The question of who is responsible for what in Parliament remained unresolved this week, after an unprecedented public spat that put Speaker Frene Ginwala at odds with her own party, the African National Congress.
There was widespread agreement among parliamentarians that the fight was symptomatic of larger problems surrounding the approach of Ginwala and Parliament’s other presiding officer, National Council of Provinces chairperson Naledi Pandor.
Both are said to have been unhappy about changes in 1997 that established the joint rules committee as a conduit to deal with parliamentary policy matters, before they are approved by the House — the highest executive authority.
“In the apartheid parliament, whose rules we at first adopted, the Speaker was God,” said one MP. “The presiding officers want to be both policy-makers and implementers. The question has been raised over and over again, and this week’s fight has been coming for years.”
Frustrations and speculation about a widening rift between the Speaker and the ANC caucus have been mounting ahead of what is likely to be a pressurised year in Parliament, with MPs having to meet increased party political obligations before next year’s elections.
Matters came to a head this week when the joint rules committee discussed Parliament’s own budget. The flashpoint was a report by Pandor on a meeting with Minister of Finance Trevor Manuel, which cited Manuel as expressing confusion over who was in charge of Parliament.
The ANC’s heavyweight justice committee chairperson Johnny de Lange challenged this, suggesting Ginwala and Pandor were using Manuel as a cover to promote their own view that they constitute Parliament’s executive authority.
Infuriated, Ginwala demanded that De Lange substantiate or withdraw his remark. When he refused to do so, saying he first wanted to consult Manuel, she angrily adjourned the meeting.
At an emergency meeting of the joint rules committee on Wednesday, De Lange unconditionally withdrew his remarks and apologised.
But ANC MPs were clearly baffled when the PR exercise to smooth tensions, which had involved senior ANC parliamentary officials and the presidency, did not go as planned.
Twice the committee was about to adjourn when first Ginwala, then Pandor, raised their concerns about the extent of De Lange’s apology. In contrast, ANC and opposition party MPs maintained the matter was closed.
“We think the matter deals with all aspects, whether pointed or unpointed, by implication or otherwise,” said
ANC chief whip Nkosinathi Nhleko. Democratic Alliance chief whip Douglas Gibson agreed: “The remarks have been withdrawn and I don’t think we need to chew over them now.”
One MP said everyone should thank De Lange for his clash with the Speaker because he had drawn attention to a core problem in Parliament — the lack of a “clearing house” to ensure policy decisions were taken and implemented speedily.
It was for this reason that Parliament had not adopted a language policy years after the issue was first raised.
Compounding the problems was the fact that the joint rules committee met only a handful of times a year. In addition, decisions on Parliament’s day-to-day running were not raised in any single forum that met frequently and represented the entire spectrum of presiding officers, political parties, the committees and management ranks.
Instead, individual committees dealt with the running of the committee section, Parliament’s programme and inter-party liaison.
Another source of confusion was the fact that under the rules of Parliament and various laws, the parliamentary secretary is the accounting officer of the institution. However, he can be overruled by the Speaker.
“The problem is that when the Speaker feels like it, she makes the decision — otherwise management does,” said another MP.
The door was left open for another bruising battle when Ginwala said that if she responded, she would do so in the House. The effect of this would be to trigger a public debate.