Hansard: NA: Unrevised hansard
House: National Assembly
Date of Meeting: 19 Oct 2023
Summary
No summary available.
Minutes
UNREVISED HANSARD NATIONAL
ASSEMBLY THURSDAY,
19 OCTOBER 2023
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
Watch here: Plenary
The House met at 14:02.
The Speaker took the Chair and requested members to observe a moment of silence for prayer or meditation.
The SPEAKER: Please be seated. [Interjections.] Order! Order!
IsiZulu:
Hlalani phansi maqabane, ngiyanicela.
English:
Hon members, please take your seats. Pinky and Bongo, you can do the kissing after this. It was a pleasant one. Nothing wrong with that. What is this ... [Inaudible.] But not here. Colleagues, ... hon Mandela! Hon Mandela, please. People are complaining about the sound. Am I audible now hon members? No? Order! Am I audible now? Yes? Can we proceed? Thank you.
Hon members, on behalf of the presiding officers, I wish to convey our heartfelt condolences to the family, his political party and friends of the hon C H M Sibisi, who passed away yesterday, the 18 October. A condolence motion for hon Sibisi will be scheduled at an appropriate time. I also wish to convey our heartfelt condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of Mr C V Mahlangu, who passed away earlier this month. Mr Mahlangu, as you would all know, was the undersecretary for House plenaries in the National Assembly. We also note with deep sadness and pain the escalation of conflict in the Middle East and that civilian lives have been lost on both sides of the conflict. May we please rise to observe a moment of silence for hon Sibisi, Mr Mahlangu and all those who have lost their lives in the current conflict. I thank you, hon members.
NEW MEMBERS
(Announcements)
The SPEAKER: Order! Hon members, before we proceed with today’s business, I wish to announce that the vacancy which occurred in the National Assembly due to the passing of Ms T M Joemat-Pettersson has been filled by the nomination of Mr M B
Masuku with effect from 17 October 2023. The vacancy which occurred in the National Assembly due to the passing of Prince M G Buthelezi has been filled by the nomination of Mr V F Hlabisa with effect from 18 October 2023. Lastly, I also wish to announce that the vacancies which occurred owing to the loss of membership of the National Assembly by Mr S M Kula and Mr T H James in terms of section 47(3)(b) of the Constitution of the Republic have been filled by the nominations of Mr G N Nkgweng and Ms T Z Makata, respectively with effect from
17 October 2023. All these members have made and subscribed the oath and affirmation in the Speaker’s office. I welcome you, hon members.
CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATION OF A PERSON FOR APPOINTMENT AS PUBLIC PROTECTOR AND REPORT OF AD HOC COMMITTEE TO NOMINATE A PERSON FOR APPOINTMENT AS PUBLIC PROTECTOR
The SPEAKER: Hon members, the report of the ad hoc committee established in terms of section 193(5)(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa of 1996 is now before the House and after the debate the House must vote on the recommendation of the ad hoc committee.
Mr V C XABA: ... [Applause.] ... Hon Speaker, His Excellency Deputy President, hon members of this House, thank you very much for the opportunity to move the debate. On 25 May 2023, having noted that the term of office of the Public Protector would expire on 14 October 2023, the National Assembly resolved, in accordance with section 193(5) of the Constitution of the Republic, to establish an ad hoc committee to nominate a person for appointment as Public Protector. The person so nominated by the ad hoc must receive the supporting vote of at least 60% of the members of this House before he or she could be recommended to the President. We are assembled today to process the recommendation.
In section 193(4) of the Constitution, the President must appoint a Public Protector on the recommendation of the National Assembly. It is my honour to submit the name of Advocate Kholeka Gcaleka for consideration by this august House. You have a constitutional duty to reflect honestly on the nomination, and for once forget that we also have ambitions for power as different political parties. We disagree when we should be agreeing, and the loser is the voter - a law-abiding citizen - who deserves nothing from this House but decisions that gives her comfort that tomorrow will be better.
Hon members, the Public Protector of South Africa is an institution established by the Constitution to enhance accountability and improve the quality of service delivery. It deepens the conversation and strengthens the social contract. The philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau explains what a social contract means. He had the following to say:
For a state to be legitimate, individuals have to renounce certain freedoms to the authority of the sovereign, in exchange for protection of the remaining liberties of the individual and the maintenance of order.
Nelson Mandela said:
A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens, but its lowest ones.
Twenty-nine years into our democracy, the Public Protector of South Africa has played a significant role in protecting the rights of the vulnerable and addressing issues related to the abuse of public authority. The ad hoc was tasked to search for a South African citizen who is a fit and proper person to hold such office and who meet the prescribed selection criteria.
The process drew 53 nominations and 17 applications. Of the 53
nominations, 33 did not meet the requirements set out in the advertisement and two withdrew. Each candidate was tested for character, experience, knowledge and skills. I must add that all 38 candidates presented varying strengths and capabilities. I thank them for availing themselves.
The position can only be filled by one person. Advocate Gcaleka was outstanding. You may have your issues with her, but don’t take away that she demonstrated a clear vision for the job and is a capable and competent person. We must avoid subjecting a person to a court of public opinion, parading innuendos, and sustaining false allegations. Those who repeat untested allegations lack courage and resolve to have them tested in a court of law. They want her to operate under a cloud. The intention is to intimidate her. She is decisive and does not succumb to pressure.
Hon Speaker, Advocate Gcaleka came face to face with hon Breytenbach of the DA. She questioned her about her role when both were in the NPA. That Gcaleka was the Chairperson of the Association of State’s Advocates, that according to hon Breytenbach, appeared to be supporting Advocate Menzi Simelane, who was later declared - according to her - not fit and proper to hold office. The question appeared to me about
Simelane whom she had running battles with, than Gcaleka. In answering the question, Gcaleka said she supported the transformation agenda that Simelane was driving because there was racism in the division in which she was serving, and she that had no part in the executive decisions of Advocate Menzi Simelane because she was not in the executive.
Hon Maotwe sponsored a view that she must step aside because her report on Phala Phala generated “a cloud that hangs over your head”. I really don’t know where that comes from. In fact, it is unfair to the candidate. The Judicial Service Commission appoints or promotes judges whose judgements are on appeal or taken on review. That your judgement is appealed or taken on review is not a bar. Why applying different standards in this case? Who said that the review is going to succeed?
That aggrieved parties take the Public Protector rulings on review, to me suggests that our democracy has matured.
I wish to thank the media, members of the public and civil society for the role they played in the process of selecting the nominee. United we stand, divided we fall. I thank you. [Applause.]
Adv G BREYTENBACH: Hon Speaker, hon members and hon Xaba, I almost think we weren't at the same interviews. The possible appointment of Kholeka Gcaleka as the Public Protector of South Africa has raised several questions and it has certainly underscored the fact that the appointment process of the Public Protector needs to be re-evaluated. This time around, with respect to all candidates, the process delivered a crop of potential candidates who were fundamentally so far below par for the job of this magnitude, leaving the ad hoc committee, in my view, with no choice but to abort the process and readvertise the position. In our view, not one single candidate of those shortlisted met all the minimum standards.
Other parties will argue here today that Kholeka Gcaleka is an outstanding candidate who has proven herself fit and able to perform the functions of the job required. Precisely on what basis they argue this escapes me. Ms Gcaleka meets the minimum educational requirements. That is true. It's also about the only positive thing one can say about her quest to be the Public Protector. She currently occupies the position of Deputy Public Protector and has done for around two years. For most of that time, she has also been the acting Public Protector while the impeachment process of Busisiwe Mkhwebane has run its course.
Of course, all this could have been avoided and close to R100 million could have been saved and used for more constructive processes. If only this House had given more
consideration to the arguments of the DA seven years ago when we were the only party to oppose the appointment of Ms Mkhwebane. [Applause.] You did not listen then; perhaps you should listen now.
It cannot in all honesty be said that Ms Gcaleka has been the most effective and efficient Deputy Public Protector, nor can it be said that she has been a perfect stand-in. In fairness, she did walk into a deeply troubled and dysfunctional office and has gone some way to improving the office setup. Given that she has had free reign over the office and has had the assistance of some very experienced staff members, this is not enough to persuade us that she is ready to take the top job.
One of the fundamental principles of a Public Protector's role is independence and impartiality. It is essential that the Public Protector, whomsoever it is, acts without fear and favour, and serves the interests of the public and the Constitution. The Public Protector must not and cannot be swayed by political considerations. It is a tough and lonely
job, allowing no room for any improper influence or personal predilections.
Now, Ms Gcaleka does not come to this point without a past. She was a prosecutor in the National Prosecuting Authority, NPA, with some experience in litigation, not investigation. That is not the job of a prosecutor. She was not there long enough to be described as an experienced litigator and while there she did not conduct herself with distinction. A serious question mark must exist over her personal judgement and her independence. She was peripherally involved in the Mdluli matter, which cannot be regarded as a success since his conviction was on the basis of such watered-down charges that the murder of Mr Oupa Ramogibe remains unaccounted for to this day. Her very cosy relationship, and some say intimate relationship, with her boss, the rather odious Menzi Simelane, led to speedy promotions and her very vocal and active support of his role in the capture of the NPA. One cannot leave her role ... [Interjections.] You don't have to like it. You don't have to like it. One cannot leave her role in the Agliotti acquittal out of consideration either. Having played her part in the destruction of the NPA, Ms Gcaleka moved on ...
The SPEAKER: There’s a point of order, hon member.
Adv G BREYTENBACH: Having played her part in the destruction of the NPA ...
The SPEAKER: Hon Breytenbach?
Adv G BREYTENBACH: ... Ms Gcaleka moved on to the office of the then Minister, Malusi Gigaba.
The SPEAKER: Hon Breytenbach! Hon Breytenbach, there’s a point of order.
Adv G BREYTENBACH: What?
The SPEAKER: Yes, hon Radebe, what is your point of order? Yes, what is your point of order?
Mr B A RADEBE: Hon Speaker, I'm rising on Rule 84, the issue of unparliamentary language ... of using intimate things here in Parliament. However, apart from that, I am rising on the issue of the offices which are affected, just like the independent office of the Public Protector. Currently, Ms Kholeka Gcaleka is the acting Public Protector. She cannot be denigrated here in the way she has. Thank you, Chair.
The SPEAKER: Thank you, hon Radebe. Hon members? Hon Kubayi, is that a point of order?
The MINISTER OF HUMAN SETTLEMENTS: Hon Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Hon Speaker, the hon member here makes insinuations of a young woman rising in the job through sexual favours. In this country and in this day, with what we have gone through, we can't allow this, Madam Speaker. Having such an insinuation in this type of House, with the past we have and with what we are going through as women in this country, can't be allowed. Thank you. [Applause.]
The SPEAKER: Thank you, hon members. Hon members, you know what the ... Hon members, there is a problem with our systems here. I can hardly hear from where I'm sitting. I fully agree with you. In fact, not only that, hon Breytenbach, remember Rule 88, which states that a person who is dependent on you for appointment and for removal cannot be attacked in that manner in this House. Please, hon member ... No, hon members, wait! Wait! Hon Breytenbach, will you please withdraw that?
Please lower your hand. Lower your hand. I see your order. Yes, she is not the only one. There is another order at the back and I have just ruled that hon Breytenbach should withdraw her statement. Hon Breytenbach? I am not going to
allow you to speak. I have ruled. Hon Breytenbach, will you please withdraw your statement?
Adv G BREYTENBACH: I will not.
The SPEAKER: Hon Breytenbach, if you will not, you may leave the House. [Applause.] Order! Hon members, thank you very much. Hon members? Hon members? Hon members? Xaso, please ... [Inaudible.] Hon Steenhuisen, the Leader of the Opposition?
The LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: Madam Speaker, with respect you have ... With respect, your last ruling ... Madam Speaker, with respect, the last ruling that you have made is an incorrect ruling and the reason it is incorrect is that Ms Gcaleka does not occupy any of the offices which require that
...
The SPEAKER: Hon Steenhuisen, we are not arguing, engaging or discussing this now. You are wrong. You are wrong. You are wrong. Please take your seat.
The LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: Madam Speaker? No, I won’t. I won’t.
The SPEAKER: Please take your seat.
The LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION: I won’t take my seat. Madam Speaker, you are being as dishonest today to this Parliament, like you lied about George's salary. You are dishonest! You are a liar! You do not follow the Rules of Parliament! You are a disgrace! You should not be sitting there! You are a liar!
Just like you misled our Parliament over Mr George and lied about his ... [Inaudible.] ... to us, you have lied today about this Rule. You are a disgrace as a Speaker! You should not be sitting there and we will remove you! We will remove you with a motion of no confidence. You are a disgrace; an absolute disgrace! You are a liar! You are a manipulator of the Rules. You do not understand the Rules. You are destroying Parliament. You are stifling freedom of speech. You do not protect the opposition. You absolutely don't belong in that Chair. You are dishonest and you are a liar!
The SPEAKER: Hon Dlakude, what is your point of order?
The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Hon Speaker, I
have two points to make. One is a point of order.
The SPEAKER: Hon members, order at the back. Hon members, please. Hon members, order! Hon members, order! Order, hon members! Order please. Hon members, will you please take your seats. Thank you very much. Hon members, I have no intention of postponing this House. You may try hard to collapse the House but I will not allow this House to be collapsed right now. Proceed, hon member.
The DEPUTY CHIEF WHIP OF THE MAJORITY PARTY: Hon Speaker, the
hon Steenhuisen, as the Leader of the Opposition and also as a former Chief Whip of his own party, knows the processes to be followed if he is not happy with the ruling of the Speaker.
That's one point.
The second point is that the hon Steenhuisen insulted the Speaker of this House. He even said that the Speaker is a liar, which is unparliamentary. So, we cannot accept that. He must deal with his anger or whatever he has but as an hon member of this House he cannot insult the Speaker of the House. Thank you very much.
The SPEAKER: Hon members, would you please lower your hands. I will consider this matter, the issues and all the insults raised by hon Steenhuisen. Hon members, at this point and
time, I will not allow the House to be adjourned. We will proceed with the items on the agenda. The insults that are there I will be ruling on them later.
Hon Steenhuisen, I’ve listened to your issues, I’ve also taken note on them. However, for now, the liar is saying that we should proceed with the proceedings of this House. We are proceeding, hon members. Over to you, hon Gwarube.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Hon Speaker, when you made a ruling, you relied on Rule 88 of the National Assembly Rules in which you state ... [Interjections.] ...
The SPEAKER: Hon Gwarube, the ruling was made and hon ... [Interjections.]
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: ... in which you state that this is a reflection on Public Office Bearer. Adv Gcaleka is not a Public Office Bearer that is appointed by this House.
The SPEAKER: Yes, hon Gwarube, but she is about to be appointed by you.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Your ruling is incorrect, Madam Speaker. You used that rule to chase out a member ... [Interjections.]
The SPEAKER: Hon Gwarube, on a point of order, you are not going to collapse this sitting, hon member.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: I am not trying to collapse the sitting. You’ve made an incorrect ruling.
The SPEAKER: Take your seat, hon Gwarube, take your seat. Thank you, hon Gwarube, and that’s it. We now proceed, hon members. Over to you, hon Singh.
Mr N SINGH: Hon Speaker, I am not going to speak about the ruling, but I think that we will have to sort out the sound in the House. I want to suggest that we adjourn for 10 minutes or so to get the sound sorted out because we can’t hear and you can’t hear, yet this is such an important debate that all of us need to hear what is happening. Thank you.
The SPEAKER: Hon members, I do agree with that proposal, I think we should adjourn for 10 minutes. Indeed, there is a
problem with our sound system. Thank you. The meeting is adjourned.
The member thereupon withdrew from the Chamber.
Business suspended at 14:33 and resumed at 14:44.
The SPEAKER: Hon Gwarube, you have a point of order? Take your seat, hon Manyi.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Hon Speaker, on a point of order: I am rising on Rule 26(4) which states that the Speaker must act fairly, impartially and apply the rules with due regard, ensuring the full participation of the members of this House. Speaker, by applying Rule 88, which does not cover Advocate Gcaleka because she is not appointed by the House and by chasing Advocate Breytenbach, you have applied the wrong rule incorrectly to the wrong person. [Interjections.] Speaker, this debate is meant to be robust because we are appointing a Chapter 9 institution head. You have been consistently outlying rules incorrectly but also ignoring points of order. You are making this a sham.
The SPEAKER: Hon Gwarube...
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: Madam Speaker, I am not done making a point of order...
The SPEAKER: Hon Gwarube...
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: You are making and degenerating the House, yourself. As a result, we cannot stay here and listen to the debate.
The SPEAKER: Hon Gwarube, please take your seat.
The CHIEF WHIP OF THE OPPOSITION: It is no longer a debate. As a result, we are going to walk out in defiance because this is not how you run an institution like that.
The SPEAKER: Thank you, hon members. Hon member Manyi, take the floor.
Mr M MANYI: Order. [Laughter.] Madam Speaker, I recognise the commander-in-chief of the EFF in absentia and his deputy. [Interjections.] Speaker, section 182 of the Constitution is one of the very important provisions in our Constitution. It provides for the establishment of the Office of the Public Protector. It grants the Public Protector with wide powers to
investigate any conduct in state affairs, in public administration and in all spheres of government. The office is one of the most important offices at the hands of the public and allows ordinary people who cannot afford to go to courts, an opportunity to seek redress.
This office must therefore always be beyond reproach and individuals appointed to lead this institution must be of impeccable moral and professional character. Their knowledge of the law must be blameless. Their commitment to social justice must be without stain and they must demonstrate an unflinching commitment to the truth, regardless of who will be inconvenienced by their findings.
From the interviews Parliament conducted in search of the new Public Protector, it was very clear to us that none of the candidates interviewed ticked the boxes needed for a Public Protector. The Office of the Public Protector is not a political football and people ought not to use political proximity to ascend to this position, nor should they use their power to massage political egos.
The Deputy Public Protector knew that she had ambitions to apply for the position of the Public Protector or accept the
nomination. With this knowledge, she still accepted the acting responsibility in the position of the Public Protector. To make matters worse, she went and accepted the responsibility to oversee an investigation on the Phala Phala scandal surrounding Ramaphosa, Mr Ramaphosa. She was aware that had she made adverse findings against this person, she was not going to be considered for the position of the Public Protector by the ANC’s dominated caucus. True to her uncontrollable ambitions, she went on and whitewashed the whole investigation and absolve Mr Ramaphosa from perhaps the biggest criminal scandal faced by a President since 1994. How disgraceful. This is not an honest person and we do not say this lightly.
She told Xoli Mngambi on Newsroom, this is a fact, she told Xoli Mngambi on Newsroom, that she was furnished with a receipt of sale in the Phalaphala transaction. She did not end there. She went on to say, that she was furnished with evidence and affidavits to show beyond any doubt that there was a sale. Her own report on pages 11 and 241 says that, the R10 million in US Dollar bills found inside Mr Ramaphosa’s sofas and mattresses was from a private transaction and she stands by that assertion despite the Reserve Bank stating that there was no such transaction. She is part of a cover-up
assembled to protect Mr Ramaphosa at all costs and she cannot be trusted. When she applied for the position of Deputy Public Protector, we demonstrated during the interviews that she cannot be trusted to conduct herself in an ethical manner when she boldly told us that she saw no problem whatsoever with working with a person who was found to have lied, saying to the committee then that for her that was not a problem.
To come here and pretend that she does not have a cloud hanging over her head and think that we can give the Office of the Public Protector a fresh start, would be deceitful. Even the ANC must be ashamed of some things. We reject the appointment of Kholeka Gcaleka with the contempt it deserves. If the ANC uses its majority to appoint a President Protector instead of a Public Protector that is on them. Finally, the people of South Africa must see that they have voted thugs who are willing to go to great lengths to appoint a tainted person to a position of such authority. It is quite disgraceful, hon Speaker, that we are sitting here today contemplating appointing a liar, a manipulator and unethical person. The EFF rejects this with contempt. Thank you.
The SPEAKER: Hon Manyi, go back. Hon Manyi, you made reference to thugs who are appointing an incoming Public Protector and I
am sure you are not referring to this House because the process is here in this House. Will you please withdraw the word thugs, please, please withdraw?
Mr M MANYI: My conscience does not allow me. These people are thugs. These are elected thugs they know nothing about representing the people of this country. [Interjections.]
The SPEAKER: Hon Manyi, hon Manyi...
IsiXhosa:
... ungabisabuyela esitulweni.
English:
You may leave the House. You may leave the House. Thank you.
Mr M MANYI: Thank you, I would rather leave than sitting with thugs.
Mr E M BUTHELEZI: Hon Speaker, the IFP has remained steadfast in its commitment to support Chapter 9 institutions. In this regard. we uphold the principles of impartiality and independence of the Public Protector’s Office. The role of the Public Protector is crucial in our democracy. It is an Office,
tasked to safeguard the principles of accountability, transparency and the rule of law. It serves as a safeguard against corruption and abuse of power.
It is not without regret that we note how this Office has been suffering political interference, to an extent that almost undermine the very same process of finding a suitable candidate for the job. We observe a divisive political landscape where partisan interests and political manoeuvring often overshadow the urgent need for a capable and impartial Public Protector.
While other speakers hesitated and allowed their political biases to cloud their judgement, the IFP stands here in support of Adv Kholeka Gcaleka as the new Public Protector. [Applause.] Our party has a consistent belief in the importance of impartiality and independence. First and foremost, from the members of this House who were tasked to perform this task, in our support for Adv Kholeka Gcaleka, we recognise her qualifications, her dedication to principles of justice and commitment to uphold the Constitution.
She demonstrated a strong leadership character, a deep knowledge and understanding of the ins and outs of the Office
she seeks to occupy. Not only did she demonstrate her knowledge of the Office, but also the socioeconomic challenges our country faces.
Adv Gcaleka demonstrated qualities needed to lead this vital institution and ensure that it remains the beacon of hope for those who rely on it to hold those in power accountable. In fact, those who followed interviews closely would agree with the IFP that Adv Gcaleka remained “the last candidate standing” from the elimination process of 36 candidates who were nominated and applied. [Applause.] The IFP’s support for Adv Gcaleka was not a partisan decision, but rather a reflection of our dedication to the democratic ideals upon which our country was founded.
As we look to the future, we call on all political parties to set aside their differences and unite behind this Office, working collectively to ensure that it remains an effective guardian for our democracy.
The IFP will continue to uphold its commitment to the principles of impartiality, independence and consistency, not only in support for the Public Protector, but in all aspects of our engagement with the South African political landscape.
And finally, Adv Kholeka Gcaleka is a product of a due process, not a recommendation of a political parties. And I must overemphasise that. It is now up to Adv Gcaleka to choose to work with integrity, honesty and absolute dedication to her work, as detected by the mandate of the Office, or choose to mix herself with politics and ruin her career in disgrace. We support her appointment. [Applause.]
Mr W W WESSELS: Hon Speaker, the ANC repeats the same mistakes all the time. Let us be honest, hon Xaba, we did not find a suitable candidate for the appointment of the Public Protector through this process. The institution of the Public Protector is paramount to our constitutional democracy. It plays effectively, a role as a fourth arm of the state. It keeps your executive, hon Deputy Minister, in check. It provides extra checks and balances. The legitimacy of the state is dependent on a functional, independent and impartial Public Protector.
Throughout the process of this appointment, the ANC has been set on one requirement and it is an important requirement, and it is being fit and proper. The Constitution says so and the Act refers to it. You must be fit and proper. They then used case law to say what the definition and the test to be fit and
proper, or not to be fit and proper is. That is the requirement of having been found guilty of misconduct. That is true, but the requirement that the ANC forgets is the requirement that is also in the Constitution for all Chapter 9 institutions, and that is impartiality. And what does case law say about the test for impartiality? It says that perception should be included in that test.
There is no doubt that there is a cloud of problems around this candidate and that the perception out there is not good. That means that there is no impartiality. It means that we have a problem. You see, it is not only about the Phala Phala report, but it’s also about her membership of the ANC and what makes it even worse, is that she was employed in the Office of one of the biggest crooks in the history of this country, Malusi Gigaba, when the worst state capture was done. She was there and she was witness to the state capture by the Guptas and the involvement of her principal, Malusi Gigaba.
If you want to restore public confidence, you need impartiality, you need the perception out there to be impartial. We cannot have another political appointment who is not impartial and perceived to be impartial.
Afrikaans:
Wat nog meer skokkend is, is die feit dat, sewe jaar terug, en deurgaans is daar oor die voormalige Openbare Beskermer gewaarsku. Die ANC wou nie luister nie. Waar sit sy vandag?
Waar sit sy? In ’n rooi overall [oorjas.]. Sy is nou by u vyand, die EFF, want u wou nie luister nie. U wou toe van haar ontslae geraak het. Oor minder as sewe jaar gaan ons weer hier staan en ons gaan weer ’n artikel 194-ondersoek hê, want u wil nie vandag luister nie. U faal die kiesers daarbuite.
English:
You are a government that has run out of time because you are failing the people of South Africa. We need to restore confidence, we need to restore this country and we need to restore constitutional democracy. I thank you.
Mr S N SWART: Thank you, Speaker, former Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng said of the Public Protector that she is the embodiment of the biblical David of the public, who fights the Goliath that is impropriety and corruption by government officials, and that the Public Protector is one of the true crusaders and champions of anticorruption and clean governance.
The Constitutional Court found, not only that former President Zuma was in breach of his constitutional duties, in not enforcing the then Public Protector’s remedial action, but more significantly, that Parliament was found to have failed to hold the President accountable and thus, breached its constitutional duties.
That judgment remains a serious indictment against Parliament. We cannot afford to make similar mistakes when appointing a new Public Protector and the ACDP has listened carefully to the various reservations about Adv Gcaleka’s independence, including her finding that the allegations that President Ramaphosa had acted in a manner inconsistent with his Office regarding the Phala Phala issue could not be sustained.
This finding flies directly in the face of the section 89 Independent Panel, which found there was prima facie evidence that the President may have committed a serious violation of the Constitution as well as serious misconduct. I would like to say again, Chief Justice Mogoeng stated that the Public Protector’s investigative powers are not supposed to bow down to anybody, not even the door of the highest chambers of raw state power, and that includes President Ramaphosa.
The ACDP regrets that it supported the appointment of Adv Mkhwebane. We made a mistake, but we will not make the same mistake again and we will not support this appointment. We trust, however, if the appointment goes through that Adv Gcaleka will prove us wrong.
Whilst we are speaking about the biblical David, I want to thank the Speaker for opening the session in prayer for peace in the Middle East. We need to pray for peace for Jerusalem, as we are constrained to do in Psalm 122. And our hearts go out to all innocent civilians in Israel and Gaza, but particularly those who were savagely murdered and butchered by Hamas, including a 65-year-old South African granny, including babies that were murdered.
No country would allow these unspeakable atrocities to go unanswered and would do everything in its power to defend itself and its innocent citizens and save the innocent hostages. We demand the release of those hostages. Himesh o ghai! And remember, HaShem, who watches over Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps. I thank you.
Ms T L MARAWU: Thank you very much, hon Speaker. I stand before you today to voice the ATM’s strong opposition to the
nomination of Adv Gcaleka for the position of Public Protector. This is the position rooted in a deep concern for the integrity and impartiality of this crucial office, an office that serves as the guardian of our democracy, the protector of the public’s interest, and the formidable enemy against corruption and abuse of power.
In the few months that Adv Gcaleka has served as an Acting Public Protector, we have witnessed a blatant display of bias that has raised serious doubts about her suitability for the head of a Chapter 9 institution. The very essence of the Public Protector’s mandate is to be an unwavering advocate for justice, a beacon of accountability and a defender of our constitutional principles. Unfortunately, Adv Gcaleka’s actions have shown a different path, one where justice takes a backseat to political manoeuvring.
The Office of the Public Protector is one of the cornerstones of our democracy. It is designed to be fiercely independent, insulated from political pressure or influence. The reason for this independence is clear: To ensure that those in power are held accountable for their actions, regardless of their political affiliation. When the Public Protector’s office becomes politicized, when its actions are perceived as being
influenced by political interest, the very foundation of our democracy is undermined.
Let us not forget the report on the President’s Phalaphala scandal, a report that has shaken the very foundation of our belief in impartiality and fairness. This report, which many expected to be a beacon of transparency and legality, instead tend to be a legal quagmire. It raised more questions than answers, and its findings were tainted with a strain of political biases.
Adv Gcaleka’s handling of the Phalaphala scandal brought into question some ability to reason with legal questions. It casts serious doubts on her impartiality and her commitment to the principles of justice. We cannot afford to have a Public Protector who bends the law to protect the interests of a single individual, even if that individual happens to be the President.
The dangers associated with politicising the Public Protectors office extend beyond the single incident. What is even more concerning is that after the President was held accountable by the former Public Protector Adv Busisiwe Mkhwebane on numerous occasions, he is now trying to ensure that the next Public
Protector will be lenient towards him. Adv Gcaleka’s Phalaphala report served as a proof that she was willing to be the President's protector instead of the public, which is deeply troubling.
The notion that her nomination for Public Protector is a reward for getting the President off the hook in the Phalaphala scandal is deeply troubling. It sends a dangerous message, that those in power can manipulate our institutions of accountability for their own gain. In closing, I implore each and every one of us to be considerate of the implication of Adv Gcaleka’s appointment for Public Protector.
We cannot afford to compromise the integrity of this office or allow it to be used as a political pawn. Let us stand firm in our commitment to justice, accountability and the rule of law, and reject this appointment that threatens to undermine the very foundation of our democracy. I thank you.
Dr M M E TLHAPE: Hon Speaker, Deputy President, members of executive, hon members, the process of selecting the Public Protector, the PP, goes beyond merely meeting the minimum requirements set out in legislation, as the candidate has to: Demonstrate a clear understanding of the role and mandate of
the Public Protector in our constitutional democracy; understand social justice, rule of law and good governance; demonstrate leadership and management capabilities; the ability to function independently; as well as ethical conduct, amongst others.
Hon Speaker, the interview process was credible, fully transparent and allowed for public participation, as we not only looked for a candidate who met minimum requirements, but looked for someone who could restore the integrity and dignity of critical office of the Public Protector that supports and strengthens our democracy. It is important, hon members, to indicate that all candidates demonstrated varying strength and capabilities in their interviews.
For the candidates who did not make it, hon Speaker, I just want to say to them: You were brilliant, but just one thing taken from literature on communication because during interviews you do not only communicate with panellists, but also with the general public. The scholars of communication also believe that communicating effectively means not only taking responsibility for what you say, but also for how you have been heard.
Coming to the overall consideration taken by the ANC and the balance required in consideration related to knowledge, experience, skills and character, we agreed that Adv kholeka Gcaleka is the best candidate suited for the position of Public Protector of South Africa, PPSA. [Applause.] In Adv Gcaleka, we did not have to look for an easy option; we chose the best.
In summary, hon Speaker, she was among the youngest candidates interviewed. She was well prepared and exhibited high levels of confidence and bravery. She demonstrated a good understanding of the operations of OPP. She has a concrete clear vision for the office within the confines of its mandate and a clear approach of improving its accessibility. She has substantial knowledge on interpretation, application and understanding of the law, demonstrated good temperament, which is a critical requirement for the holder of a Chapter 9 institution.
She demonstrated high levels of professional ethics, diplomacy and consciousness. She was able to defend her decisions taken since acting as a PP from a logical and legal perspective.
Above all, she has already started putting processes in place to strengthen the work of PSA through continuous training and
development and has established links between the institution and the University of KwaZulu-Natal.
She has displayed a sense of fairness and justice, and the ability to remain calm in difficult situation. We have been privileged as our Africans, to see all this from her in action. That is why we said we did not have to look for the best option; we chose the best. Notwithstanding the hostility she faced in the committee from parties, like EFF and the DA, she remained calm and unshaken, a true sign of a leader who will be able to weather the storm whenever she is faced with challenging situations. Most importantly, she made it clear that she is not affiliated to any political party.
On character, Adv Gcaleka displayed rationality, assertiveness in thinking, confidence in composure and drivenness, which are character traits that are not [Inaudible.] ordinarily expect to see in a young woman. She defied all the feminine ideals stereotypes, and that sets her apart from the rest. John R Wooden, once said, and I quote:
Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are.
The aspersions that have been cast on the person of Adv Gcaleka are not only unfair, but have no factual or legal basis. She was able to clarify with ease the issues that were raised in the public domain relating to her investigations since assuming the position of Acting Public Protector in June 2022. In this regard, Madam Speaker, for those who still have an issue about her appointment for the position of PPSA, I want to borrow her the words of Marilyn Monroe when she said, and I quote:
I have never fooled anyone. I have let people fool themselves. They didn’t bother to find out who and what I was. Instead, they would invent a character for me. I would not argue with them. [Applause.]
With advocate collect hon Speaker, we did not choose the easy option; we chose the best. We did not have to choose an easy option; we found the best. To Adv Kholeka Gcaleka: Yours is a noble job of protecting the vulnerable. The ANC wishes you nothing but the best for you as an incoming PPP. As the keeper of all South Africans, rich and poor, we urge you to keep the character worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely impartial, honest, humane, humble, and yet strong. Be patient, bearing with everyone in empathy and love. Make
every effort to keep the unity of the PPSA through the bond of peace and unity. The ANC supports your appointment as Public Protector of South Africa. I thank you. [Applause.]
Mr B N HERRON: Speaker, before I begin, I think it’s important for us to express how disgraceful it was for this House to hear from the DA that Adv Gcaleka’s career was built on the foundations of intimate relationships. It’s disgraceful, it’s sexist, it’s racist. This House ... [Applause.] ... this House owes Adv Gcaleka an apology and an unequivocal rejection of those insinuations.
Madam Speaker, the Office of the Public Protector is the creation of the Constitution to strengthen our constitutional democracy.
In its 2016 judgment on the role of the Public Protector, the Constitutional Court described the office as part of our national value system.
One of the crucial elements of the constitutional vision is to make a decisive break from the unchecked abuse of state power and resources that were virtually institutionalised during the apartheid era. To achieve this goal we adopted accountability,
the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution as the values of our constitutional democracy.
The Public Protector was required to be independent and subject only to the Constitution and the rule of law. The institution was pivotal to the facilitation of good governance.
Madam Speaker, it is to the great detriment of our country that this office, with such virtuous objectives, is perceived by so many to being dragged into the sewers of factional and political contestation.
The appointment is an important opportunity to reset. We are required to be confident or as confident as we can be, that, firstly, the proposed candidate has the skills to meet the Constitutional Court’s judgment requirements with respect to the supremacy of accountability and the rule of law in our democracy and; secondly, the proposed candidate has the integrity to act with independence and as a champion of the Constitution.
The Public Protector’s Office exists to protect the public purse from the abuse or prejudice. It was set up as an office
of the people who can’t necessarily afford to litigate in order to hold public representatives and public servants accountable.
The drafters of our Constitution conceived of a way to give even the poor and marginalized a voice and teeth. They would bite corruption and abuse excruciatingly, and that is the Public Protector.
The Public Protector must, therefore, embody the virtues, as we’ve heard, of the biblical David taking on the most powerful and better resourced Goliath on behalf of the people of this country.
We have no reason to doubt that Adv Gcaleka has the credentials and the experience to meet the requisite standards, reassert the independence of the Office of the Public Protector and rise to the challenge of restoring its integrity.
We will, therefore, support her appointment. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr A M SHAIK EMAM: Hon Speaker, allow me at the very outset to extend our condolences to the family of my late colleague, Christopher Howard Sibisi, may his soul rest in peace. And also allow me to extend our condolences to the family, friends of Collen Mahlangu in Parliament, his colleagues, very sad indeed and may his soul rest in peace as well.
I think, hon Speaker, the question we need to ask ourselves, given the conduct of many members in this House who have also questioned whether those 33 people bringing them down to eight are fit for purpose to hold office as the Public Protector, it begs to answer the question: Are we really fit for purpose in this House based on our conduct to decide that a Public Protector should be appointed by us, clearly? What is all the fuss about in this House today?
It all boils down to the fact that we as politicians want to decide who should be and should not be because of our personal preferences.
What is the fault of this Public Protector that we want to appoint today, that she didn’t do what certain politicians in this House wanted her to do, and that is to find the President guilty?
Now, she did her work, she acted responsibly, she decided in terms of the evidence in front of her that, indeed, the President is innocent and because of that, she, today, has to be insulted in this House in such a disgraceful manner, in such a demeaning manner; it is totally unacceptable.
So, again, the question that we ask is: Should this House be deciding on important positions of this nature? That is the question we should be asking because we are putting our own personal interests before what is in the best interests of the country.
Now, I can say to you, without any doubt, having gone through the report, I did not participate in it personally and I’m satisfied, we are satisfied as the NFP that all processes were followed and that the best candidate able to do this job has been appointed. And I think based on that, the NFP will support this. [Applause.]
And we are calling on the Public Protector, when appointed, to conduct herself without any fear or favour, but more importantly, go for all these corrupted people that can come here and attack your credibility, but when you look back at them they are corrupt as well.
On the issue of Palestine, the NFP wants to say it’s barbaric, the behaviour and conduct of the Zionist Israeli state. And to those of you who are supporting it, the very same Zionists that say you are barbaric, the same Zionists that say you are subhuman and those are the ones you are supporting it, go and look at the map, Palestine has always been there. The Zionists have only come into existence just over one hundred years, but for thousands of years those Palestinian Christians, Jews and Muslims live side by side. [Applause.]
The Zionist ideology is one of supremacy. Anybody that does not conform to them are subhuman, including those of you here. So, I don’t know what you see.
For 76 years you’ve been abusing them, you have been humiliating them, you’ve been killing them, you’ve been raping them. You blow up a hospital. Over 64% of the 3 000 some of
... that the die are children, babies, innocent babies.
It’s a disgrace on those parties that will support Israel, a barbaric state of Zionist Israel.
The NFP supports this report and welcomes the new Public Protector. Thank you. [Applause.]
Mr S M JAFTA: Hon Speaker, maybe one must start by saying that the AIC has full support on your leadership ... [Applause] ... as the Speaker of this House and we are not apologetic about that, especially that you are an African woman.
The AIC has reviewed the interview of Adv Gcaleka before this Parliament. We have also reviewed the Public Protector Act and the Constitution, both of which confers the Public Protector’s limited powers and responsibilities.
Having cleared the growth, we must record that our support for the candidature of Adv Gcaleka is informed by principles. She has an extensive legal experience and has performed well during her interview in this Parliament. [Applause.]
We must, however, remind Adv Gcaleka that legal qualifications and experience for this position are never enough. We expect Adv Gcaleka to uphold the values of fairness, impartiality and moral integrity.
The Office of the Public Protector is not a political vehicle to settle political scores. Its incumbent has to be beyond reproach.
The requirement that Chapter 9 Institutions must be led by men and women who are fit and proper, reinforces not only the precincts of competence, but also moral integrity and honesty at all times.
The Public Protector must perform her functions with an independent mind without fear, favour or prejudice.
Given the role of the Public Protector in promoting efficient and sound public administration, including eroding the excesses of public power, the incumbent is duty-bound to remain loyal to their oath of office. This means they must be obedient to the Constitution of the Republic.
It cannot be gainsaid that our Constitution limits the term of the Public Protector to a seven-year term. This is crucial to safeguard their independence and impartiality. We argue that a seven-year term is a necessary recipe for independence.
Independence must, therefore, empower every Public Protector to choose the Constitution over a political expediency. In any event, there is a thin line between the Constitution and politics. We hope that Advocate Gcaleka appreciates this
demarcated line and will strive to remain true to her oath of office. We wish her well. I thank you. [Applause.]
IsiXhosa:
Nks R M M LESOMA: Somlomo, Sekela Mongameli ohloniphekileyo, Mbhexeshi oyiNtloko weQela eliLawulayo, baPhathiswa namasekela enu, maLungu ePalamente ahloniphekileyo, bantu baseMzantsi Afrika, siyanibulisa ngokuzithoba okukhulu. Asisayikumka nomsinga okanye sikhukuliseke nayo yonke ethethwa apha, koko siza kuthi ngqo, singqale kule siyizeleyo apha. Masivume, sithi...
English:
The appointment of the Public Protector is guided by the constitutional requirements which are further expressed in the Public Protector Act, which guides the decision-making process of the ad hoc committee. We are here rising on behalf of the ANC’s support of the appointment of Adv Gcaleka. The participation of the ANC in the ad hoc committee was guided by the principles and orientation of our Constitution as entailed in the preamble.
Hon members, hon Speaker and fellow South Africans, the Preamble of our Constitution implores the Republic to heal the
divisions of the past - not what we are seeing this afternoon
– and establish a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights; lay the foundations for a democratic and open society in which government is based on the will of the people and every citizen is equally protected
by law; improve the quality of life of all citizens and free
the potential of each person; and build a united and democratic South Africa able to take its rightful place as a
sovereign state in the family of nations.
Hon Speaker, these objectives then, informs the ANC in making process on who the ANC should support to be a Public Protector. Yes, indeed, she is fit, proper and capable. In our assessment of the candidates through questioning, questionnaires and interviews, we got an opportunity to assess the candidate’s appreciation of the social transformation required to respond to the objectives set in the preamble. Hon members, a decision of the National Assembly should be based on the rationality, and anything which does not pass the rationality test is questionable.
With this understanding, allegations raised in relation to Adv Gcaleka fell short of any rational basis, and they adversely intended to prejudice the candidate. However, she was
steadfast and not intimidated. Shortlisted candidates for various professional specialisations performed relatively well in the interview process, and we are confident that they will continue to serve in their respective roles.
Hon Speaker and hon fellow South Africans, beyond these requirements we have tested various aspects among the candidates based on their experiences and to test the knowledge of the law and understanding of the Public Protector of South Africa as it is stated in the Constitution. The judicial judgments on the former Public Protector, has necessitated a particular focus on elements which impacted the institution negatively.
Adv Kholeka Gcaleka who is also an Acting Public Protector as we speak, has demonstrated, demonstrated her knowledge of application of law and her understanding of the institution, the interventions and the requirement to restore the confidence of the Public Protector and her role, in this regard. In relation to the other candidates, Adv Gcaleka demonstrated attributes which demonstrated that she was fit, and she is fit, and she will be fit for purpose.
This was demonstrated by her character, experience, knowledge and skills at the time. The fellow South Africans would agree with me that there are those ones with a passionate hatred for a black woman and a black child. Black child, you are on your own, but we are here to protect you. At the time, there were challenges and the need to restore the confidence and image of the Public Protector. With her experience in the institution, and her vision for the Public Protector of South Africa, she will stir the institution to a higher trajectory.
Her comprehension of the thorough-going process of the transformation that is required, posited her as the favourable candidate. As such, her comprehension appreciates the spirit of intentions of our Constitution. Our nation is confronted with significant challenges in the public administration and in the exercise of power of authority. The level of noncompliance with legislation in the public service, the level of corruption which leads to the prejudice for the public and individuals and the maladministration broadly, do not contribute to realising what the Preamble of the Constitution seeks to realise in the Republic.
Adv Kholeka Gcaleka, the Deputy Public Protector and the Acting Public Protector as we speak, who is capable, fit and
proper, is also the Acting Public Protector. She is already taking several measures, hon members, to strengthen the morale of staff members in the Public Protector South Africa, PPSA. This is critical as the execution of the mandate of the PPSA rests in its staff members who played various roles in resolving complaints and allegations from the public.
On a continuous questions asked by the interviewees or the interviewing panel to the Public Protector whether on the Phala Phala matter or matters related to her tenure in the National Public Protector, she demonstrated character of composure, providing the committee with a factual fact basis on all areas questioned by the committee members. Adv Gcaleka, yes indeed, is fit and proper to serve as the fifth Public Protector of the Republic of South Africa. ... [Interjections.] ... Thank you, hon members, the ANC supports the appointment.
HON MEMBERS: Malibongwe.
Mr M G E HENDRICKS: Hon Speaker, the outburst of the Leader of the Opposition will not tarnish your life of courage, service and fairness. Al Jama-ah stands with our Speaker and we stand with the Secretary of Parliament. What impressed me about the
candidate that has been nominated was the way she responded in an interview to how she will arrive at her determinations. She puts forward a high standard she will use to manage the dozen or so members of the quality control committee that will audit the investigation, the determination, the findings and remedial action.
That is an inherent requirement for the position of Public Protector and that is the reason why Al Jama-Ah will support this report. Hon Speaker, the moonshot parties are set to vote against this report because they are worried that if the report is successful, the new Public Protector will act harshly against them if complaints are laid as they support genocide, ethnic cleansing, the indiscriminate killing of thousands of children and bombing Christian hospitals is spitting on Christians, and spitting on the cross is not bad enough by the occupiers in Palestine.
People of the cloth like Rev Frank Chikane, Alan Boesak and the Anglican Church will abhor the new Public Protector if she disappoints them. One of the decisions of the recommended candidate has earned the role of one or more political parties. However, that should not detract us from supporting her. Hon Speaker, the position of the DA and the report does
not pass the accountability master. First of all, they are the official Opposition, and during the process, they did not fully participate.
They failed in their oversight role, they failed their constituency, and they failed the country. It was disappointing that they did not share their wisdom in the two shortlisting processes. To use the argument that no one was suitable, is an insult to all the candidates. Some candidates were very good, it’s just that everyone has different strengths and that’s why the report recommends what it did.
In the end, the DA’s position that none of the candidates were suitable, they did nothing to attract candidates at needed criteria or such candidates were not impressed by them. I cannot see how the candidates with the needed criteria will apply a second time around, they did not apply in the first place. Why should they apply now? Hon Speaker, Al Jama-Ah will analyse the positions expressed, and make a decision that the streets expect from a People’s Parliament and a humanitarian Parliament.
We are very impressed with this humanitarian Parliament that has showed their support for the Al-Aqsa Flood. Thank you very much.
Mr Q R DYANTYI: Hon Speaker ...
IsiXhosa:
... Sekela Mongameli, amalungu eKhabhinethi, ...
English:
... hon members who are here and everybody in the public gallery and to the nation out there. The Office of the Public Protector is very important. It is a Chapter 9 institution engraved in the Constitution. These institutions need individuals with ethical leadership whose ethical history is unquestionable.
When the committee assesses candidates and arrives to a recommendation for the House, there should be no doubt over ethical leadership. The institution of Public Protector South Africa is one of the pillars of our Constitution, precisely because it is there to facilitate interaction between ordinary people to resolve in justices from the exercise of government
authority, which instils in ordinary people confidence in the state.
We believe the candidate recommended to this House is most appropriate to fulfil this role and bring back the pride that the people of South Africa had in the Office of the Public Protector. Advocate Gcaleka, the most prepared and demonstrated confidence and qualities that display that she is able to be independent and able to apply the law to the facts.
She has introduced creative measures to improve the functioning of the Office of the Public Protector, just the years she’s been acting. Through amongst other things, improving the case management of the office, reintroducing a culture of debate and learning in the institution and improving synergy and collegial relationship between the employees of the office and the Public Protector.
This we believe will restore the dignity of the office and uphold its independence and strengthen its ability to contribute constructively to our developing constitutional democracy. This is the calibre of a candidate that we are told to forego by the opposition for no other reason, except for political reasons. The objection by some of some members of
this House is informed by the fact that they expected Adv Gcaleka to make findings or do her work in a manner that suited to their political narratives.
The fact of the matter is that the law requires that the Public Protector does her investigations with an open and an inquiring mind. The Constitutional Court held that a state of mind is open to all possibilities and reflects upon whether the truth has been told. It is not one that is unduly suspicious, but it is also not one that is unduly believing.
The Public Protector is also required to not only discover the truth but also to inspire public confidence that in each investigation, the truth has been discovered. Where the evidence is inconclusive or incongruent the Public Protector is obliged to carefully evaluate to determine the truth.
Unlike them, Adv Gcaleka as an investigator is expected to assess the facts objectively and make findings based on the facts and evidence provided to her. She is being objected to because she observed the facts and did her work diligently. The hon Glynnis Breytenbach who ran away cannot mask her personal gripe with Adv Gcaleka stemming from a tenure at the National Prosecuting Authority. She could not hide the bias in
the interviews. She proceeded to raise the exact same questions she raised when we interviewed Adv Gcaleka for the Deputy Public Protector in 2019 and Adv Gcaleka responded then and responded now even better.
The DA prefers that we forego the most suitable candidate because of the personal preference of one individual who cannot get over her personal experience at the National Prosecuting Authority, NPA. They want us to sacrifice the Constitution at the altar of expediency. We should not allow personal differences to be brought into critical processes such as appointment of a Chapter 9 head.
Hon Verner Horn who could not speak because they ran away, this member posed questions regarding a municipal case on discretionary powers. He wanted to prove through the process that a Public Protector must follow using the Phala Phala case powers that are not discretionary. This nominee Adv Gcaleka referred him to another case, indicating that the form and structure which the Public Protector takes investigation is discretionary because he wanted him to say you should have just ruled in this way in Phala Phala.
Advocate Gcaleka answered the questions and gave hon Horn a different authority, not his authority. In essence, hon Horn wanted to review Phala Phala in an interview. We should be able to put our personal differences aside and look objectively at the credibility skills, expertise and competencies of the candidate. The EFF’s objections are mainly about whether the candidate is more pliable to enable them to exert influence ... [Sound muted @ 15:45.]]
The SPEAKER: [Sound restored at 15:48.] [Inaudible] ... have it. Okay now. Order hon members. Because of the post which we are voting and which we are appointing this afternoon, we have an obligation to put the matter to a vote even though there may be ayes who are in favour of the appointment. So, hon members in terms of Section 193 of 5(b)(i) of the Constitution, the nominated person must be recommended for appointment as Public Protector by a supporting vote of at least 60% of the members of the Assembly, which is a minimum of 240 yes votes.
Although a division has not been demanded, members are required to record their vote on the recommendation. The bells will be rung for 10 minutes hon members. [Bells ringing.]
The SPEAKER: Order! Order hon members. Order! Hon members, you may now take your seats. Hon members ...
IsiXhosa:
... hlala phantsi bhuti maan. Hlala phantsi ...
English:
... hon member, please. Okay. Hon members, a division having been called, the bells were rung for 10 minutes. We are now on time.
Hon members, the Rules of the National Assembly provide for different procedures for members to cast their votes. These include voting by electronic means or a manual voting procedure by way of a Whip or by voice. The Rules also stipulate that the Speaker must predetermine the voting procedure. For this reason, I’ve determined that a manual voting system will be used whereby each member will be called upon and requested to voice his or her vote.
In terms of the Rules, all members present when the question is put with the doors barred must vote or record an abstention. This Rule does not apply to a Minister or Deputy Minister who is not a member of the House. Political parties
have been requested to provide a list of members who will be called first when it is their parties turn to vote. After that party’s list has been called, the remaining members of the party will be called alphabetically.
The Secretary will call each member from the membership list starting with those from the majority party. Members will be called by their surname followed by their initials. In order to facilitate this process, I appeal to hon members to indicate their vote only without preamble or statement and without delay. Members must simply indicate yes, no or abstain. This will assist the tellers in ensuring your vote is correctly captured.
In the event a member’s name is called and they are present but for whatever reason to not indicate their vote, an opportunity will be provided for such members to raise their hands after the last member is called from the list, at which point they will be recognised to cast their vote.
The question before the House is that Adv Kholeka Gcaleka be recommended for appointment as Public Protector. Those in favour of the recommendation of Adv Kholeka Gcaleka for the appointment as Public Protector in terms of Section 193(5) of
the Constitution will say yes. Those against the recommendation of Adv Kholeka Gcaleka for appointment as Public Protector will say no. Those who want to abstain will record their vote as such.
Hon members, please note that the secretariat will call all the names including those of members walked out or are absent. The only names that will not be called are those of hon Breytenbach and hon Manyi who were directed to leave the House by the Speaker. Now, voting will now commence. The doors to the Chamber will remain locked until voting is concluded. The Secretary will now proceed to call members.
A quorum being present in terms of Rule 98(1), voting commenced.
AYES – 244 : ANC 226 Majodina P C P; Mashatile S P ; Tsenoli S L; Frolick C T; Boroto M G; Ntombela M L D; Dlakude D E; Tseke G K ; Radebe B A ; Cele B H; Chikunga L S ; Creecy B D; Didiza A T; Dlamini-Zuma N C; Godongwana E; Gordhan P J; Gungubele M; Kiviet N; Kodwa N G; Kubayi M T; Lamola R O; Mantashe S G; Mchunu E S; Modise T R; Motshekga M A; Motsoaledi P A;
Ndabeni-Abrahams S T; Ntshavheni K P S; Nxesi T W T; Nzimande B E; Pandor G N M; Patel E; Phaahla M J; Ramokgopa M L ;
Zikalala S; Zulu L D; Bapela K O; Botes A; Burns-Ncamashe Z; Capa R N; Dhlomo S M; Gina N; Holomisa S P; Jeffery J H; Kekana P S; Mafu N N; Mahlalela A F; Mahlobo M D; Majola F Z;
Makwetla S P; Manamela K B; Mangcu L N ; Mapulane M
P;
Mashego-Dlamini K C; Masondo D; Mathale C C; Mhaule
M
R; Moloi
B E; Morolong I K ; Motaung N E; Nkabane N P; Nzuza
N
B;
Peters E D ; Pilane-Majake M C C; Skwatsha M; Sotyu
M
M;
Swarts B; Tau M P F ; Tolashe N G; Tshabalala J ; Tshwete P; Abraham P N; Adams R C; Adoons N G; April H G; Beukes A J; Bilankulu J H; Bilankulu N K; Bongo B T; Buthelezi N S; Capa N; Chabane M S; Direko D R; Dlamini M E; Dlamini N E; Dlamini S M ; Dlulane B N; Dunjwa M L; Dyantyi Q R; Gantsho N; Gela A; Gomba M M; Gumbu T T; Gumede S N; Hadebe B M; Havard X; Hermans J; Hlongo A S; Jacobs F; Jacobs K L; Khumalo F E; Kibi M T; Koornhof G W; Kota-Mpeko Z A; Kubheka N J; Legwase T I; Lesoma R M M ; Letsie W T; Lubengo M L; Luzipo S; Maake J J ; Mabe B P; Mabiletsa M D; Magaxa K E; Magwanishe G; Mahambehlala T; Mahlaule M G; Mahlo N P; Mahumapelo S O R; Makata T Z ; Makhubela-Mashele L S; Makhubele-Marilele P P; Malatji T; Malematja C N; Malinga V T; Malomane V P; Mamabolo J B; Mananiso J S; Mandela Z M D; Maneli B M; Maneli S T; Manganye J; Marekwa G P; Maseko-Jele N H; Mashego M R; Mashele T V; Masiko F A; Masondo T S; Masualle G P; Masuku M B; Maswanganyi M J; Mathafa O M; Mathebula E F; Matuba M M;
Mbatha S G N; Mbinqo-Gigaba B P; Mbuyane S H; Mcdonald L E; Mchunu T V B; Mdabe S W; Mdakane M R ; Mgweba T; Mjobo L N; Mkhatshwa N T; Mkhize Z L; Mkhwanazi J C N; Mlenzana Z; Mmemezi H M Z ; Mmutle T N; Moatshe R M ; Modise M; Modise P M P; Newhoudt-Druchen W S; Moela D L; Molala L E; Molekwa M A; Monakedi M D ; Moroane M L ; Moroatshehla P R; Mothapo M R M; Motshekga M S; Mpanza T S; Mpumza G G; Mpushe P T; Msimango X N; Mthembu A H; Mvana N Q; Myeni E T; Myolwa D J; Ndaba C N; Nkgweng G N; Nkomo Z; Nkosi B S; Nontsele M; Nothnagel J; Nqola X; Ntobongwana N; Ntuli M M; Ntwane J C ; Papo A H M; Peacock N P; Phetlhe P A ; Phiri C M; Pietersen M L; Pillay K B; Qayiso X S; Ramadwa M M; Ramolobeng A; Seabi A M; Semenya M R; Shabalala L F; Sibiya D P; Sihlwayi N N; Siwela V S; Siweya R T; Skosana G J; Somyo S S; Stock D M; Tlhape M M E; Tlhomelang K B; Tobias T V ; Tseki M A; Tyobeka-Makeke N P ; Van Schalkwyk S R; Wolmarans M J; Xaba N V; Xaba V C; Xaba- Ntshaba P P; Xasa F D; Xego S T; Yabo B S; Zibula B T; Zondi M A; Zuma A S; Zungu T R M; Zwane M J; IFP 13 Hlabisa V F; Singh N; Buthelezi E M; Ngcobo S L ; Cebekhulu R N ; Majozi Z; Hlengwa M D; Hlengwa M; Luthuli B N; Msimang C T; Sithole K P; Van Der Merwe L L; Zondo S S; GOOD 2 De Lille P; Herron B N; NFP 1 Shaik Emam A M; AIC 1 Jafta S M and Al-Jama-Ah 1 Hendricks M G E.
NOES – 12: FF Plus 9 Groenewald P J; Wessels W W; Boshoff W J; Breedt T; Denner H; Groenewald I M; Mey P; Mulder F J; Van Staden P A; ACDP 3 Meshoe K R J; Swart S N; Thring W M.
Question agreed to.
Nomination of Adv K Gcaleka for appointment as Public Protector accordingly agreed to in accordance with section 195(5)(b)(i) of the Constitution, 1996.
The House adjourned at 16:40.
Audio
No related