event of a mem-ber wishing to criticise a Presiding Officer thatit be done through a substantive motion tabledin the House and not through an attack on thePresiding Officer outside the House; and

(2) believing that the Speaker –(a) by virtue of the office she occupies, must play a

guiding role in the development of Parliamentand the formulation of appropriate proceduresand rules; and

(b) has exercised her role in a manner consistentwith the strengthening of Parliament and allrepresentatives within it,

expresses its support for and appreciation of, the roleplayed by the Speaker in protecting and promotingthe interests of Parliament and in ensuring the partic-ipation of all parties represented in Parliament.

An amendment to the motion was moved by theChief Whip of the Opposition, as follows: To omitall words after “That” and to substitute: “the House”,noting that –(1) serious allegations have been made against the

Speaker which must be substantiated or refuted;(2) the Speaker herself is on record as saying that she

favoured an all-party committee without an ANCmajority; and

(3) the outcome of a debate on a confidence motionwould be determined by the ANC, irrespective ofthe arguments and allegations advanced by otherparties,and would weaken Parliament and theOffice of the Speaker instead of strengtheningthem,

therefore resolves to appoint an all-party committee toinvestigate the allegations and the appropriateness ofthe existing relationship between the Speaker, themajority party and the executive, this committee toreport thereon to the House on or before 29 June2001.”After a debate, the amendment was voted downand the majority motion carried after a division.

2. PARLIAMENTARY COUNSELLOR REPLACED

The Speaker announced on 25 January thatMs SC van der Merwe, MP, had been designated

2

Parliamentary Counsellor to the President in terms ofthe Rules of the National Assembly with effect from24 January 2001. Ms Van der Merwe replacedMr C Nqakula, MP, who had been appointedDeputy Minister of Home Affairs [ATC 25 January].

PROCEDURAL ANDRELATED ISSUES

– INTRODUCTION OF BILL NOT CERTIFIEDBY STATE LAW ADVISERS see “Legislation andcommittees”

– SAME QUESTION RULE see Filling of vacanciesin commissions under “Statutory functions of theNational Assembly”

– JOINT COMMITTEE OF PARLIAMENTIMPEDED IN ITS WORK see “Legislation andcommittees”

– INTRODUCTION OF BILLS BY COMMIT-TEES see “Legislation and committees”

3. SPEAKER’S DEBATES

On 8 March – International Woman’s Day – theAssembly debated the following subject as a Speaker’sdebate: “Parliamentary follow-up to Beijing +5”. Thedebate was introduced by Ms P Govender, MP, theChairperson of the Joint Monitoring Committee onImprovement of Quality of Life and Status ofWomen.

On 25 May – African Unity Day – the Assemblydebated the subject of “African unity” as a Speaker’sDebate. The debate was introduced by Mr MRamgobin, MP.

(See Item 20, Issue 1 for a discussion of Speaker’sDebates.)

4. SEQUENCE OF PARTY MOTIONS

It was decided at the Programme Committee on13 September that Whips would agree on a sequencefor party motions. Agreement was reached at theChief Whips’ Forum on 3 October that the sequencewould be changed to correspond with the sequencein which notices of motion are called for in theHouse, and questions are asked during QuestionTime, viz ANC, DP, IFP, ANC, NNP, UDM, ANC,ACDP/PAC/MF, FF/UCDP/FA/AZAPO.

5. DECLARATIONS ON RACISM

(a) Signing and tabling of Declaration on the UnitedNations World Conference Against Racism and Houseresolution thereonOn 19 March the Speaker tabled the Declaration(entitled “Tolerance and Diversity: A vision for the21st Century”) on the United Nations WorldConference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination,Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. At the sametime she announced that following a request fromthe Executive Co-ordinator for the World Conference

against Racism (WCAR) for the Speaker to sign theWorld Conference against Racism Declaration “inrecognition of the historic role that the South AfricanNational Assembly has been playing since the end ofApartheid”, she had signed the Declaration (ATCp214).

The statement was followed by a debate on a reso-lution moved by the Chief Whip of the MajorityParty to declare the decade 2001 to 2010 as theDecade for National Mobilisation against Racism. Inmaking some introductory remarks, the Speaker stat-ed that the request that she sign the declaration was“a recognition of and tribute to the work of membersof the first democratic Parliament elected in 1994,and also to the contribution of of all those who havebeen members of this second Parliament.”

The resolution was adopted together with amend-ments which inserted in the resolution a referencealso to sexism and an instruction to the ProgrammeCommittee to schedule a debate on poverty andHIV/Aids before 6 April.

As a result of scheduling difficulties, it was only on10 May that the House discussed as a subject for dis-cussion: “The fight against poverty and HIV/Aids isan urgent national priority”.

(b) Conference on racism organised by Inter-Parliamentary Union in Durban and debate onFinal DeclarationOn the occasion of the United Nations WorldConference Against Racism held in Durban inAugust/September, the Inter-Parliamentary Unionheld a parallel one-day conference for Members ofParliament on 2 September, on the subject “Action ofparliaments and their Members in the fight againstracism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and relatedintolerance”. Hosted by the South African Parliamentand chaired by the Speaker, the conference wasattended by more than 300 members of over 50Parliaments and culminated in a Final Declarationwhich was presented to the UN Conference on4 September by the Speaker on behalf of the Inter-Parliamentary Union.

The Declaration, whereby Members attending theconference pledged to actively combat racism andintolerance in various ways, was tabled in theNational Assembly (ATC 25 September). The Housedebated the Final Declaration as a subject for discus-sion on 18 October. The Speaker opened the debatewith a speech from the floor.

On 23 October a motion dealing with xenophobiawas moved without notice by the Acting Chief Whipof the Majority Party and adopted without debate. Interms of the motion, the House recognised thatParliament and its Members had a special responsibil-ity to address racism, xenophobia and related intoler-ances, and committed itself to fighting xenophobia.

(c) Debate on report on World Conference AgainstRacismOn 7 November the House debated the followingSubject for Discussion: The Report by the Minister

3

of Foreign Affairs on the World Conference AgainstRacism. The debate had initially been scheduled for16 October but stood over.

See also Unparliamentary language.

6. UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE: RACIALINSULTS

On Thursday, 11 October, while the DeputyChairperson of Committees was giving a ruling onremarks with a racial connotation made duringQuestion Time the previous week, further remarkswere made, giving rise to further points of order thatthe remarks were racist. Arising out of this, the ChiefWhip of the Opposition, Mr DHM Gibson, askedthe Deputy Chairperson of Committees, who was inthe Chair at the time, to give a general ruling onracial insults in Parliament. He subsequently alsowrote a letter to the Speaker in this regard.

The Deputy Chairperson, in a written response toMr Gibson, pointed out that in her speech from thefloor on 18 October, in which she opened the debateon the Declaration of Racism emanating from theIPU conference on racism on 2 September, theSpeaker had dealt comprehensively with the issuesMr Gibson had raised in his letter.

In discussing the action Parliament and individualMembers can and should take in the fight againstracism, the Speaker had stated that in view of ourhistory, it was incumbent on Members actively totake the lead to rid our society of its racist heritage.She emphasised that, also when participating indebates in the House, Members had a unique oppor-tunity actively to inculcate and promote the values oftolerance, diversity and inclusivity, and they shouldbe setting standards in that regard. Rather than beconcerned about whether a particular remark wasunparliamentary, Members should be sensitive to themessage they were conveying.

7. DEBATES ON MATTERS OF PUBLICIMPORTANCE AND URGENT PUBLICIMPORTANCE

(a) Guidelines for approving requests At a meeting of the National Assembly RulesCommittee on 2 March, the Speaker presented thecriteria she applied in considering requests fordebates on matters of public importance and urgentpublic importance (Rules 103 & 104) and asked thecommittee to consider whether it was necessary toput an approved set of criteria into the Rules. Nodecision was taken, but it was argued that the rule asit stood gave the Speaker the discretion to decide; ifcriteria were included in the Rules it would impedethe flexibility now afforded her. The Speaker said shefelt the criteria may need to be expanded.

The Speaker stated that where she found merit in arequest, she was obliged to consult the Leader ofGovernment Business, after which the matter went tothe programming whips to find a slot for the debate.

At a second meeting of the National Assembly

Rules Committee, on 21 August, an expanded docu-ment was distributed reflecting details of current cri-teria applied (see below). Parties were invited tocomment on the criteria.

In addition to the primary requirement that thesubject must be topical and relate to a specific matterof recent occurrence, the guidelines were as follows:1. Criteria for debates on matters of public importance

(Rule 103 of the National Assembly)– The request must deal with a matter for which

the Government can be held responsible.– The matter must be definite and specific.– The request must not eal with more than one

matter.– The request will not be granted if the matter can

be dealt with by some other means in the nearfuture.

– The sub judice rule applies.– The rule of anticipation applies.– If approved, the date and time of the debate will

be subject to the availability of the responsibleMinister.

2. Criteria for debates on matters of urgent publicimportance (Rule 104 of the National Assembly)– The subject matter must be of so serious a nature

that it requires immediate attention.– The subject must relate to a specific matter of

recent occurrence, and not to a general state ofaffairs or to a matter of policy.

– Such a request should only be allowed under veryspecial circumstances (eg a sudden emergency).

– The request must not deal with more than onematter.

– The request should not be granted if the mattercan be dealt with by some other means in thenear future.

– The request must concern a matter for which theGovernment can be held responsible or thatcomes within the scope of Ministerial action.

– The matter must be raised at the earliest oppor-tunity.

– Adequate notice must be given to the responsibleMinister.

– The sub judice rule applies.

(b) Debate requested by parties and by more than oneMemberRules 103 and 104, concerning matters of publicimportance and urgent public importance respective-ly, specify that “a private Member” may request theSpeaker for such a debate. However, a letter to theSpeaker dated 28 March and containing a request fora debate on a matter of public importance, wassigned by representatives of nine parties.

The request was granted and the debate – on “Thesudden escalation of rural violence in South Africa” –was held on 3 April. The Order Paper reflected thatthe debate had been requested by the nine partiesconcerned.

On two occasions requests by two Members fromdifferent parties for a debate in terms of Rule 103 were

4

granted. They were “The alarming incidence of childrape and abuse” on 14 November and “The impor-tance of a successful land reform programme; landinvasions and the responsibility of parties represented inParliament to uphold the rule of law” on 15 November.In both instances the matter was published on theOrder Paper in the names of both the Members.

(c) Debates requested during recessIn response to requests for debates in terms of Rules103/104 received during a recess, the Speakerinformed the relevant Members in a private rulingconveyed by letter, that such requests would only beentertained on sitting days, since the Rule refers tothe submission of requests on “sitting days”.

8. APPOINTMENT OF AD HOC COMMITTEETO INTRODUCE POWERS AND PRIVILEGESBILL

The Joint Subcommittee on Powers and Privileges isa subcommittee of the Joint Rules Committee tasked,under the Joint Rules of Parliament, to make recom-mendations to the Joint Rules Committee to trans-form the existing law and practice on parliamentarypowers and privileges. Arising out of the deliberationsof the joint subcommittee it had developed draft leg-islation to replace the existing Act of 1963. In itsfinal report dated 7 June (ATC 11 June) the jointsubcommittee reported as its recommendations, theSecond Draft of the Powers and Immunities ofParliament Bill; and the Minutes of the meeting ofthe Joint Subcommittee held on 4 April 2001.

To take the process forward, on 5 April the Houseresolved, subject to the concurrence of the NCOP,that the subcommittee report its recommendationsto transform the existing law and practice on exist-ing parliamentary powers and privileges, directly tothe House; and that an ad hoc committee of theHouse be appointed to introduce a Bill on the sub-ject. For this purpose the Rule that a joint subcom-mittee is accountable to, and may only makerecommendations to, its parent committee, was sus-pended. The ad hoc committee, in terms of the res-olution, was to –

● consist of 27 members in the following propor-tions: Majority Party 14, Official Opposition 2,all other parties 1;

● consider the recommendations of the joint sub-committee and introduce a Bill in accordance withchapter 13 (providing for the legislative process) ofthe National Assembly Rules, and specifically com-ply with the relevant provisions of the NationalAssembly Rules 239 and 240 (providing for prepa-ration of draft Bill and introduction of draft Billbefore introduction respectively);

● exercise those powers in Rule 138 (providing forgeneral powers of committees) that may assist itin carrying out its task;

● subject to the concurrence of the NationalCouncil of Provinces, confer with a correspond-ing council committee; and

● complete its task by not later than 7 September2001.

The NCOP appointed an ad hoc committee withsimilar powers and functions on 5 April.

While the Rules provide for a procedure whereby acommittee wishing to introduce a legislative proposalmust first obtain the permission of the House, in thisinstance permission was implicit in the above resolu-tion.

On 11 July the Speaker and the Chairperson of theNCOP announced that the Ad Hoc Committee onPowers and Privileges of Parliament (NationalAssembly) had published a draft Powers andImmunities of Parliament Bill, 2001, in the Gazette(ATC 11 July). The notice in the Gazette invitedinterested persons and institutions to submit writtencomments before 1 August 2001.

On 11 September the House adopted a motionmoved by the Chief Whip of the Majority partyextending the deadline for completion of this task to2 November.

The committee issued an interim report on2 November (ATC 13 November) asking for a fur-ther extension of its deadline and for prioritisation ofits work in 2002, since the scheduling of meetings ofthe committee presented difficulties in view ofMembers’ other commitments. The report was adopt-ed without debate and the committee’s deadline wasextended to 31 March 2002 (Minutes 16 November).

9. SEQUENCE OF BUSINESS AT THE START OFA SITTING DAY

On 20 September, before notices of motion weretaken, the Speaker announced that by agreement, theMinister of Foreign Affairs would make a statementprior to notices of motion being taken, on the SouthAfrican Government’s response to the terrorist attackon the United States of America on 11 September2001. This was notwithstanding Rule 29, which pro-vides for statements by Cabinet Ministers afternotices of motion and formal motions.

By agreement, no time was set aside on that day forresponses to the statement; however, on Wednesday,30 October, the House in a 11/2 -hour debate dis-cussed the statement as a subject for discussion.

10. ABSTENTION OF PARTY MINUTEDALTHOUGH NO DIVISION

The practice has developed in the Assembly that par-ties may on request have their abstention from votingrecorded during a division. In addition, parties mayon request have their objection recorded, as a milderand less time-consuming form of disagreement, with-out resorting to calling for a division.

On 23 October, on a decision on the second read-ing of the Private Security Industry Regulation Bill[B12B-2001], when other opposition parties request-ed their objection to be recorded, the AEB asked thatits abstention be recorded. The request was compliedwith although no division had taken place.

5

11. NOTICES OF MOTION NOT ALLOWEDON MATTER REFERRED TO COMMITTEERELATING TO A CHARGE AGAINST A MEMBER

On 27 March, when notice was given of a motionreferring to allegations of the corrupt acquisition of amotor vehicle by a Member, the Speaker announcedthat she would disallow notices of motion on thematter, on the grounds that it was being investigatedby the Joint Committee on Ethics and Members’Interests. She went on to ask Members to submit anysubstantive evidence they might have in this regard,to the committee for consideration.

The notice of motion in question and anothernotice of motion on that day were however allowedon the grounds that while referring to the matter,they did not deal directly with it.

On 28 March the Speaker granted a request by theMember in question, Mr TS Yengeni, to make astatement relating to the allegations against him.

In its interim report on 19 June 2001, the JointCommittee recommended that since the matter wasbeing investigated by the joint investigating teaminvestigating the arms deal, Parliament should awaitthe report of the team, and the committee shouldconsider it in order to proceed with the complaint.

The committee did not conclude its investigationinto this charge and charges against other Membersduring the year.

PARLIAMENT’S INVESTIGATIONINTO THE GOVERNMENT ARMSPROCUREMENT CONTRACT

12. INTRODUCTION AND CHRONOLOGICALOVERVIEW OF DEVELOPMENTS

The Report of the Standing Committee on PublicAccounts (SCOPA) on the arms procurement pack-age was adopted by the National Assembly on3 November 2000 (see Item 19, Issue 3). The Report,and developments since its adoption, have raisedimportant legal and procedural issues concerningParliament’s oversight role, the conduct of relationsbetween Parliament and the Executive, the role andfunctioning of committees, and the disclosure ofinformation presented to committees.

The following is an overview of developments sincethe adoption of the Report, followed by paragraphson the related legal and procedural aspects.

Auditor-General’s ReportA report of the Auditor-General entitled “SpecialReview by the Auditor-General of the SelectionProcess of Strategic Defence Packages for theAcquisition of Armaments at the Department ofDefence [RP161-2000]” was tabled on 20 September2000 and referred to the Portfolio Committee onDefence and the Standing Committee on PublicAccounts (SCOPA) for consideration and report. Thereport identified concerns relating to aspects of the

arms acquisition by the Government.

SCOPA’s Report on Review by the Auditor-GeneralSCOPA’s 14th report for 2000, dealing with theAuditor-General’s “Special Review”, was presented tothe National Assembly on 30 October. The reportrecommended “an independent and expert forensicinvestigation”, and continued:

In this regard, the Committee will prepare a brief forsuch an investigation, which stipulates particularassertions that ought to be investigated, while plac-ing no limitation on the scope of the investigation.In noting the complex and cross-cutting nature ofthe areas to be investigated, the Committee feelsthat the investigation would be best served by com-bining a number of areas of investigative expertiseand a number of differing areas of legal compe-tence and authority. It therefore recommends thatan exploratory meeting, convened by theCommittee, be held within two weeks of thetabling of this Report in the National Assembly.The Auditor-General, the Heath SpecialInvestigating Unit, the Public Protector, theInvestigating Directorate of Serious EconomicOffences and any other appropriate investigativebody should be invited, so that the best combina-tion of skills, legal mandates and resources can befound for such an investigation. Once this is estab-lished, the Committee will issue an investigationbrief to the team for its input. Also, the choseninvestigating body will be requested to report on itsprogress to the Committee at regular intervals, aswell as at the conclusion of its work, so that thiscan be included in the Committee’s final report tothe National Assembly on the matter.

On the last sitting day of the year, 30 November, theAssembly adopted SCOPA’s report without debate.

Developments after 14th Report adoptedThe exploratory meeting between SCOPA membersand “appropriate investigative bodies” – ie the Officeof the Auditor-General, the Heath SpecialInvestigations Unit, the Public Protector and theInvestigative Directorate for Serious EconomicOffences – took place in Pretoria on 13 November2000. Shortly afterwards, media reports began toappear, including statements by Members ofParliament, suggesting that the Assembly hadresolved to recommend to the President that theHeath Special Investigation Unit, amongst others,should be involved in the investigation. ThePresident was urged to heed the Assembly’s recom-mendation. (In terms of the Special InvestigatingUnits and Special Tribunals Act, 1966, the HeathUnit, an executive organ of state, could only becomeinvolved if the President issued a proclamation tothat effect.) The Chairperson of SCOPA and JudgeHeath also wrote to the President requesting him toissue the required proclamation.

A Joint Investigating Team, comprising theAuditor-General’s Office, the Public Protector andthe Investigative Directorate of Serious Economic

6

Offences (IDSEO) was formed to carry out theinvestigation after the exploratory meeting convenedby SCOPA on 13 November 2000. An investigationcharter, giving a clear description of the JointInvestigating Team’s functions, modus operandi andother relevant detail was compiled by the Auditor-General, after the mentioned agencies had held meet-ings on 16 November and 1 December 2000(SCOPA Report ATC 4 April 2001).

Speaker’s interventionIn response to the media reports concerning thenature of the resolution that the Assembly had adopt-ed, on 27 December 2000 the Speaker issued a pressstatement pointing out that through its adoption ofthe report, the House had not instructed the presidentto issue any proclamation regarding the work of theHeath Unit. She further pointed out that the proposalthat SCOPA direct this external investigation, andthat the joint investigating team would report toSCOPA and receive instructions from it, was prob-lematical, in view of the provisions of theConstitution. A committee of the National Assemblyhad no authority to subcontract its work to the bodiesproposed, or require them to undertake any particularactivity, or to report directly to it. Such direction asthe Assembly may wish to give would require specificreferral by a resolution of the National Assembly, andbe subject to the procedures provided for in relevantlegislation. The mandates and reporting lines of thevarious bodies were different and arose from theConstitution or particular legislation. Furthermore,the Speaker pointed out that Parliament could notallocate resources to any statutory or constitutionalbody except through the normal budgetary processes.

Actions by the ExecutiveIn January 2001 the President exercised his preroga-tive not to issue a proclamation involving the HeathUnit in the investigation. The political interpretationin some quarters was that the Speaker’s press state-ment had given the President a ‘way out’.

On 22 January the Ministry of Defence wrote tothe Speaker asking for the return of confidential doc-uments supplied to SCOPA, and stating that thedocuments had in fact been provided to Parliamentillegally. This request was not acceded to.

Letter from Leader of Government Business (LOGB)On 19 January the Deputy President, in his capacityas Leader of Government Business, wrote an openletter to Dr Woods criticising Dr Woods andParliament, and questioning aspects of SCOPA’s 14thReport. The letter was copied inter alia to theSpeaker. Since the letter constituted a public criticismof Parliament, the Speaker, as the responsible presid-ing officer, addressed a preliminary response dated29 January to the LOGB dealing with some of theaccusations made, and published the correspondencein the ATC (ATC 31 January 2001). The correspon-dence was also formally referred to SCOPA for con-sideration and report.

Speaker appears before SCOPAOn 29 January the Speaker at her own requestappeared before SCOPA to explain the steps she haddecided to take and to discuss the legal and proce-dural issues involved.

Second letter from Leader of Government BusinessThe Leader of Government Business wrote a secondletter, dated 31 January, this time addressed to theSpeaker, thanking her for clarifying the backgroundto the issues, and concurring that there were moreissues to be addressed. He specified a number ofquestions which in his view required consideration bySCOPA (ATC 6 Feb 2001).

Handling of confidential documentsIn February the Speaker wrote to the Chairperson ofSCOPA advising him to place the confidential docu-ments relating to the arms deal, in the custody ofParliament. A system of ensuring confidentiality,while providing strictly controlled access by SCOPAmembers, was devised and put in place.

Developments in SCOPAIn the early part of 2001, the controversy surround-ing the arms deal had become a highly charged polit-ical battle, with SCOPA as its focus. This made itdifficult to find consensus within SCOPA, whichprior to these events had operated on a consensusbasis. During the same period, political parties madechanges to their representation within SCOPA.

On 13 February a meeting was held between theSpeaker, SCOPA and the Heads of the InvestigatingTeam to clarify issues relating to documentation andaccountability.

On 26 February three Ministers who had had adirect role in the armaments procurement process –the Ministers of Finance, Defence, and Trade andIndustry – appeared before SCOPA to present theirviews. They outlined the processes followed in arriv-ing at decisions concerning the awarding of primecontracts in Strategic Defence Procurement.

On 4 April the committee produced an interimprogress report in response to a request from theSpeaker to produce a report by the end of the firstterm. Growing demands were made at this time byminority parties for committee reports to includeminority reports, to enable all shades of opinion tobe conveyed.

Criticism of SpeakerIn early May there were media reports of an inter-view with the Chair of SCOPA, Dr Gavin Woods, inwhich he claimed that the Speaker had, “by design”,been instrumental in sidelining SCOPA and imped-ing its work. The Speaker responded in a letter dated11 May, copied to all members of SCOPA, in whichshe pointed out that such criticism should be raisedsubstantively within Parliament, asserted the correct-ness of her actions, and rejected the charge that shehad sidelined the committee.

On 14 May General Holomisa, leader of the

7

UDM, published an open letter to the Speaker, mak-ing substantial and direct allegations of improperconduct on her part in relation to SCOPA and theinvestigation into the arms acquisition. The Speakerresponded with a statement in the House on 15 May,identifying and responding to the main points of theaccusation, and leaving it to the House to decidewhat appropriate action to take. On 23 May theChief Whips’ Forum, a National Assembly multipar-ty forum of senior whips, having considered variousoptions, decided to deal with the allegations by wayof a substantive motion in the Assembly.

A substantive motion moved by the Chief Whip ofthe Majority Party on 7 June was debated in theAssembly expressing support for the Speaker in thelight of the allegations made against her by GeneralHolomisa. An opposition amendment was defeatedand the original motion adopted after a division. TheSpeaker did not participate in the debate.

SCOPA reportSCOPA tabled its Second Report, for 2001 on30 May (ATC 1 June 2001), dealing inter alia withthe criticism by the Leader of Government Business.This was purely a majority report. The report con-veyed that it had not been possible to achieve una-nimity, and that dissenting minority views wereavailable in the minutes of the committee. Thisreport was not considered by the House during 2001.

Speech from floor by SpeakerOn the occasion of the consideration of the BudgetVote on Parliament on 20 June, the Deputy Speakerbeing in the Chair, the Speaker made a politicalspeech from the floor on the controversy surroundingSCOPA, and discussed the issue of the Speakerbelonging to a political party.

Speech on Parliament and the Executive by DeputyPresidentOn 21 June the Deputy President spoke in the Voteon the Presidency on relations between Parliamentand the Executive, reaffirming the commitment ofthe Executive to support Parliament and give it thekind of backing it needed to perform its functions.

Tabling and consideration of Joint InvestigationReportThe Joint Investigation Report produced by theinvestigating agencies was presented to Parliament on14 November 2001 at a meeting in the NationalAssembly Chamber to which all Members of bothHouses were invited. Immediately afterward, theTeam briefed all the committees with an interest inthe arms deal, and answered questions.

The report was formally tabled and referred by theSpeaker to SCOPA and all other relevant committees,to consider issues and findings within the area of com-petence of each. The report was also forwarded to theExecutive. The committees were instructed by theSpeaker to report by 6 December. Owing to timeconstraints, the committees agreed to hold a joint

meeting with the Team with a view to a process ofinteraction. This joint meeting took place on 4 and5 December and was, by agreement, chaired by theChairperson of Committees, an elected presiding offi-cer, assisted by the Deputy Chairperson of Committees.

The relevant committees all reported by the end ofthe year; their reports have not yet been consideredby the National Assembly.

List of confidential documents publishedIn an announcement on the ATC (27 November2001) the Speaker listed the confidential documentsin the custody of Parliament. The list was also pub-lished on the parliamentary website.

13. CHARGES AGAINST MEMBER BROUGHTBEFORE COMMITTEE

National Assembly Rule 136 provides: “If any infor-mation charging an Assembly member comes before acommittee, the committee may not proceed upon thatinformation, but must report it to the Speaker withoutdelay.” Accordingly, when reports appeared in the pressthat papers had been submitted to SCOPA whichimplicated Members of Parliament in irregularities, theSpeaker wrote to the chairperson pointing out that thecommittee could not proceed with any charge againsta Member, and must refer any such charge to her.After obtaining and scrutinising the relevant papers,the Speaker concluded that they contained no allega-tions of substance against any Member. She according-ly, on subsequently addressing SCOPA, informed thecommittee that there was no charge against a Memberon which she needed to take action.

14. SEPARATION OF POWERS BETWEENPARLIAMENT AND THE EXECUTIVE

The SCOPA 14th Report of 2000 recommended anindependent forensic investigation of the arms deal“combining a number of areas of investigative exper-tise”, and stated that it would compile a brief for thisinvestigation. With a view to arranging such aninvestigation, it held an exploratory meeting with anumber of investigative bodies.

In her press statement on 27 December 2000 andher subsequent address to SCOPA, the Speakerpointed out that Parliament cannot, through acommittee or otherwise, issue binding instructions tothe Executive or any of its agencies, except by passinglegislation, nor could it require agencies reporting tothe Executive or independent agencies, to report to itexcept in terms of the constitutional oversight role ofParliament. The statement went on:

The mandates and reporting lines of the variousbodies which were convened by the PublicAccounts Committee vary and arise from theConstitution or particular legislation. Some such asthe Public Protector report to Parliament, others tothe relevant Minister. A Committee of theNational Assembly has no authority to subcontractits work to any of these bodies, or require them to

8

undertake any particular activity, or to reportdirectly to the Committee.

Furthermore, Parliament could not separately fundsuch investigations by executive agencies – in terms ofthe Constitution the only way in which Parliament canvote funds for the Executive, is by way of the Budget.

This did not, however, prevent the committee frommeeting and holding discussions with these or otherbodies, or receiving submissions or information, inaccordance with its oversight role.

In the event, the Joint Investigating Team wascomposed of the Office of the Auditor-General(which also prepared the brief for the investigation),the Public Protector and the Investigating Unit ofSerious Economic Offences. SCOPA continued withits oversight role and called the relevant Ministers toappear before it to present the Executive’s role in thearms acquisition.

15. CRITICISM OF PARLIAMENT BY THEEXECUTIVE, AND RESPONSE BY SPEAKERAND SCOPA

The Deputy President, in his capacity as Leader ofGovernment Business (LOGB), on 19 January 2001wrote an open letter to Dr Woods, copying it to theSpeaker, the media, the diplomatic corps and relevantrole-players. The letter, a response to Dr Woods’ let-ter to the President requesting inclusion of the HeathUnit in the investigation, was an attack on Dr Woodsbut also, and more particularly, on Parliament, criti-cising Parliament for acting in an unprofessionalmanner by levelling charges of corruption withoutproducing evidence to back up the allegations. Itquestioned aspects of the 14th Report, maintainingthat SCOPA had “seriously misdirected itself andthus arrived at decisions that are not substantiated byany facts” and went on to contend that allegations ofcorruption, for which no evidence had been provid-ed, had been made against the Executive as well asfriendly foreign states and firms, on an unfoundedassumption that they were “prone to corruption”.

Since the letter to Dr Woods contained public crit-icism of Parliament, the Speaker, as the responsiblepresiding officer, wrote a preliminary response to theLOGB dealing with some of the accusations made,and copied the LOGB’s letter together with herresponse, to all members of SCOPA with the instruc-tion that SCOPA consider this correspondence andthe issues that it brought up and in due course reporton all of these issues. In her response to the LOGB,the Speaker pointed out inter alia that – ● The 14th Report recommended an independent

and expert forensic investigation for which theCommittee would prepare a brief, and further that“an exploratory meeting convened by the commit-tee” should be held to which four named and pos-sibly other investigative bodies should be invited.

● The report did not recommend that any or all ofthose bodies must be included, nor did it refer tothe procedural and constitutional issues that wouldarise should Parliament wish to involve or instruct

either independent or executive agencies or organi-sations in its inquiries.

● There were differences among members of Scopaon what the report was intended to convey; if itwas deemed necessary by the Committee, it maypursue this and make a specific recommendationto the Assembly.

The letter from the LOGB and the Speaker’s responsewere published in the ATC (31 January 2001).

In response, the Leader of Government Businesswrote a second letter, this time addressed to theSpeaker, thanking her for clarifying the backgroundto the issues and concurring that there were moreissues that SCOPA needed to address. The letter indi-cated that it would be necessary to substantiate theconclusions reached by SCOPA. This letter was alsotabled (ATC 6 Feb 2001) and copied to SCOPA.

SCOPA’s Second Report of 2001 dealt inter aliawith the issues raised in the LOGB’s first letter. Thismore substantive report outlined the nature of theinvestigation taking place. It also dealt with the criti-cism by the Leader of Government Business, stating:“As regards the general characterisation of the inter-national arms industry being corrupt, the Committeerestates its position that there was never any intentionto taint the Cabinet as being prone to corruption anddishonesty.” An interpretation of the 14th report wasprovided, to the effect that that there had been norecommendation to include the Heath SpecialInvestigating Unit in the Team. The report did notincorporate recommendations.

On 21 June 2001 the Deputy President made aspeech in the Vote on the Presidency, in which he reaf-firmed the commitment of the Executive to supportParliament and give it the kind of backing it needed toperform its functions. He acknowledged that Parlia-ment needed to conduct an investigation into the armsdeal and that it was its constitutional right to do so.

16. POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OFCOMMITTEES, AND RELATIONS WITHHOUSE

In her statement dated 27 December 2000, theSpeaker said:

Unlike the position in some other countries, inSouth Africa committees [of the NationalAssembly] draw their mandate from and areaccountable to the National Assembly and functionin terms of the Rules. The mandates and reportinglines of the various bodies which were convened bythe Public Accounts Committee vary and arisefrom the Constitution or particular legislation. … A committee of the National Assembly has noauthority to subcontract its work to any of thesebodies, or require them to undertake any particularactivity, or to report directly to the Committee. …The Committee may, however, meet with and holddiscussions with these or any any other bodies, orreceive submissions or information.

On a later occasion the Speaker clarified that account-ability to Parliament on the part of the Executive and

9

independent bodies established in terms of theConstitution was not accountability in respect of thesubstance of investigations, and SCOPA could not co-ordinate the investigation. Parliament’s interest was tomake sure there was a result. Bodies could give SCOPAinformation or exchange information, but these bodieswere not directly accountable to Parliament.

17. STATUS OF CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTSBEFORE COMMITTEES

On 22 January 2001 the Ministry of Defence, in aletter to Dr Woods, requested that the confidentialdocuments supplied to SCOPA be returned, and stat-ed that the documents had in fact been provided toParliament illegally. After consulting the Speaker, DrWoods, the chairperson of SCOPA, agreed torespond to the effect that the documents wouldremain in the possession of Parliament and that aprocess would be put in place to ensure that theywould remain secret and confidential. The Speakerwrote to the Chairperson of SCOPA on 6 Februaryadvising him to place the confidential documentsrelating to the arms deal in the custody ofParliament. A system of ensuring confidentiality,while providing controlled access by SCOPA mem-bers, was devised and put in place.

System for controlled access to confidential documentsWhen it became known that SCOPA was in posses-sion of top secret government documents, and afterthe decision had been taken that the documentswould be retained by Parliament, the Speakerinstructed that arrangements be made to ensure theirsafety and continued confidentiality. The relevantdocuments were obtained from the committee chair-person, listed, and the following procedure followed:

The documents were placed in a safe set aside forthis purpose equipped with two different locks. Onekey was held by the Speaker or her nominee, and theother by the Secretary to Parliament or hisnominee.In the event, the nominees were theSecretary to the National Assembly and theParliamentary Security Advisor. In order to gainaccess to the documents it was necessary for bothkey-bearers to unlock the safe, take the documents toa controlled venue and there, in a formal way, makethem available to Members. Members required theauthority of the chair of SCOPA to gain access, andon this basis block times were set aside during whichall the relevant Members had access.

It was decided that only full – not alternate or co-opted – members of SCOPA may have access. Onentering the venue, Members had to identify them-selves, sign a register and record their time of enter-ing and leaving the venue.

The Serjeant-at-Arms was present in the viewingvenue – a committee room – at all times while thedocuments were on view, and a policeman stoodguard outside. No cameras, recording instruments orother gadgets could be brought in. Members were

cautioned that the contents of the documents maynot be disclosed; and that any breach would amountto a breach of parliamentary privilege and contemptof Parliament.

The documents are still in the possession ofParliament.

18. ROLE OF SPEAKER IN INVESTIGATIONPROCESS

In her speech in the National Assembly on 20 June2001, on the occasion of the debate on the Vote onParliament, the Speaker spoke of the responsibility ofpresiding officers “to help shape the legislature inaccordance with fundamental democratic values andprinciples … In doing so, we inevitably have to inter-pret [the Constitution and the Rules] to the best ofour ability and it is always open to the House todeclare its different understanding or interpretation,and to expect the presiding officers to act accordingly.”

In the course of developments the Speaker inter-vened on several occasions:(1) She alerted SCOPA that in terms of the Rules it

could not proceed on charges against Membersthat were brought before it.

(2) On 27 December, in response to media reportsreflecting confusion as to the significance of theadoption by the National Assembly of theSCOPA 14th Report, the Speaker issued a pressstatement:

– clarifying the nature of an Assembly resolution;– pointing out that constitutionally committees

cannot subcontract work to external agencies inconflict with the legal mandates and reportinglines of the latter;

– pointing out that committee chairpersons cannoton major issues act without the committee’sagreement; and

– pointing out that Parliament cannot allocateresources to external agencies other than throughbudget processes.

(3) On confidential documents in SCOPA’s posses-sion she:

– advised on a request from the Ministry for theirimmediate return;

– instructed that they be placed in Parliament’scustody; and

– approved procedures for the documents to beaccessed.

(4) Since the open letter by the Leader ofGovernment Business addressed to Dr Woodsconstituted a public criticism of Parliament, shesent a preliminary response and referred the cor-respondence to SCOPA;

(5) At her own initiative, she appeared beforeSCOPA to brief SCOPA members, and took theopportunity to urge SCOPA to continue with itsown investigations.

(6) She urged SCOPA to report progress to theHouse before the end of the first term.

(7) She responded in writing to the Chairperson ofSCOPA on claims he had made in the media

10

concerning her interventions. The letter, dated11 May, was copied to all members of SCOPA.

(8) She reported to the House on specific allegationsagainst her in an open letter by GeneralHolomisa, suggesting that the House take a deci-sion on how to proceed;

(9) She made a political speech from the floor in theHouse during the debate on the ParliamentaryBudget Vote, prefacing it with the words: “I’ll takeadvantage of the suggestion by the Leader of theOpposition that having stepped off my throne Ienter the hurly-burly of contested politics, but it isnot a path I intend to pursue hereafter.”Referring to criticism of membership by theSpeaker of a political party, and suggestions that thisgave rise to bias, she stated: “Surely what is of rele-vance in this context is to assess whether any partic-ular judgment or action is motivated byparty-political advantage. The critical factor in con-sidering the conduct of any Speaker, is not a per-ceived conflict between parliamentary responsibilityand loyalty, but gauging specific actions in the con-text of the responsibilities placed on the office bear-er by the Constitution and the Rules.”; and

(10) In an announcement on the ATC (27 November)the Speaker listed the confidential documents inthe custody of Parliament. The list was also pub-lished on the parliamentary website.

QUESTION TIME IN THE HOUSE

19. TRIAL PERIOD FOR NEW GUIDELINESFOR QUESTIONS EXTENDED

It was reported in Issue 3 that a new procedure forquestions for oral reply had been introduced on5 April 2000, and that during 2000 the trial periodwas extended to 14 February 2001. During the firsthalf of 2001 the Chief Whips’ Forum appointed asubcommittee of the Forum to evaluate the trial sys-tem and make proposals to the Forum with a view tofinalising the new system and including it in theRules. The Subcommittee, having met on a numberof occasions and considered written submissions byvarious parties, reported on 22 May that it had beenable to reach agreement on some, but not all aspectsof the new system.

The Chairperson of the Forum reported to theNational Assembly Rules Committee on 21 Augustthat the Forum had assessed the principle of the newquestion system and decided that the matter neededto be formalized. On his suggestion, the matter wasreferred for drafting to the Subcommittee on Reviewof Assembly Rules.

During the year, the trial period was furtherextended by resolution of the House on five occa-sions, the last two – on 26 June and 13 November –after a division as some of the opposition partiesindicated that they are in principle opposed to keyaspects of the proposed new system. In terms of the

resolution adopted on 13 November, the trial periodhas been extended to 20 March 2002.

20. QUESTIONS TO DEPUTY PRESIDENTPOSTPONED

Owing to unavailability of the Deputy President toanswer questions on Wednesday, 28 March, the Houseadopted a resolution on the preceding Tuesday thatsuch questions would be delayed until Thursday, 29March. Accordingly, the full two hours of QuestionTime on Wednesday were devoted to Questions toMinisters. However, on Thursday, 29 March, theDeputy President being still unavailable, a furthermotion was adopted that the questions not be takenon that day. Questions to the Deputy President weresubsequently taken on Wednesday, 4 April. No addi-tional time was allocated for Questions on that day.

21. ADDITIONAL SUPPLEMENTARYQUESTIONS ALLOWED

In terms of the guidelines for questions currentlybeing applied, four supplementary questions areallowed following a Minister’s reply to a question.During Questions to the Deputy President on17 October, after the fourth supplementary questionhad been replied to, the Speaker announced that inview of the importance of the subject of the relevantquestion for South Africa (the peace process inBurundi), she would allow two more Members whohad their hands raised, to ask supplementary ques-tions. This procedure took place with the tacit con-sent of the House.

PARLIAMENT AND THEEXECUTIVE

– APPOINTMENT OF SOLE MEMBER OFPARTY AS DEPUTY MINISTER see “Members”

22. MINISTERIAL AND EXECUTIVESTATEMENTSIn the course of the year. 10 Ministerial andExecutive statements were made in the House.

In order to avoid having to pass a resolution oneach occasion specifying times for responses by par-ties, on 9 October the House adopted a motion spec-ifying speaking times for party responses, if any, tosuch statements for the remainder of the year. Thetimes allocated were as follows: ANC, 5 minutes; DP,4 minutes, IFP, 4 minutes; NNP, 3 minutes; UDM, 2minutes; all other parties, 1 minute each.

23. FINAL REPORT OF AD HOC COMMITTEEON REPORT 13 OF THE PUBLIC PROTECTOR

On 1 March the report of the Ad Hoc Committee onReport 13 of the Public Protector (see Item 24, Issue 3)was published (ATC p143). This report arose from arequest made by the Assembly to the Public Protector

11

in August 1997 to investigate and report on allegationsby the then Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs,PM Maduna, MP, concerning irregularities in theStrategic Fuel Fund (SFF) and reporting thereof by theAuditor-General. The Public Protector’s report had crit-icised Minister Maduna for his remarks and proposedthat sanctions against the Minister be considered.

The report of the ad hoc committee recommendedthat recommendations in the Public Protector’s reportbe referred to a variety of Assembly committees, thecommittees to consider these matters and to reportback. Concerning the Public Protector’s recommenda-tion that “Parliament make a pronouncement regardingthe accountability of the Minister and any possiblesanction which Parliament might consider appropriate”,the ad hoc Committee recommended that it would notbe appropriate for the Committee to make a pro-nouncement on an appropriate sanction in the case inquestion, but instead that these matters be referred tothe Rules Committee of the National Assembly to con-sider any amendments to the Rules of the NationalAssembly and/or the Powers and Privileges ofParliament Act that might be appropriate. This recom-mendation was made on the following grounds: ● The process of pronouncing on accountability and

sanctions is a judicial or quasi-judicial one. Sincethe Committee was not constituted as a discipli-nary committee, this fell outside its mandate.

● The Minister had duly apologised unreservedly andunconditionally retracted his remarks.

● The committee quoted the judgment of the SupremeCourt of Appeal in the matter of The Speaker of theNational Assembly vs De Lille and Another 1999 (4 SA863 SCA), as follows: “There is … nothing in the“Rules and Orders” of the Assembly which qualifies,in any respect relevant to the appeal, the right to free-dom of speech in the Assembly which s58(1) guaran-tees. More directly, there is nothing which providesany constitutional authority for the Assembly to pun-ish any Member of the Assembly for making aspeech through an order suspending such Memberfrom the proceedings of the Assembly. The right offree speech in the Assembly protected by s58(1) is afundamental right crucial to representative govern-ment in a democratic society. Its tenor and spiritmust conform to all other provisions of theConstitution relevant to the conduct of proceedingsin Parliament.” The judgment goes on to state thatsection 57 of the Constitution “provides that theNational Assembly ‘may determine and control itsinternal arrangements, proceedings and procedures’.There can be no doubt that this authority is wideenough to enable the Assembly to maintain internalorder and discipline in its proceedings by meanswhich it considers appropriate for this purpose. Thiswould, for example, include the power to excludefrom the Assembly for temporary periods anymember who is disrupting or obstructing its proceed-ings or impairing unreasonably its ability to conductits business in an orderly or regular manneracceptable in a democratic society. Without someinternal mechanism of control and discipline, the

Assembly would be impotent to maintain effectivediscipline and order during debates.”

When the ad hoc committee’s report was consideredon 13 March, the chairperson of the committee,Mr AC Nel, MP, moved that it be adopted subject to achange to the recommendations relating to the referralof some aspects to committees. On this occasion thedecision of the question was postponed to the follow-ing day. On 14 March Mr Nel withdrew his amend-ment and both the Deputy Chief Whip of theMajority Party and the Chief Whip of the Oppositiongave notice of amendments to the question on theadoption of the report. While the majority partyamendment simply effected a technical adjustment toMr Nel’s motion, the opposition amendment proposeda reprimand of Minister Maduna. The oppositionamendment was defeated in a division, and the ques-tion on the adoption of the report was approved incor-porating the majority party amendment.

The matter was not taken further in the course ofthe year.

24. MINISTERIAL DIRECTIVE NOTSUPPORTED BY PORTFOLIO COMMITTEEON JUSTICE

The Criminal Procedure Amendment Act, 1997 (ActNo. 76 of 1997), provides that certain directives tobe drafted by the Legal Aid Board must be“submitted to Parliament and tabled as soon as possi-ble” before being published in the Gazette. The Act issilent on any role for Parliament after tabling.

Such directives were tabled on 16 February 2001and referred to the Portfolio Committee on Justiceand Constitutional Development. Having consideredthe directives, the committee, in its report dated19 September (ATC 8 October) reported that it couldnot support the said directives. On 13 November thereport was adopted without debate.

The Speaker thereafter referred the Report, asadopted, to the Minister of Justice.

MEMBERS

– LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL TO ALLOW MEM-BERS TO CROSS THE FLOOR see Introductionof Bills by committees under “Legislation andCommittees” below.

25. APPOINTMENT OF SOLE MEMBER OFPARTY AS DEPUTY MINISTER

As part of a Cabinet reshuffle on 24 January, thePresident appointed Mr MA Mangena, MP, of Azapoas Deputy Minister of Education. While the appoint-ment of Ministers and Deputy Ministers from partiesother than the majority party is not uncommon,Mr Mangena’s appointment is notable in that he isthe leader and sole parliamentary representative ofAzapo. As a Deputy Minister, Mr Mangena wasallocated a front bench on the Opposition side.

12

The Constitution of the Republic of South AfricaAmendment Bill [B68-2001], introduced on12 September 2001, contains a provision that thePresident may appoint not more than two DeputyMinisters from outside the Assembly. The Bill waspassed and became law on 20 November.Mr Mangena resigned as a Member on 1 Decemberand was replaced as a member of his party from thesame date by Mr PJ Nefolovhodwe.

26. DELAY IN NEW MEMBER TAKING OATH

In terms of the Constitution, Members who losetheir party membership, lose their seat in Parliament.The Secretary was informed in July by the UnitedDemocratic Movement (UDM) that Dr SE Mzimela,MP, had lost his membership of that party with effectfrom 30 June. On 2 August the party nominatedMr WG Makanda as his replacement. Dr Mzimelahad in the interim instituted court proceedings chal-lenging his expulsion from the party, which decidedto postpone having the new Member take the oath inview of the court proceedings. Mr Makanda eventu-ally took the oath of office on 16 October, before theoutcome of the proceedings was known.

27. DISCIPLINARY STEPS AGAINST MEMBERFOR ABUSE OF TRAVEL FACILITIES

Following the disciplinary steps taken against aMember in 2000 owing to irregular use of travelfacilities (see Item 20, Issue 3) on 20 February 2001the Speaker made a statement concerning the irregu-lar use of travel facilities by a second Member. Withthe Member standing, the Speaker issued a repri-mand to him in the Chamber.

She said that he had admitted having allowed afriend and a friend’s child to travel during 1999 usingtickets purchased using his travel vouchers. TheDisciplinary Committee had further found that hehad knowingly misused his travel benefits in thisinstance and that there was prima facie evidence thatfraud had been committed. She added that she wasrequired to refer the relevant information and docu-mentation to the Director of Public Prosecutions forfurther investigation.

The Member would be further required to repayParliament the full transport costs of the trips toCape Town by an adult and a child, the repayment tobe effected within 30 days. In addition, the Memberwas to forfeit two tickets from his allocation.

The Member thereupon indicated that he acceptedthe decision with humility and would abide by it.

LEGISLATION ANDCOMMITTEES

– ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT BUDGET COM-MITTEE see “Budgetary matters and money bills”

– BUDGET WITH FINANCE COMMITTEEFOR EXTENDED PERIOD see “Budgetary

matters and money bills”– APPOINTMENT OF AD HOC COMMITTEE

TO INTRODUCE POWERS AND PRIVI-LEGES BILL see “Procedural and related issues

– REFERRAL OF MONEY BILLS BY RESOLU-TION TO COMMITTEES OTHER THANTHE FINANCE COMMITTEE see “Budgetarymatters and money bills”

28. INTRODUCTION OF BILL NOTCERTIFIED BY STATE LAW ADVISERS

It is a long-standing practice, not provided for in theRules, that prior to submitting a Bill to Parliament,the relevant state department submits the Bill to theState Law Advisers for certification. This is done witha view to averting possible legal and constitutionalchallenges to the Bill, inter alia by ensuring that itsprovisions are constitutional and consonant withother Acts on the Statute Book. Thereafter, the StateLaw Adviser who has worked on the Bill is madeavailable to the relevant parliamentary committee tofacilitate the Bill’s passage through Parliament byanswering questions and formulating amendments.

A draft of the Immigration Bill was submitted toParliament on 7 June (ATC 15 June) by the Ministerof Home Affairs as a section 75 Bill (relating to areasof national legislative competence) without havingbeen certified by the State Law Advisers, althoughaccompanied by independent legal opinion to theeffect that it was constitutionally in order. It wasreferred in terms of the Joint Rules to the relevant par-liamentary committees of both Houses for considera-tion, but not formally introduced, since requirementsregarding publication prior to introduction had notbeen complied with. It was later formally introduced,still without having been certified, on 23 August [B46-2001]. (See also reference to this Bill under Tagging ofBills under “Legislation and committees”.)

On 26 September the JTM found the Bill to beconstitutionally out of order. It was reintroduced inamended form on 1 October [B79-2001], withouthaving been certified, and referred again to thePortfolio Committee on Home Affairs. On the last sit-ting day of the year it was still before the committee.

Since no rule provides for certification by the lawadvisers, the matter of the introduction of a Billwithout certification was discussed at the Joint RulesCommittee (JRC) meeting on 24 August. After anextended discussion, the JRC resolved to refer thematter of certification to the Joint Subcommittee onReview of the Joint Rules for processing and referralback to the JRC. (The matter was also referred on21 August by the National Assembly RulesCommittee to its subcommittee on rules.)

29. MINORITY COMMITTEE REPORTS

The Rules of the National Assembly provide thatexcept when reporting on a Bill, a committee maynot submit a minority report. It was argued by oppo-sition members in the Standing Committee on Public

13

Accounts that this was in conflict with section57(2)(b) of the Constitution, which stipulates thatthe rules and orders of the National Assembly mustprovide for “the participation in the proceedings ofthe Assembly and its committees of minority partiesrepresented in the Assembly, in a manner consistentwith democracy”.

The matter was discussed in depth in the JointRules Committee on 24 August. Legal advice indicat-ed that the rules in this regard were not unconstitu-tional. It was pointed out that the prohibition onminority reports did not preclude reflecting the viewsof the minority in the main report, if the committeeso decided. (It was noted that the Rules of theNCOP applicable to all committees require that acommittee may not present a minority report but“must” reflect minority views in the committee in itsreports.) However, a report should not containminority recommendations.

The Joint Rules Committee decided that therewould be no change in regard to minority reports,and that the question of reflecting minority viewscould be discussed further once parties had madewritten submissions. The matter was not taken fur-ther in the course of the year.

In its Second Report dated 30 May (ATC 1 June),the Standing Committee on Public Accounts refers tominority views as follows: “This Report does not rep-resent the unanimity of Committee members.Consensus could not be reached on substantial issuesraised in the Fourteenth Report. These substantialdifferences are recorded in the minutes of theCommittee’s meetings.” The 19 June report of theJoint Committee on Ethics and Members’ Interestsspecifically and substantially included minority views.

30. LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURES ANDLEGISLATION AFFECTING PARLIAMENT

(a) Amendments to the ConstitutionThe Constitution of the Republic of South AfricaAmendment Bill [B68B-2001] was read a secondtime on 1 November and became law on20 November. Besides amendments relating to thejudiciary and local government, the Bill makes provi-sion for the appointment of not more than twoDeputy Ministers from outside the Assembly. (SeeAppointment of sole member of party as DeputyMinister under “Members”.)

The Constitution of the Republic of South AfricaSecond Amendment Bill [B78-2001], assented to bythe President on 7 December, effects a range ofadjustments to the financial regime established by theConstitution. Its main provisions are as follows:● It extends the principle that only the Minister of

Finance may introduce a money Bill, to cover mostlegislation emanating from Chapter 13 of theConstitution, ie legislation relating to macro-eco-nomic policy and the financial administration of theState. The aim is to ensure that the Treasury assessessuch legislation and its impact prior to introduction.

● The definition of “money Bill” is extended to

provide that only the Minister may introduce legis-lation which abolishes or reduces, or grants exemp-tions from, national taxes and other charges orauthorises the withdrawal of money from theNational Revenue Fund. A similar provision ismade in the provincial sphere.

● The composition and appointment of the Financialand Fiscal Commission is changed, inter aliareducing the number of members from 22 to eight.

● Parliament is enabled to provide a framework with-in which provinces may authorise direct chargesagainst their Revenue Funds, and must pay revenueallocated through them to local government, tomunicipalities in the province.

The other provisions are technical and consequential.Another constitutional amendment bill, the

Constitution of the Republic of South AfricaAmendment Bill [B4-2001], relating to defence mat-ters and introduced by the Minister of Defence, waswithdrawn on 20 August (see Procedure forConstitutional Amendment under “Procedural andrelated matters”).

(b) Other statutory amendments A number of Bills passed during the year made provi-sion for roles for Parliament or parliamentary com-mittees in government:

The Advisory Board on Social Development Bill[B43B-2000] (assented to by the President on16 May) provides that the relevant board must“establish clear lines of communication, includingmeetings” with inter alia “the parliamentary commit-tees of Social Development of the National Assemblyand the NCOP”. The Bill also provided that mem-bers of the board must be appointed only after thesame committees have made recommendations there-on to the Minister.

The Cultural Laws Amendment Bill [B45B-2000](assented to by the President on 4 December) stipu-lates that delegations from the Heraldry Council, thePan South African Language Board, the NationalArchives Council, the National Geographical NamesCouncil and the National Film and VideoFoundation Council must brief the PortfolioCommittee on Art, Culture, Science and Technologyon their annual reports within five months after thereports have been tabled. The relevant clauses wereinserted by the portfolio committee.

The Cultural Laws Second Amendment Bill [B46F-2000], a “section 76” Bill relating to areas of concur-rent national and provincial legislative competence,(assented to on 4 December) makes similar provisionin respect of the National Heritage Council. The rele-vant clauses were inserted by the portfolio committee.

This Bill was referred for mediation in terms of theRules after NCOP amendments were rejected by theNCOP. The Mediation Committee came up with anew version of the Bill, which inter alia replaces thespecific reference to the portfolio committee with thewords “the relevant committees of Parliament.” The Billwas assented to on by the President on 4 December.

The Veterinary and Para-Veterinary Professions

14

Amendment Bill [B66-2001] provides that “theMinister shall inform the parliamentary committees inwriting of the designation or election of” members ofthe South African Veterinary Council. The relevantclauses were inserted by the portfolio committee. TheBill was not passed during the year; on the last sittingday, the Bill stood referred to the NCOP SelectCommittee on Land and Environmental Affairs.

The National Council for Library and InformationServices Bill [B44B-2000], a “section 75” Bill relatingto areas of national legislative competence (assentedto by the President on 20 June), provides that beforeappointing members of the National Council forLibrary and Information Services, the Minister mustappoint a panel, “after the composition was approvedby the Portfolio Committee on Arts, Culture, Scienceand Technology”, to compile a short list of candi-dates. It also stipulates that a delegation from theCouncil must brief the Portfolio Committee on Arts,Culture, Science and Technology on the annualreport. The relevant clauses were inserted by the port-folio committee.

After the Bill had been read a second time on27 February and passed to the NCOP, it was referredback by the Council with proposed amendments,which included a role for the relevant NCOP selectcommittee. Having considered the amendments, on22 May the Portfolio Committee on Arts, Culture,Science and Technology, after conferring with itsNCOP counterpart, recommended that the Bill bepassed without the proposed amendments. On31 May the committee’s report was adopted and theBill passed without debate.

At a meeting of the National Assembly ProgrammeCommittee on 4 October, the Speaker announcedthat she would take up in the Joint Rules Committeethe matter of committees writing into legislationpowers for themselves “to which they were not enti-tled, as they were not autonomous”.

Two Bills, the Agricultural Research Amendment Bill[B25B-2001] and the Marketing Of AgriculturalProducts Amendment Bill [B26D-2001], removeddecision-making roles for the relevant parliamentarycommittees from Acts that had been on the statutebook. In the case of the former Bill, the role relatedto the procedure for appointment of the AgriculturalResearch Council, and in the case of the latter, to theappointment of members to the NationalAgricultural Marketing Council and the approval ofmarketing interventions. It was argued in theexplanatory memorandum to these Bills that thisconfused the roles of the legislature and the executive,which in terms of the Constitution are separate.

31. JOINT COMMITTEE OF PARLIAMENTIMPEDED IN ITS WORK

A motion was moved on 23 May on behalf of theChief Whip of the Majority Party, noting that theJoint Monitoring Committee on Improvement ofQuality of Life and Status of Women had been pre-vented from holding a workshop at Nongoma in

KwaZulu-Natal aimed at empowering rural womento participate in the democratic process. The motionconfirmed that the members of the committee werefulfilling their duties as mandated by the electorateand condemned this interference with the work ofelected members of this Parliament. It went on torecommend that the committee return to the area tocontinue their task once appropriate arrangementshave been made to ensure the cooperation of theentire community and the safety of all participants.

The motion was adopted unanimously after adebate. The Chairperson of the NCOP made a state-ment on the incident in the Council on 15 May.

32. CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTSPROPOSED BY THE OTHER HOUSE TO BILLS

The Correctional Services Amendment Bill [B8B-2001], a “section 75” Bill relating to areas of nationallegislative competence, having been read a secondtime on 11 May and passed to the NCOP, wasreferred back with proposed amendments. TheNational Assembly adopted the recommendation ofthe National Assembly Portfolio Committee that theBill be passed without the proposed amendments. Insuch a case, the Constitution provides that theAssembly may pass the Bill again, either with orwithout amendments, or decide not to proceed withthe Bill. On 30 October, when the report of thePortfolio Committee was considered, the Houseadopted without debate a motion by the ActingChief Whip of the Majority Party that the Housepass the original Bill again.

See Legislative procedure and legislation affectingParliament above for other instances where NCOPamendments were rejected by the Assembly.

33. LANGUAGE OF BILLS

Section 6(3)(a) of the Constitution provides that thenational government must use at least two languagesfor the purposes of government. Draft legislationmust accordingly be available in at least two officiallanguages. In addition, Joint Rule 221 states: “Whenthe official text of the Bill is sent to the President forassent it must be accompanied by the official transla-tion or translations.”

However, it became increasingly common during2001 that translations of Bills in a second official lan-guage were provided by state departments only onceBills were ready for assent by the President. This latedelivery of the translated version impeded passage ofthe relevant Bills through Parliament, and in someinstances, the President’s assent to a Bill that hadbeen passed by Parliament was delayed owing to thelack of a translation.

At a meeting of the Joint Rules Committee on9 October, it was agreed that a Bill may not be placedbefore the National Assembly for second readingunless “the translation of the Bill” was also available.Ministers were advised in writing accordingly.

The Telecommunications Amendment Bill

15

[B65D-2001] was passed by the National Assemblyon 25 October (a draft translation being available),passed by the NCOP on 14 November with pro-posed amendments and agreed to with amendmentsby the National Assembly on 16 November.However, owing inter alia to the many amendmentsto the Bill within Parliament, the official translationwas still in the process of finalisation.

In the light of a request by the Minister ofCommunications on 26 November that the Bill beexpedited, the Speaker and the Chairperson of theNCOP directed that the official English text only besubmitted to the President for assent, notwithstand-ing Joint Rule 221 as quoted above. This was doneon 28 November, and the Bill was assented to by thePresident on 29 November. The official translation(Afrikaans version) was sent to the President on30 November.

Three other Bills that were passed during 2001 –the Gas Bill [B18D-2001], the Academy of Science ofSouth Africa Bill [B67B-2001] and the Africa Instituteof South Africa Bill [B47-2001] – had not been sentto the President for assent by the end of the yearbecause official translations were not yet available.

34. BILL REFERRED BACK TO COMMITTEEFOR REPORT THE SAME AFTERNOON

The Portfolio Committee on Finance submitted itsreport on the Provincial Tax Regulation Process Bill[B51B-2001] on 14 September (ATC 17 September).On 18 September, on a motion by the Chief Whip ofthe Majority Party, the Bill was referred back to thePortfolio Committee on Finance for further consider-ation “and report during the course of this afternoon”.

Later that afternoon the Speaker reported to theHouse that the committee had duly submitted itsfurther report, in compliance with the resolutionadopted earlier. The report had been circulated toMembers in the Chamber.

After a debate, two amendments to the Bill wereput from the Chair and agreed to, after which theBill, as amended, was read a second time. It wasassented to by the President on 4 December.

35. LAPSED BILL REVIVED ANDRECOMMITTED

The National Council for Library and InformationServices Bill [B44B-2000] (see Legislative Procedureand Legislation Affecting Parliament under“Legislation and Committees”) lapsed at the end of2000, after the Portfolio Committee on Arts,Culture, Science and Technology had submitted areport on the Bill on 11 October 2000.

On 14 February 2001 the House adopted a motionby the Chief Whip of the Majority Party that theHouse resume proceedings on the Bill from the stagereached during the previous session. Although thecommittee had already reported on the Bill, on20 February it was recommitted by resolution of theHouse. The committee reported the Bill without

amendment on 27 February. It was assented to by thePresident on 19 June.

No other Bills lapsed at the end of 2000.

36. CHANGE OF NAME OF DEPARTMENTAND PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE

On 18 December 2000, the Speaker announced thatowing to the change in the name of the portfolio ofthe Minister for Welfare and Population Developmentto Social Development in October 2000, she haddetermined that with effect from 22 January 2001 thename of the Portfolio Committee on Welfare andPopulation Development would change to thePortfolio Committee on Social Development.

37. REFERRAL OF CONSTITUTIONAMENDMENT BILL TO PORTFOLIOCOMMITTEE ON DEFENCE

On 30 January the Speaker referred to the PortfolioCommittee on Defence, drafts of three related Billson defence matters submitted to her by the Ministerof Defence. One of these, the Constitution of theRepublic of South Africa Amendment Bill [B4-2001],was a constitutional amendment Bill that proposed torepeal a provision that was still in force of the InterimConstitution of 1993. The subject of the amendmentwas the termination of integration of APLA and MKmembers in the Defence Force.

The Speaker, in terms of Assembly Rule 247(5),refers a Bill to the portfolio committee under whichthe subject matter of the Bill falls. The subject of theBill was defence matters; however, the Minister ofJustice and Constitutional Development is responsi-ble for the administration of the Constitution.

Accordingly, when the Bills were introduced on9 February, the Speaker in terms of Rule 249(3)(c)instructed the portfolio committee to consult thePortfolio Committee on Justice and ConstitutionalDevelopment on the constitutional amendment Bill.

The Minister of Defence subsequently withdrewthe Bill on 20 August.

38. TAGGING OF BILLS

Since the Constitution makes provision for differentprocedures for different kinds of Bills, it is essentialto classify or “tag” Bills correctly. This is the purposeof the Joint Tagging Mechanism (JTM), a bodyestablished in terms of the Joint Rules, consisting ofthe four senior presiding officers of Parliament,advised by the law advisers.

The National Assembly Rules state that Bills intro-duced by the Executive must be accompanied by anindication of the classification of the Bill. In the fol-lowing instances, the JTM disagreed with the accom-panying classification and reclassified the Bill:

Marketing of Agricultural Products Amendment Bill[B26-2001] – Introduced as a “section 75” Bill (a Billrelating to areas of national legislative competence);reclassified as a “section 76” Bill (a Bill relating to

16

areas of concurrent national and provincial legislativecompetence) (ATC 8 June).

Industrial Development Amendment Bill [B32-2001]– Introduced as a section 75 Bill; reclassified as a sec-tion 76 Bill (ATC 8 August)

Immigration Bill [B46-2001] – Introduced as a sec-tion 75 Bill relating to areas of national legislative com-petence. While it had not been certified by the StateLaw Advisers (see Introduction of Bill not certified bystate law advisers under “Procedural and related issues”),it was accompanied by independent legal opinions cer-tifying it as constitutionally in order. It was reclassifiedas a Money Bill, since it contained a money bill provi-sion. Since the rest of the Bill deals with matters notincidental to the appropriation of money or the imposi-tion of taxes, levies or duties, it was found to be amixed Bill, and therefore constitutionally out of order(ATC 26 September). On 12 September the Speakerwrote to the Minister of Home Affairs informing himof the finding of the JTM.

The Bill was reintroduced [B79-2001] on1 October, the relevant provision having been cor-rected to clarify that it was not a money bill provi-sion, and was classified by the JTM as a section 75Bill. At the end of the session, the Bill was still beforethe relevant portfolio committee.

A previous version of the South African Boxing Bill[B58-2000] had been declared a mixed Bill in 2000and therefore out of order (see Item 21, Issue 3). Anew Bill, the South African Boxing Bill [B13-2001]which omitted the provisions to which the procedureset out in section 76 of the Constitution applies, wasintroduced and duly certified as a section 75 Bill(relating to areas of national legislative competence)by the JTM. The new Bill was assented to by thePresident on 14 August.

39. PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BILLS

The Standing Committee on Private Members’Legislative Proposals and Special Petitions reported on14 November 2001 that it had met on eight occasions,and conducted one set of public hearings during 2001.It had finalised three private members’ legislative pro-posals, and was considering a fourth proposal. Two pri-vate members’ legislative proposals had beenwithdrawn. In all three finalised cases, the committee’srecommendation was that permission to proceed withthe proposed legislation be refused. These recommen-dations were approved by the House on 16 November.

Like the Ad Hoc Committee on Powers andPrivileges, in its report the committee mentioned dif-ficulties in scheduling meetings of committees otherthan portfolio committees, owing to Members’ othercommitments.

40. INTRODUCTION OF BILLS BYCOMMITTEES

In terms of the Constitution, a Bill may be introducedin the National Assembly by a Cabinet member orDeputy Minister, or a member or committee of the

National Assembly. The vast majority of Bills are intro-duced by Cabinet members, and several private mem-bers’ Bills have been introduced. This year saw twoBills introduced by committees of Parliament.

On 20 June, on a motion by the Deputy ChiefWhip of the Majority Party, the House gave permis-sion for a legislative proposal introduced by a com-mittee to be proceeded with. The proposal had beensubmitted by the Portfolio Committee on Justice andConstitutional Development (ATC 18 June) and pro-posed certain urgent amendments to the CriminalProcedure Act, 1977, (Act No 51 of 1977). Havingbeen fast-tracked by decision of the Joint ProgrammeSubcommittee (Minutes 20 June), the second readingof the Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill [B37-2001] was passed on 22 June.

A second legislative proposal by the same portfoliocommittee (ATC 12 November) was put to the Houseon 13 November. The legislative proposal sought toamend Schedule 2 to the Constitution to enable amember of a legislature to become a member of anoth-er party whilst retaining membership of that legislature,and to enable an existing party to merge with anotherparty or to subdivide into more than one party.

While the legislative proposal was being consideredby the House, the Leader of Government Business,with leave, made a statement on the preparation ofdraft legislation on similar mechanisms at local gov-ernment level.

The proposal was agreed to, and the Bill was pub-lished in the Gazette for public comment on15 November. It was not finalised this year.

A third Bill to be introduced by a committee con-cerns the powers and privileges of Parliament (seeAppointment of ad hoc committee to introduce Powersand Privileges Bill under “Procedural and RelatedIssues” above).

BUDGETARY MATTERS ANDMONEY BILLS

41. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTADJUSTING DEFINITION OF MONEY BILL

The Constitution of the Republic of South AfricaSecond Amendment Bill [B78-2001] makes severaladjustments to the financial regime established by theConstitution. See Legislative procedures and legislationaffecting Parliament (Amendments to the Constitution)under “Legislation and committees” above.

42. ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT BUDGETCOMMITTEE

In pursuance of discussions in the ProgrammeCommittee of 11 October, on 23 October the Houseadopted a motion establishing a Joint BudgetCommittee (JBC) consisting of 15 AssemblyMembers of whom nine are from the majority partyand six from the opposition parties; and 8 NCOPMembers of whom five must be from the majority

17

party and three from opposition parties. The opposi-tion Members were allocated as follows: NationalAssembly – DP 2, IFP 1, NNP 1, FF 1, PAC 1,UCDP one alternate Member; NCOP – DP 1, NNP1, UDM 1, IFP one alternate Member.

The committee is empowered to summon witness-es and call for papers, conduct public hearings, takeoral evidence and determine its own procedure.

The functions of this new joint committee are toanalyse and debate the Medium-Term Budget Policy(MTBP) Statement to be tabled; conduct hearings onthe Medium-Term Expenditure Framework and theDivision of Revenue Bill; and engage in the budget-ing process throughout the budget cycle in order toallow Parliament to have an input during the draftingstage of the budget. The objective is to execute theoversight function of Parliament in a meaningful way.

By means of the Statement, the Minister of Financeadvises Parliament on what has changed in the eco-nomic outlook since the Budget was tabled; shareswith the House the developments in public policy thatwill shape the Budget to be tabled the subsequent year;and invites Parliament and the nation to reflect onnational priorities, performance and plans.

On 30 October the Minister of Finance presentedand tabled his Medium-Term Budget Policy (MTBP)Statement for 2001 and it was referred to the JointBudget Committee. On the day that the committeesubmitted its report (13 November), the Housedebated the Medium-Term Budget Policy Statementas a subject for discussion.

43. BUDGET WITH FINANCE COMMITTEEFOR EXTENDED PERIOD

National Assembly Rule 290(3) provides for a maxi-mum period within which a Bill and any schedule andpapers are to be considered by the Portfolio Committeeon Finance – in the case of a main appropriation Bill, amaximum of seven consecutive Assembly working days.(For any other Bill, a period is determined in each caseby the Speaker after consultation with the Leader ofGovernment Business in the Assembly.)

On 14 February the House, on a motion by theChief Whip of the Majority Party, resolved that themain Appropriation Bill [B10-2001], upon introduc-tion, be referred to the Portfolio Committee onFinance, the Committee, notwithstanding the rele-vant Rule, to report to the House within 17 consecu-tive working days.

The Bill was referred to the committee on21 February, and the committee reported on13 March, ie within 14 working days.

44. REFERRAL OF MONEY AND FINANCIALBILLS BY RESOLUTION TO COMMITTEESOTHER THAN THE FINANCE COMMITTEE

In terms of National Assembly Rule 290 the Speakernormally refers a money Bill to the PortfolioCommittee on Finance for consideration and report.

On 5 April a money Bill, the Taxation Laws

Amendment Bill [B17-2001] was instead referred to aJoint Committee (consisting of the Assembly portfo-lio committee and the corresponding Council selectcommittee). The Joint Committee had been estab-lished by resolution of both Houses on 20 March interms of Joint Rule 111.

Two other money Bills – the Revenue LawsAmendment Bill [B36-2001] and the Revenue LawsSecond Amendment Bill [B84-2001] were dealt within the same way (Minutes 20 March, 5 April,11 October and 7 November).

By resolution on 14 November, the UnemploymentInsurance Contributions Bill [B85-2001] was, on intro-duction, referred to the Portfolio Committee onLabour for consideration and report, the Committee tohave power to confer with the NCOP SelectCommittee on Finance. In its report dated15 November submitting an amended Bill, theNational Assembly committee stated that it had consid-ered proposed amendments by the Select Committee.

(See also the Constitution of the Republic of SouthAfrica Second Amendment Bill [B78-2001] under“Legislation affecting Parliament”, and Establishmentof Joint Budget Committee under “Budgetary mattersand money Bills”)

45. DELAY IN TABLING ANNUAL REPORTS –EXPLANATIONS SUBMITTED IN TERMS OFPUBLIC FINANCE MANAGEMENT ACT

Section 65(2)(a) of the Public Service ManagementFinance Act provides that if a state department orpublic entity fails to table its annual report and finan-cial statements in the relevant legislature within sixmonths after the end of the financial year, it musttable a written explanation setting out the reasonswhy they were not tabled.

Letters calling for explanations were sent to alldepartments and public entities that failed to submitthe relevant documents in time. Several explanationswere subsequently received and published in the ATC.

PROGRAMMING OFBUSINESS

46. GUIDELINES FOR FAST-TRACKING OFBILLS APPROVED IN PROGRAMMECOMMITTEE

On 22 February the Joint Programming Committeeagreed to the following guidelines for fast-tracking ofBills:

Introduction● The principles set out here are guidelines to assist

the Joint Programming Committee (JPC) or itssubcommittee in determining the merits of indi-vidual fast-tracking requests.

● In terms of the Joint Rules of Parliament, the JPCor its subcommittee must decide whether therequest is properly motivated, and also determine

18

the appropriate response to the request for the fast-tracking of the Bill.

Making a request● If a Bill is initiated by the National Executive, the

Leader of Government Business must make therequest for fast-tracking.

● If the Bill is a private member’s Bill, the request forfast-tracking must come from the Member incharge of the Bill.

Criteria for determining proper motivation of fast-tracking requestsA. Urgency of request:● The Leader of Government Business (LGB) is

required to show that prompt passage of the Bill isa matter of urgency.

● The request for fast-tracking of the Bill must there-fore specify:(a) Why fast-tracking is necessary under the cir-

cumstances;(b) Whether a delay in the passage of the Bill will

seriously affect the interests of the state or thegeneral public; and,

(c) How those interests will be affected.Content of Bill● The LGB must give the Committee an indication

of the content of the Bill. ● The request for fast-tracking must therefore speci-

fy:(a) Whether the Bill introduces significant changes

in policy;(b) Whether public participation took place before

the request for fast-tracking was made;(c) Whether there is any opposition to the Bill;(d) Whether the Bill is technical in nature; and,(e) The length of the Bill.

● If the Bill extends the term of office of a council orstatutory body, the JPC or its subcommittee willonly approve the request for fast-tracking if theLGB can show compelling reasons why it shouldbe approved.

● The request for fast-tracking must therefore explainwhy the Bill in question was not introduced inParliament before the council or statutory body’sterm of office expired or was close to expiration.

Classification of Bill● The request for fast-tracking must be accompanied

by an opinion from the State Law Adviser on theclassification of the Bill.

Implications of Bill● The implications of the Bill must be set out in a

separate memorandum to the fast-tracking request.● The memorandum must specifically address:

(a) The implications of the Bill, financial or other-wise, for provinces; and,

(b) Whether funds are available to implement thelegislation if the Bill is passed immediately.

Bill before Parliament● If the Bill has not yet been introduced in

Parliament, the LGB must indicate when the Billwill be placed before Parliament.

Capacity of Parliament to fast-track Bill● The LGB must show that the request for

fast-tracking can be adequately accommodatedwithin the current parliamentary programme.

47. FAST-TRACKING OF BILL

One Bill – the Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill[B37-2001], which was introduced by the PortfolioCommittee on Justice and ConstitutionalDevelopment – was fast-tracked during the year (seeIntroduction of Bills by Committees under “Legislationand committees”). In terms of the Rules, the fast-tracking decision was taken by the Joint ProgrammeSubcommittee and ratified by the Assembly on20 June. The Bill was read a second time on 22 Juneand transmitted to the NCOP for concurrence onthe same day. The NCOP ratified the fast-trackingon 26 June and passed the Bill on 27 June. It wasassented to by the President on 13 July.

RELATIONS WITH OTHERBODIES AND PARLIAMENTS

(See also Declarations on Racism under “Proceduraland related matters”)

48. ADDRESSES BY HEADS OF STATE ANDHEADS OF GOVERNMENT

The President of the Democratic People’s Republic ofAlgeria, His Excellency Mr Abdelaziz Bouteflika,addressed a Joint Sitting of Parliament on the after-noon of 16 October. His speech was preceded by awelcome address by the Speaker, while a vote ofthanks was proposed by Mr DM Nkosi, MP.

Informal meetings of Members of both Houseswere addressed on Tuesday, 27 February by the PrimeMinister of the Netherland, Mr Wim Kok, and onThursday, 31 May by the French Prime Minister,M Lionel Jospin.

49. CONSIDERATION OF CONSTITUTIVE ACTOF AFRICAN UNION AND DRAFTPROTOCOL OF PAN-AFRICAN PARLIAMENT

In Issue 3, Item 4 it was reported that the PortfolioCommittee on Foreign Affairs was instructed in 2000to report on the Constitutive Act of the AfricanUnion by not later than 15 March.

On 27 February the committee, having consultedthe Portfolio Committees on Justice andConstitutional Development and on Finance, submit-ted a first and second report on the Constitutive Act ofthe African Union for consideration by the House.

The first report, which recommended that theHouse, in terms of section 231(2) of theConstitution, approve the international agreementcontaining the Constitutive Act, was adopted by theHouse on 27 February after a debate. The secondreport, while stating that it was politically imperativefor the Act to be ratified if South Africa was toremain a committed and influential member of the

19

OAU/AEC and SADC, pointed out possible conflictwith international law and the United NationsCharter, and recommended that the Executive moni-tor adoption and implementation to ensure “…thatit is interpreted and applied in accordance with ourConstitution and legal dispensation and our obliga-tions under International Law …”. The report wasadopted by the House on 8 March 2001.

On 4 April the Speaker and the Chairperson of theNCOP tabled the Report and Decisions of the 5thExtraordinary Session of the Assembly of Heads ofState and Government of the OAU/AEC, held inSirte, Libya from 1 to 2 March. The Report indicatedthat the African Union had been established unani-mously by member states, and that the necessarydecisions should be taken pertaining to the transfor-mation of the OAU into the African Union. TheReport also reflected that the draft Protocol on thePan-African Parliament had been adopted, with cer-tain amendments.

On 16 November, on a motion by the ActingChief Whip of the Majority Party, the Houseresolved that a working group be established to con-sider the implementation of the Constitutive Act.

50. PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION TOISRAEL/PALESTINE

On 28 February the House, on a motion by theChief Whip of the Majority Party, resolved to send amultiparty delegation of MPs to visit Palestine andIsrael on a fact-finding mission, the delegation toreport back to Parliament on its findings. It was alsoresolved that ways would be explored in which theSouth African Parliament could be of assistance inencouraging a peaceful settlement.

The delegation, consisting of 8 members led byMs T Modise, MP (ANC), visited Israel and Palestinefrom 9 to 19 July. Its report, tabled on 25 September,contained several recommendations, inter alia thatthe Speaker be “encouraged to foster and develop dia-logue amongst the Parliaments of Palestine, Israel andSouth Africa through inter-parliamentary exchangeswith Speakers and Members of Parliament”, and that“The Parliament of South Africa explore ways toleverage support for the people of Palestine, thePalestinian Legislative Council and the developmentof democracy and democratic processes in Palestineand Israel through its involvement in the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), CommonwealthParliamentary Association (CPA) and the SADC-Parliamentary Forum (SADC-PF)”. The report statedthat it did not necessarily reflect the policy of theGovernment of South Africa regarding the conflictbetween Israel and Palestine.

After a debate in the National Assembly on23 October, the report was adopted following a divi-sion. On adoption of the report, the Deputy Speakerannounced that in keeping with its recommenda-tions, the Speaker had issued an invitation to theSpeaker of the Knesset in Israel to send a parliamen-tary delegation to this Parliament next year.

STATUTORY FUNCTIONSOF THE NATIONALASSEMBLY(See also Legislation affecting Parliament under“Legislation and committees”)

51. EXTENSION OF PERIOD OF OPERATIONOF SECTIONS OF CRIMINAL LAWAMENDMENT ACT

Section 53 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act,1997 (Act No 105 of 1997), as amended, providesthat sections 51 and 52 of the said Act, relating tominimum sentences and committal of accused forsentence respectively, expire two years after the Actcommences. However, this period may be extendedby the President, with the concurrence of Parliament,for two years at a time.

On 4 April, on a resolution moved on behalf of theMinister for Justice and Constitutional Development,the House gave its consent that the President byproclamation in the Gazette extend the period ofoperation of the relevant sections “for a further peri-od of two years, with effect from 1 May 2001”.

52. FILLING OF VACANCIES INCOMMISSIONS

(a) Commission on Gender EqualityIn July 2000 the Minister of Justice informedParliament of existing and forthcoming full-time andpart-time vacancies in the Commission on GenderEquality. In terms of the Constitution, the Assemblymust recommend for appointment personsnominated by a committee of the Assembly; and therecommendations must be approved by a supportingvote of a majority of the members of the Assembly.Accordingly, the Assembly adopted a resolution on1 November 2000 establishing a 27-member all-partyad hoc committee to consider nominations.

In terms of the Commission for Gender EqualityAct, the Minister in February 2001 submitted a listof candidates proposed by interested parties for con-sideration by the relevant Assembly committee. Afterconsideration of the list, the ad hoc committee sub-mitted a report to the Assembly on 20 March (ATCp218). However, concerns having been raised aboutsome of the recommendations, on 27 March theHouse resolved to refer the report back to the ad hoccommittee for further consideration and report. Thecommittee submitted an adjusted report on 28March. A debate was held on the committee’s adjust-ed report on 29 March, followed by a division inwhich several parties voted against the report. Sincethe result of the division was: Ayes – 193; Noes – 82,the Assembly failed to approve the report with “amajority of the members of the Assembly” as requiredby the Constitution. (As the Assembly has 400Members, a majority is 201 or more.)

Since the House was constitutionally required to

20

make the recommendations, the Speaker referred thereport back to the committee for further considera-tion and report (ATC 29 March). The committeeissued a final report on 3 April, which includedadjustments to the proposed terms of office of someof the candidates. Since this final report differed fromthe earlier report, the House was able to consider thematter again without falling foul of the SameQuestion Rule (Rule 95(2)), which prevents theHouse from considering a second time during thesame session, a matter which is the same in substanceas a matter which has already come before the House.On 4 April the report with its recommendations wereadopted with the requisite majority.

(b) Human Rights CommissionOn 2 November the House resolved to appoint an adhoc committee to nominate persons to fill two vacan-cies on the Human Rights Commission that were tooccur on 31 December 2001 and 31 January 2002respectively. In terms of the resolution, the committeewas to complete its task by 1 March 2002.

(c) Magistrates CommissionFour of the members of the Magistrates Commissionare designated by the National Assembly fromamongst its members, “at least two of whom must bemembers of opposition parties represented in theAssembly” (section 3(1) of the Magistrates Act,1993). On 26 June the House by resolution designat-ed Ms F I Chohan-Kota, MP (ANC) to replaceMs DPS Jana, MP (ANC) on the Commission. On9 October the House by resolution designatedMr MA Mzizi, MP (IFP) to replace Prof LBGNdabandaba, MP (IFP) on the Commission.

(d) Judicial Services Commission (JSC)Minister A M Omar having resigned from the JSCwith effect from 26 February, on 1 June the Housedesignated Ms FI Chohan-Kota, MP, to replace him.However, Ms Chohan-Kota having given notice on25 June of her intention to resign from the JSC witheffect from 1 August, on 26 June the House by

resolution appointed in her stead Ms NN Mapisa-Nqakula, MP. (See also Magistrates Commissionabove for the appointment to that body ofMs Chohan-Kota on 26 June.)

53. APPROVAL OF RECOMMENDATIONS BYPARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES IN TERMS OFSTATUTE

Section 15 of the Marketing of Agricultural ProductsAct , 1996, provides that “No levy shall be intro-duced, amended or repealed … unless the parliamen-tary committees have been consulted …”. Therelevant section requires these committees to make adecision within 30 days and publish the reasons fortheir decision in the Gazette.

In its report dated 13 February (ATC 20 February)the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture approvedrecommendations in this regard concerning thesorghum industry and the citrus fruit industry interms of the said section. No resolution by the ple-nary National Assembly was involved.

In a further report dated 2 October (ATC 3October), the committee approved recommendationsconcerning the implementation of proposed statutorymeasures in the deciduous fruit industry.

THE CHAMBER

54. AUDIOVISUAL FACILITIES

Five new cameras have been installed in the NationalAssembly Chamber, resulting in improved picturequality and faster and more efficient pan and tiltcapabilities.

For the first time, Parliament’s own data/video pro-jectors were used at the Opening of Parliament andon Budget Day to allow those visitors not accommo-dated on the Public Gallery, to view NationalAssembly proceedings from the Old AssemblyChamber and Committee Room E249. Previously,projectors had been hired for this purpose.

ATC Announcements, Tablings andCommittee Reports (title of a daily par-liamentary document)

IPU Inter-Parliamentary UnionMinutes Minutes of the National AssemblyNA National AssemblyNCOP National Council of ProvincesJPC Joint Programme CommitteeJPSC Joint Programme Subcommittee JRC Joint Rules CommitteeJTM Joint Tagging MechanismLGB Leader of Government BusinessMTBP Medium Term Budget Policy

Parties:ANC African National CongressDP Democratic PartyIFP Inkatha Freedom PartyNNP New National PartyUDM United Democratic MovementACDP African Christian Democratic PartyFF Freedom FrontUCDP United Christian Democratic PartyPAC Pan Africanist Congress of AzaniaFA Federal AllianceAEB Afrikaner-EenheidsbewegingMF Minority FrontAZAPO Azanian People’s Organisation

ABBREVIATIONS USED

21

NOTES

..........................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................

www.fox.co.za