The Democratic Alliance wants Parliament’s rules committee to discuss Speaker Baleka Mbete’s decision not to allow a question to be put to President Thabo Mbeki over the arms deal.
The question related to Mbeki’s alleged meeting with arms-deal company Thomson-CSF.
DA chief whip Douglas Gibson said he has written to Mbete requesting her to refer to the rules committee regarding her decision to disallow the question.
”As the speaker is also the chairperson of the committee, she should have no difficulty in placing the matter on the agenda for discussion.
”Last month, the speaker ruled a question from DA MP Eddie Trent to the president out of order on the grounds that the subject matter was not of national or international importance and that in her opinion it contained innuendos and implications of improper conduct on the part of the president.
”In a subsequent letter addressed to me, the speaker claimed that she disallowed the question because ‘by implication it amounts to an allegation of irregular conduct by the president’.
”She did not mention the criteria of international or national importance, which seems to be a tacit acknowledgement that the question does indeed meet these criteria.
”At any rate, the question is a matter of national and international importance and does not impute presidential misconduct,” said Gibson.
”The speaker’s ruling has profound implications for the role of Parliament in consolidating our new democracy. In short, her ruling prevents a legislator from exercising oversight over a member of the executive.”
As such, said Gibson, it invalidates one of the key checks and balances on executive power and undermines a core tenet of our constitutional democracy.
If Parliament is to maintain its legitimacy and demonstrate its independence from the government, the executive and the ruling party, these checks, balances and oversight mechanisms must be actively promoted and diligently observed, he said.
”Rulings regarding their usage must be applied with consistency, which in this instance has not happened.
”In 2003, the DA asked former deputy president Jacob Zuma a question similar to the one posed to the president. The question was accepted and answered by Mr Zuma in front of Parliament.
The DA believes the speaker’s ruling is incorrect.
”The question is straightforward and it requires a straightforward answer. The question neither prejudges the answer nor imputes presidential misconduct.
”The speaker has assured me that her ruling does not preclude the president from giving a written response to Mr Trent’s question,” said Gibson.
”Her assurance is underscored by the words of her deputy who, when she overruled Mr Trent’s member’s statement in the National Assembly on a point of order on June 22 — during the course of which he posed a similar question to the one the speaker had disallowed — noted, ‘It is not that the president does not want to answer questions.”’
The DA has resubmitted the question as a written question and says it will continue to use all available avenues to ensure that the question is answered by the president, ”because we believe this is vitally important not only in terms of the answer itself, but because Parliament’s own future is on the line”. — I-Net Bridge