MONDAY, 20 OCTOBER 2014

HEARING BEFORE THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE OF

PARLIAMENT, IN THE MATTER BETWEEN THE PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF

SOUTH AFRICA AND MR N F SHIVAMBU (MP) AND 19 OTHER MEMBERS OF

PARLIAMENT COMMITTEE ROOM E249

The Committee met at 10:03.

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE (Mr L

B Mashile): Hon members, welcome, after, I am sure, a very short

weekend. Hon members will remember that when we adjourned last week,

we agreed that today we are going to resume with the hearing with

the additional witnesses that we had agreed to call and today is the

day that we will hear from those witnesses.

Hon members, I just want to check with the officials whether they

have received any apologies from members, because I can see that we

are not all in – as expected. Have you received any apologies?

An hon member: We did receive an apology from Mr Luzipo.

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE (Mr L

B Mashile): Very well. That being the only apology. For now that is

hon Mncwango who is not in currently and hon Matlhoko doesn’t seem

to be in. We hope they are still on their way. Maybe they are stuck

in traffic, because anything is possible in the City of Cape Town

this morning. [Interjections.] Yes. I do hope that he is still on

his way.

Hon members, today is not necessarily our day. It is a day of hon

Van Voore and the witnesses ... Order, hon members! [Interjections.]

Hon members, I hope that we are now settled, as we should have

expected that to have happened just after 09:00 when we resumed the

hearing. It looks like we now have a full complement and I am not

sure whether the member of the EFF had concluded that administrative

activity we spoke about; if hat has been done – the administration,

hon members, is an official appointment from the EFF of the

replacement of hon Matlhoko in this specific committee. It needs to

be done in writing and I am getting confirmation that we have

received such and it has been ATC’ed as well and I think we are in

order.

Thank you very much and welcome, hon Twala. You will probably now

have an official right to participate other than the unofficial

right that you gave yourself the previous week. You are most welcome

to make the necessary contributions that you are expected to make as

a member of the committee towards the work that we have in front of

us.Hon members, it looks like we really don’t have a problem of

attendance and therefore I will then recognise Mr Van Voore to take

us forward. Mr Van Voore, you may proceed.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): Chairperson, a number of witnesses

have been called to testify before the hearings of this committee

and those witnesses include the person whom I propose to call as the

first witness for today, and that is Mr R Poliah. He is the head of

Parliament’s Information, Communications, Technology department. The

further witness is the Serjeant-at-arms, Ms R Mohlomi. And then

there is the Chief Whip of the Opposition, as well as the Deputy

Chief Whip of the Majority Party.

Insofar as the Chief Whip of the Opposition is concerned, I am

informed that the gentleman, Mr Johan Steenhuisen, is apparently not

available today. I am not sure if that has been conveyed to the

Secretariat, Mr Chairman. I understand that the gentleman is

apparently attending the funeral of the late Mr Watty Watson. I am

told that insofar as the Deputy Chief Whip of the Majority Party is

concerned, there is some logistical issue which might see Ms Dlakude

arriving somewhat later this afternoon. I am not sure, Mr Chairman,

whether you wish to deal with that now or later.

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE (Mr L

B Mashile): Mr Van Voore, we are aware of the funeral of the former

Member of Parliament, Mr Watson. And we have been informed, of

course, that it is happening today in Pretoria and it is

understandable that the Chief Whip of the Democratic Alliance has

gone to attend that.

The other issue, of course, is the Deputy Chief Whip of the Majority

Party. We also got information that she is arriving later this

afternoon at around 16:00 and will be around the precinct at about

17:00. We will, of course, try to give them the opportunity to

appear.

If the Chief Whip of the DA, as well, will be on the parliamentary

precinct, there is nothing that will stop him from being given the

opportunity up to that specific time. I think we will simply watch

that space and time, and if he is still available to appear today,

then we should give him the opportunity to do so. I am sure members

will have no objection to that, because it is them who wanted these

two hon members to come and assist them with the kind of evidence

that they wanted on specific issues. Therefore, it shouldn’t be a

problem if they are available. From the Chair I can indicate that we

will wait for them, even if it has to be at 20:00 tonight, to get

that evidence from them. It shouldn’t be a problem. I think that

should be the way.

Before we finish with the witnesses that we have, I think we would

have agreed on the time of suspensions to wait for these specific

members and probably would have had adequate information about their

availability today and we will make those specific announcements as

we proceed. You may proceed.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Then there

are two further witnesses that the committee wished to give

evidence. The first is Minister Mahlobo, the Minister of State

Security; and the next is Minister Cwele, now the Minister of

Telecommunications and Postal Services. I am informed that those two

Ministers are abroad until 26 October – Minister Mahlobo, that is;

and Minister Cwele until 28 October. I am not sure, Mr Chairman, if

you and your committee wish to deal with it at this time. I would

much rather call the two officials who are here and who are standing

ready to give evidence; and the committee can then at an appropriate

time deal with the balance of the issues.

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE (Mr L

B Mashile): Yes, that is correct. I think we may then proceed with

the witnesses who are available and we will deal with that at the

end.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): Thank you, Mr Chairman, there was,

during the leading of the evidence of Mr Xaso, an issue raised that

it might be that Parliament’s equipment – the “to talk” button, for

example – microphone equipment and other electronic equipment at the

desk or chair of each Member of Parliament in the National Assembly

might not have been working properly, either for all of the session

on 21 August 2014, or, certainly, for that part of the session at

which various members wanted to intervene, but suggested that there

was an issue with the equipment.

Mr Chairman, you and the members of your committee will then recall

that there was then, during the engagement of the committee with Mr

Xaso of some four hours and 20 minutes, various questions and

propositions put to Mr Xaso as to the state of the equipment on the

day – whether or not the equipment had been checked. There was a

question asked as to whether audits are carried out; and, if so,

with what regularity or frequency those audits are carried out.

Arising from that the committee took the view that it would be

appropriate for Mr Ravi Poliah, who is the head of Parliament’s

Information, Communication and Technology Division, to come and give

evidence. Mr Poliah is available and standing ready to do so. I

propose that we invite Mr Poliah into this venue. And whilst we do

that, if we may distribute a bundle of documents, which Mr Poliah

will also refer to.

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE (Mr L

B Mashile

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr L B Mashile): Okay, agreed. Let’s have the documents and let the

witness come in as well.

Hon members, Rule 138(a) of the Assembly Rules require me – prior to

the witness giving evidence – to inform him as follows. I quote:

Please be informed that by law you are required to answer fully

and satisfactory all the questions lawfully put to you, or to

produce any document that you are required to produce in

connection with the subject matter of the enquiry.

Notwithstanding that the answer or document could incriminate

you or expose you to criminal or civil proceedings or damages,

you are however protected in that the evidence given under oath

or affirmation before a House or committee may not be used

against you in any court or place outside Parliament, except in

criminal proceedings concerning a charge of perjury or a charge

relating to the evidence or documents required in these

proceedings.

Close quote. Do you have any objection to take the oath or

affirmation?

Can we get the thing there to work? Just relax. The engineers will

sort it out for him. We have got one mic that is actually disturbing

all other mics not to function. [Interjections.]

Yes, we are aware; that’s why we want to deal with it, so that one

can work. I’m not sure whether they took for granted that the

witness is going to sit here. I’m not sure.

Hon members, can we really try to give the technicians just to deal

with the mics? Can we then suspend the hearing for some five to 10

minutes? Then we will be informed. I think we must just go to the

rooms that side so that when they have done with it, we can quickly

come back.

I think the witness, up to now, has not yet taken the oath ... and

then we will just come and complete it immediately. He is free to do

everything else. Just for 10 minutes only, hon members, but if they

finish before that then we will reconvene immediately. Thank you

very much.

The hearing suspended for 10 minutes at 10:30.

Hearing resumed at 11:11

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Thank you, hon members. I think we just need to

apologise to all of you for this untimely hiccup. Of course, hon

members, we all know that, with electronic equipment, it’s not easy

to guarantee their functionality at all times. Sometimes even when

it collapses, it does not even give an indication or make an

application to anybody, especially... Some of you, you will

remember, some of your cellphones, while you are engaging in some

important conversation, then it just gets stuck and ceases to

function, irrespective of how much you have paid for it.

So, electronic equipment sometimes... and computers and whatever,

they can embarrass you sometimes. But, I’m happy that we have

capable men and women around Parliament who have been able in a

short space of time to actually make sure that we are able to

proceed with the hearing.

Hon members, when the equipment broke down, I was saying, Rule 138

of the Assembly Rules requires me, prior to a witness giving

evidence, to inform such witness as follows: “Please be informed

that, by law, you are required to answer fully and satisfactorily

all the questions lawfully put to you or to produce any document

that you are required to produce in connection with the subject

matter of the inquiry, notwithstanding that the answer or the

document could incriminate you, or expose you to criminal or civil

proceedings or damages. You are, however, protected in that the

evidence given under oath or affirmation before a House or a

committee may not be used against you in any court or place outside

Parliament, except in criminal proceedings concerning a charge of

perjury or a charge relating to the evidence or documents required

in these proceedings.”

Now, I want to ask whether you have any objection to taking the oath

or making the affirmation.

Mr R POLIAH: I have no objection, Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Do you want to take an oath or make an

affirmation?

Mr R POLIAH: An oath, Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): You therefore have to say to us, “I swear that the

testimony or evidence I am going to give is the truth and only the

truth, so help me God.”

Mr R POLIAH: I swear that the testimony or evidence I am going to

give is the truth and only the truth, so help me God.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Thank you very much. Mr Van Voore, you may

proceed.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Poliah, after what I am sure is little more than an unfortunate

coincidence of circumstances, I would now like to proceed with your

evidence.

If you can please just state your full names?

Mr R POLIAH: My name is Runganathan Poliah. Everyone commonly calls

me “Ravi”.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): Thank you. Just to confirm, in what

capacity are you employed at Parliament?

Mr R POLIAH: I am the ICT section manager for Parliament.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): And for how long have you been the

ICT section manager?

Mr R POLIAH: For about 10 years.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): Just in broad strokes for now... I’m

interested in more of the architecture... we will drill into the

detail in almost granular fashion a bit later. But for now, I am

interested in broad strokes. Will you just describe your duties and

responsibilities?

Mr R POLIAH: I manage a team of individuals that is responsible for

technical maintenance and support of our IT and audio and video

infrastructure equipment and systems. I manage a few units, and have

both technical and managerial staff that is responsible for the day-

to-day maintenance and support of such systems.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Hon Filtane, if it’s about the volume, I’ve

already made a request for them to up the volume. You can continue

if it’s not about the volume of the mic.

Mr M L W FILTANE: Thanks for the opportunity, Chair. Is it possible

for that to be linked to these hearing devices because my fear is

that even if the volume is upped... but we can try; I’m not standing

against that, Chair. I’m considerate enough. But is it possible for

that to be linked, because this helps us to hear him clearly.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Oaky, I think we will make that request that the

technicians also try and make sure that it is linked to the handsets

on the desks. Thank you very much. You may proceed.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): Thank you, Mr Poliah. If you can

just describe again, speaking a bit more loudly, I suppose, in braod

strokes, your duties and responsibilities.

Mr R POLIAH: My primary responsibility is to manage a team of

managers and technicians that are responsible for technical

maintenance and support of all our IT – that is, our information and

technology systems – as well as our audio and video broadcast

infrastructure and systems at Parliament.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): Thank you. Roughly how many persons

are there in your team?

Mr R POLIAH: The entire team of both IT and audio and video staffs

is about 65 staff.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): I now want to turn to specifically

the testing of equipment as that equipment exists in the National

Assembly. Again, in broad strokes, if you can just explain to the

committee what the testing routine is, or what those routines are,

in broad and general terms.

Mr R POLIAH: I think it is important to understand that the National

Assembly systems consist of a number of subsystems that are

integrated to form a single Chamber system.

So let me begin with the audio system, which is a system I am sure

most of the members are familiar with. It allows the members to

speak and to be heard in the Chamber. There are interpretation

systems which allow members to speak in the language of their

choice, and then allows parliamentary staff to interpret so that

they can be heard.

We have a voting system that allows members to vote.

We have a request-to-talk system – as most members are aware – which

we use primarily during the Question and answering period.

We have an IT system which consists of an information system that

allows members to access documents in the Chamber.

We have a request for service system which allows members to request

anything from the service officers on duty.

There are a number of back-up and redundant systems that we have.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): Thank you, Mr Poliah. In relation to

testing routines, how regularly and, I suppose as we get to in a bit

more detail later, how often are tests conducted on the various

systems as described by you?

Mr R POLIAH: In the National Assembly Chamber we have two testing

regimes. Every week on a Monday, we have what we call a complete

final comprehensive test, which consists of a very detailed testing

of not only each and every component... the back-end system, the

networks, each microphone, every station on every desk, every button

that is required, including the computer system. We test... as well

as the speakers. We have quite a few speakers in the Chamber. Each

one of them is tested individually using test equipment. We check

for calibration. So it is a very involved testing procedure. And

that is just in the Chamber.

We have two engineers or sometimes up to four engineers in the

Chamber at any given time. Once all the testing in the Chamber

itself is completed, the engineers then go downstairs to the data

centre and there in an entire list of back-end systems that we check

because all of our operational and back-end servers and hardware is

located in the data centre. So they do thorough testing and

evaluation of those systems. And then they test the entire system as

a whole. And that is just on a Monday. And we do this every Monday.

However, before every sitting of the House, we also turn on the

systems around ten o’clock in the morning and we perform similar

tests – not exactly to the same depth. What we do is, we check

again, each and every workstation – all 400 of them – we check the

Table staff equipment, their computers, the Chairperson’s or the

Speaker’s microphone, IT systems, the screens on both sides. We also

test all of the cameras in the Chamber to ensure that all of those

are functional. When we are satisfied that everything is working, we

produce a report that details the testing procedure and the outcome

of the testing.

Mr The INITIATOR (Mr R Van Voore): And in carrying out these

tests ... my apologies, before I move off that last answer, you say

that is done on a ... the Monday regime you’ve described, and then

the last of the tests you’ve described now?

Mr R POLIAH: We do that before every sitting.

The INITIATOR (Mr R Van Voore): Thank you. And is your staff

assisted by any persons external to Parliament – advisers, persons

appointed to check, to assist?

Mr R POLIAH: Yes. We have a contractor on site, as well, that sits

and assists with the testing to ensure that the testing is complete

and accurate, and they are the contractors that actually designed

and installed the system when we first put it in.

The INITIATOR (Mr R Van Voore): Thank you very much. Mr Chairman and

the members of your committee, we have handed out a bundle of

documents. There is an index attached to that bundle. The bundle is

some 117 pages long. Mr Poliah also has a copy of that bundle. I do

not propose to take Mr Poliah through each and every page. The

numbering is mainly typed numbering in the bottom right-hand

corners. The bottom right-hand corners. And that numbering in the

type numbering goes through to page 104.

The document is, however ... or, the bundle is, however, 117 pages

long and the balance of the pages, from 105 through to 117, are

numbered in manuscript in the top right-hand corner. And when I

refer the witness to the bundle, I will be referring the witness to

the numbering, as I say, the first numbering, 1 to 105, typed in the

bottom right-hand corner, and then the last 12 pages, I think it is,

that numbering in manuscript in the top right-hand corner.

The system, as you’ve described, Mr Poliah, in the National

Assembly, when was that system installed?

Mr R POLIAH: The system was commissioned for the first time in

February of 2014.

Mr The INITIATOR (Mr R Van Voore): I think, in layperson’s terms,

the system is brand spanking new, as they say!

Mr R POLIAH: Yes, it is.

Mr The INITIATOR (Mr R Van Voore): In the bundle of documents that

you have before you, it is primarily, and for the first 108 pages or

so, a document described as being standard, or ... my apologies, the

Parliament of the Republic of South Africa Standard Operating

Procedures in the National Assembly. You will see that on the front

cover. Will you please just confirm that?

Mr R POLIAH: Yes, it’s correct.

Mr The INITIATOR (Mr R Van Voore): And the testing that you have

described, in broad and general terms – we will get to some of the

detail now – is that testing documented anywhere in this bundle of

documents?

Mr R POLIAH: Sir, the document that you referred to earlier as the

Standard Operating Procedure, is the Bible, as you would put it.

It’s the way we refer to it, as the document that we would use in

both testing, both on the Monday test and the pre-sitting checks, as

well as any malfunctions that may occur. We use this document to

test and to rectify. It is quite a detailed and comprehensive

document of about 104 pages of processes and procedures.

MrThe INITIATOR (Mr R Van Voore): You refer to it as a Bible. Those

of your team, some, I suppose, maybe all of the 65 or a combination

of them who would carry out the Monday testing and the testing

before every session – are they be familiar with this document?

Mr R POLIAH: Yes. This is the document that we use for the testing,

because the nature of the document is ... it’s written in such a way

that it gives a step-by-step guide in terms of how the tests must be

carried out. So, it is very detailed and very comprehensive and it

has to be followed in a particular order, so the document is very

important in the testing.

Mr The INITIATOR (Mr R Van Voore): Thank you. You have referred, for

example, to a pre-session test, in other words, a test before every

session. At what time, if there is a standard time; if not, then

generally, at what time is that ... or are those tests carried out?

Mr R POLIAH: The sittings in the National Assembly generally start

at 2pm and we begin testing from any time before 10am. Sometimes

it’s at 9am and sometimes it’s at 10, when we start what we call the

Start-up of the Chambers. So, the start-up of the Chamber takes us

about 10 minutes, sometimes up to 20 minutes, and then we begin

testing. So, testing starts as early as 10. We are generally

completed ... complete testing by 12, and then we prepare for the

sitting.

Ther INITIATOR (Mr R Van Voore): And, if in that process of testing,

a fault or a problem is discovered, what would follow next?

Mr R POLIAH: Depending on the nature of the fault, in an instance

where we find a screen that may be faulty, or a member’s voting

panel that may be faulty, the engineers would refer to a particular

standard process in the manual that details exactly the process to

replace or rectify the fault, to replace the faulty component or to

rectify the fault.

r The INITIATOR (Mr R Van Voore): And you say ... well, one of the

scenarios you sketch is to replace the faulty equipment. Where would

they find this replacement equipment?

Mr R POLIAH: We keep a set of spare parts for every component that

potentially could go wrong and we keep sufficient numbers to ensure

that the members’ equipment is fully operational and tested before

the sittings. So, we keep a set of spares.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): And in the event that there are no

faults, what follows? Is a report produced to that effect or is it

documented somewhere that the system has been checked and there are

no faults?

Mr R POLIAH: Yes, the engineers, obviously, go through the

checklist, and once they are satisfied that there are no errors or

faults, they produce a report. I think there is a copy of the report

that’s attached - or a sample report – that’s attached to the pack,

and it has a particular status. So, in the event that there are no

issues with a particular component or subcomponent, they would

highlight it as green. If there is a problem, it would be

highlighted as either orange or red, depending on the severity of

the problem, and they would make a comment as to what the nature of

the fault or the error was, and what was done to rectify it.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): While we are on this issue of

reports being generated, I would like to refer you to the last few

pages of the bundle. And this is that part of the bundle where the

numbering is in manuscript, top right-hand corner.

If we start with page 107, right at the top there, it says,

“National Assembly Power-up Checklist”, and then right at the

bottom, there is a date, typed 19 August 2014, and there appears to

be signature above that date. If you can just explain to the

committee what this document is about and what it records.

Mr R POLIAH: So, this is what we would call the Sign-off Checklist

for the National Assembly Chamber, which is a pre-sitting checklist.

So, on the day of the sitting, at 10 o’clock in the morning, when we

have powered up the National Assembly Chamber, we would then use

this checklist, together with the Standard Operating Procedure to

test various components.

So, briefly, going through the list ... the chillers in the Chamber

- of course, as you are aware, electronic equipment operates

optimally at a particular temperature – so, we start with checking

whether the air conditioning in the Chamber is operational and what

the ambient temperature in the Chamber is – so, when we talk about

chillers in the Chamber, that’s what we refer to.

We also have an additional check called an AMX temperature check.

So, we have an electronic management system which we call AMX, which

also monitors the temperature in the Chamber. It’s a digital readout

of what the actual temperature is.

The Touch Screens, of course, refer to all of the touch screens,

both on the members’ desks as well as those touch screens that are

on the Table staff desks and the desk of the Speaker or the

Chairpersons. The Thin Client Pcs we refer to are the actual

computers that power those screens that are in the desks. These are

our little pcs that we have embedded in the desks.

The Request for Service is a button that’s on the screens or on the

panel to allow members to request a service officer, either to send

a note or to request water, or whatever the case may be. The Request

to Talk is the big talk button at the top, white with black writing,

that members use during the Question period.

The Sitting Software, we refer to it as the Sitting Software because

that is the software that the Chamber ... the Table staff use to

manage the sitting. It is their operational system. They stop and

start the sittings; they stop and start the voting, the questions,

and that’s ... they have full control over the systems in the

Chamber.

The Voting Software, as well ... so, we start up, we make sure the

voting software is running, and it does a diagnostic check of the

voting system. We have two voting systems in the National Assembly.

One is what we call the hard voting system, which is the buttons for

yes, no and abstain. That is on each member’s desk. On the IT

system, on the screens itself, we have a backup voting system, in

the event that we have a problem with the primary voting system, so

we can start that system up at a moment’s notice. Obviously the

Printer ... the Table staff print the voting results immediately

after the vote, so we test the printer, make sure that it has

sufficient paper and that it is printing.

The other checks at the bottom, which we referred to, the checked

VMware Cluster Environment, is the software that manages the servers

in the back end, in the data centre. We want to make sure that those

are operating optimally, so that the workstations and all the other

systems also operate at the same levels. The checked VMware status

is the same. It’s in the National Assembly system because of the

size and complexity of it. We have what’s called a dashboard, a

reporting dashboard that shows us the status of the system, so we

are able to see which components are malfunctioning, or if all

systems are working.

Again, we make sure that the temperature in the server room is

optimal because there is a large number of equipment housed there

and we need to make sure that the chillers are working there, as

well.

The Table staff have Bluetooth equipment that they use to manage the

sittings, so we just make sure that that’s operational – the

batteries and the Bluetooth equipment on their desks are

operational. The final one is Check HP Blade for Physical Errors.

Blades are really the file servers that we have at the data centre.

We just need to make sure that those are operating without error.

So, that, essentially, is the Checklist for a pre-sitting check.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): And this document, you say, relates

to the checking as done on the nineteenth, being an ordinary

presession check, or was this just a Monday check?

Mr R POLIAH: No, this was a presitting check for the nineteenth, so

we have done ... Sorry, the nineteenth was on a Monday.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): Either way, nothing turns on it at

this stage.

Mr R POLIAH: Yes, it is the same document because it is the same

list; it is just the depth and the detail of the testing is

different.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): Then there is a bar that runs from

the top under the heading “Operable” all the way to the bottom. That

bar is in green. Just to confirm the significance of that.

Mr R POLIAH: So, the green status, of course, means that everything

is operational for that particular component. If the status of that

changes for whatever reason, we would use one of two colours, either

the orange or the red depending on the severity of the issue. You

will notice that on that particular day all the subsystems were

green, so there were no errors detected. If there was an error

detected, we would make a note of it in the comments section as to

what the nature of the problem was and what was done to rectify it.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): Across the page, or the next page,

is page 108 – page 108, numbering in the top right-hand corner.

Briefly just describe or explain this – it is described on the face

of it as a service report.

Mr R POLIAH: This is just a sample from the service desk

application. So, in terms of our service management procedure, we

have to log what we call a service call. This document is really the

details around the service call, so we log the service call for the

Monday check. Then, depending on the number of sittings in that

week, we would log a number of other calls, depending on the

programme, so that the service provider, as well as the

parliamentary staff, is onsite before the sittings to do the checks.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): Thank you. Then at page 109 ... we

are moving closer to the critical day. At page 109, there appears to

be a repeat which is – I believe you to describe it roughly the same

as the one at page 107. Will you just confirm that this is the

report in respect of the check as conducted on 20 August 2014?

Mr R POLIAH: Yes, it is, and, obviously, well, the status is all

green, so there were no errors or faults reported on that day.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): And on that day, 20 August 2014,

just to confirm for the chairman and the members of his committee,

would the relevant members of your team, as assisted by the outside

or external or independent services provider, have gone through the

same process as you described in relation to 19 August?

Mr R POLIAH: If 19 August is a Monday, then the detail ... it was a

Tuesday? Alright. So, 19 August then would be a presitting check. It

would be exactly the same.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): And it appears from this document

and your explanation of a similar kind of document, being at

page 107, in relation to the nineteenth, that there were no issues

that arose which required comments and, for this reason, the green

bar and the column “Operable” runs all the way through the various

testing regimes. Is that correct?

Mr R POLIAH: Yes, that is correct.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): Thank you. Then, would you please

turn to page 111 – page 111, numbering in the top right-hand corner.

This, of course, is the day – 21 August 2014. Again, if you can just

in very brief terms and very quickly describe what the document

signifies in relation to 21 August 2014.

Mr R POLIAH: The document actually signifies that the presitting

check was completed as planned before the start of the sitting, and

the status indicates that there were no errors or issues identified

or detected, and all systems were operational on that day.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): Thank you. Please turn to page 114.

This appears to relate to 26 August 2014, which would also have been

a Tuesday if 19 August was a Tuesday. Again, this document appears

to signify that the system was checked in the way you have described

and that there were no faults or issues to deal with.

Mr R POLIAH: Yes, so this would be the first sitting after

21 August. Again, the presitting checks were done. According to the

status report, there were no errors or issues identified. The

comments columns are completely empty, signifying that we did not

detect any errors or replace any components.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): If there was a problem that

developed with the equipment during the course of the day – late in

the afternoon – one hour into the session on the twenty-first, would

there be any documenting of the fact that there was a fault or an

issue which required attention from you and your staff and that

certain steps were taken and remedial steps were taken?

Mr R POLIAH: Yes, if there is an error that occurs during the

sitting, again, we have an incident that is logged with us. There is

a very clear process on how that must be dealt with in the standard

operating procedures, SOPs, and then we have what we call a change

management process, as well, where the required components that were

faulty need to be replaced, and the engineers would then follow the

standard operating procedure immediately after the sitting or before

the next sitting to replace it and rectify it.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): Are you aware of any report of any

incident in relation to the equipment as it was used on

21 August 2014 that would have required the process of replacing,

fixing or any other intervention?

Mr R POLIAH: No, as far as I am aware, there were no issues logged.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): You mentioned earlier that there are

some 411 units that are installed in the National Assembly and that

that excludes the Table staff’s and the Speaker’s sections and the

podium, I suppose. Are similar checks carried out in relation –

besides the 411 units – are similar checks carried out in relation

to the Speaker’s section and the equipment, as it is installed at

the staff of the National Assembly Table?

Mr R POLIAH: As I said earlier, the integrated nature of the system

requires that we test both the members’ units as well as the Table

staff’s and the Speaker’s units because they operate as a single

system. So, we have to check it.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): Thank you. I would now just you ...

there was a “Power Up” concept – I am not sure if you have

introduced that yet. If not, I would like you to talk about the

“Power Up” and the integration as between the various units, 411 of

them, together with the Speaker’s section and the National Assembly

Table staff. In this regard, I would like to refer you, please, Mr

Poliah, to page 10. The numbering now is in the bottom right-hand

corner, page 10. To be read together with page 11, if you can just

explain this concept of “Chamber Power Up General System Health

Check Procedure”.

Mr R POLIAH: Due to the component nature of the National Assembly

system, we have a very clear process of starting up the Chamber, and

it is well documented. The Chamber has to be started up in a

particular order. In this document, on page 11, where we actually

start with the power up procedures, we generally have an electronic

system that starts up the Chamber. I referred to a unit called the

AMX earlier on, which is the management system, and we use that to

power up individual components. Each component is started up one at

a time. Once all of the components are started up, the engineers

then do a check. If you look on page 11, it starts under item 2.11 –

“Procedure”. It says the audiovisual engineer validates that all

audiovisual components in the racks and data centre are powered on.

These are the components that I spoke about in the back end, so we

would make sure that the amplifiers are switched on, sound

processors are switched on, the Bosch units, etc. Then they look at

the servers, the switches and the network, so there is a very

detailed and methodical process of powering on and verifying that

the units are powered on.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): Thank you. Then, if I may please

refer you to page 12, page 12, still under the heading “Power Up the

Chamber” and at paragraph 2.1.1.3, this appears to relate to also

the particular Member of Parliament’s work station. Is that correct?

Mr R POLIAH: The “Power Up” procedure here under point two, again,

is about switching on all of the back-end components as well as the

individual members’ stations.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): Thank you, then if I may please

refer you to page 12, still under the heading “Power up the

Chamber”, and at paragraph 2.1.1.3. This appears to relate also to a

particular Member of Parliament’s workstation. Is that correct?

Mr R Poliah: The “power up” procedure here under two again is

switching on all of the back end components as well as individual

members stations.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): Thank you. Then, if I could move

along a bit in relation to voting systems as they have been

installed in the Chamber, I would like to refer you here, Mr Poliah,

to page 42 and the pages thereafter dealing with voting buttons and

the like. At page 43 it says prepare for testing, at page 44 and at

the top it talks about validating the voting buttons or functioning

and then there is a voting validation procedure described at page

46.

If you can just explain to the committee in some detail the process

that you go through when testing the voting buttons as well as other

systems that you run to ensure that the voting buttons are working

properly, it might be the case that you run a dummy voting

procedure.

Mr R Poliah: So, once the National Assembly Chamber has been powered

up and all of our systems are running, there are normally two to

three engineers on site that are in the Chamber testing. One of the

engineers has the process details, so I am just going to summarise

for you. One of the engineers sits at the Table staff’s desk where

they actually start-up a test vote. We have a particular test vote

setup on the system to do this. The other engineer then goes around

the Chamber and tests each individual voting station.

So, we have a particular methodology. We generally will say yes or

no on a voting station so that the number of yeses and the number of

noes is known. And we will also, in some instances, use the abstain

button to test those as well. But in all cases we would know exactly

how many buttons we have pushed. So when we do finally conclude the

vote we can test the integrity of the voting system and consolidate

and reconcile the numbers.

So, the engineers then goes to each member’s desk, pushes the

button, moves on to the next one, pushes the button moves on, goes

to the next one until they have completed all the voting members

because there are some members who do not vote in the House. Once

they have done that, they will go then to the printer to check the

output of the voting system and confirm its accuracy.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): And is that done prior? I know this

may sound repetitive, but I would hate it to be said that this was

not covered and there must be room for disputing. Is that done on a

Monday and indeed before, and during the course of your presitting

testing?

Mr R Poliah: Yes, on the Monday again we do a much more detailed

testing where we actually look at the hardware components and the

software components in the voting system. On the Presitting Check,

again we do a complete test of each voting station, print out a vote

to confirm the voting stations are working and we perform that every

before every sitting.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): In relation to microphones and I do

not want to refer you to pages in the Standard Operating Procedure

at this time but I will refer to pages in the operating procedure

for the “to talk button”. But in relation to microphones, do you

carry out similar testing as described by you?

Mr R Poliah: In relation to microphones, again we have two methods

of testing. On the Monday we have a very detailed and technical

process for testing and this is simply to make sure that the Chamber

and the audio system operates as it was calibrated to do so.

Somewhere in the document, I think, members will see that there is a

figure of 56 decibels as mentioned which is really the operating

volume of the Chamber. We have electronic equipment that measures

that and we do that every Monday. So, we test every speaker, every

microphone both on the floor as well as from the Tables as well as

the Speaker’s microphone. And this we do every Monday.

Presitting Checks, we perform a similar test and again we test each

and every microphone and we test for volumes we test for feedback,

we test for audio clarity, we also test in that process, the

interpretation systems because the audio system is connected to the

interpretation system as a collective and a single system in the

Chamber.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): Thank you, Mr Poliah. Now we come to

the To Talk System. Here I would like you to refer to pages 49 and

50 as well as the Request to Talk Unit Replacement Procedure at page

64. But if we could start first with pages 49 to 50, if you can just

describe your standard operating procedures in relation to the

Request to Talk and what is actually then done on the Monday testing

as well as the presitting testing.

Mr Ravi Poliah: On the Monday testing, of course, we perform a much

more comprehensive testing as I said earlier on where we not only

look at the individual units, the Request to Talk units on the

desks, but we also look at the computer system and the hardware that

manages all of that.

There are very specific processes, in fact on page 50 is just a

basic process and it starts with, you have to have an engineer that

is seated at the Table staff’s desk that starts-up the Request to

Talk system and another that goes and pushes 20 buttons at a time.

The reason for that is, we can only display 10 names on the screen

and you have to scroll down again to view the other 10.

The first 20 buttons that are pushed in the Request to Talk system

are captured in our system, should I say that the first 20, so they

push 20, they check, they clear it, then they move on to the next 20

and they check each of those that there is 20 registered then they

move on to the next and so on until they have covered the entire

Chamber. And that is the nature of the testing.

And then on page 64 [11:56]

The INITIATOR (Mr R Van Voore): And then on page 64. Page 64 the

same bundle, the numbering is in the bottom right-hand corner. This

appears to describe the request to talk unit replacement procedure.

There is a bit more detail over the page, at page 65. If you can

please just explain that procedure to the committee.

Mr R POLIAH: The standard operating procedure we have is not only

for testing, but it also provides very detailed instructions on how

an engineer should resolve a particular issue. In this case, on page

65, it describes in detail the procedure that an engineer needs to

follow to replace a faulty request to talk button. And without

boring the committee too much, I think the process is very detailed

if you would see everything from specifying the size of the

hexagonal key that you need to use to remove the items in the caddy

to the step by step process of opening the caddy, removing the unit,

replacing the new one and recalibrating the replaced unit to

function again.

The INITIATOR (Mr R Van Voore): You referred a moment ago to a

procedure followed when you are testing the request to talk

equipment and you said that the engineers would press 20 buttons and

they would be reflected on a screen somewhere. If you can just drill

a bit into the detail of that - on who’s screen would that

information be captured.

Mr R POLIAH: There are two screens in the Chamber where that

information is captured. On the screen of the Table staff, so when a

member or a group of members push the request to talk button the

information is displayed on – correction – I think is on the right-

hand side of the Table staff’s screen in the order in which those

buttons were pushed and the same information is then displayed on

the Speaker’s screen - on the left screen of the Speaker.

The INITIATOR (Mr R Van Voore): It might be thought that the system

can’t handle these things and there would be disputes, as to “I was

first.” “No, no actually I was first.” “No, no, no please pick me.”

“I was most certainly first.” Do you have any comments on how the

system deals with those kinds of issues?

Mr R POLIAH: In my recollection of the design of this system -

members push the buttons and then of course subsequent to that other

members push the buttons afterwards - the system actually captures

that in a particular order. And I think it is important to

understand that, while we as human beings think in seconds and

perhaps milliseconds, electronic components operate in microseconds.

So, the difference between when a member pushes a button to the

member next to him – excuse me, of somewhere else in the House

pushing the button, the difference could be microseconds. And it is

my understanding these systems are designed to detect those

differences and record it accordingly.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): Other than the human agency of

leaning forward and striking the button, is there any human agency

in the way in which the system allocates numbers one to 10 in the

order in which those persons’ names would appear on the screens that

you described?

Mr R POLIAH: No, there is no human intervention in that process. The

system records the actual time that a member pushes the button. We

simply display what the system shows us without altering the

information in any way.

The INITIATOR (Mr R Van Voore): In relation to the session of 21

August, did your office or any of the members of your team receive

reports that the equipment might well have been malfunctioning –

malfunctioning on that day such as would require steps or just

general reports of malfunctioning, was this brought to your

attention – in relation to the 21 of August?

Mr R POLIAH: No I am not aware of any such reports and I think the

testing procedures before and after confirmed that no errors were

detected on any of the systems, both on the day of the sitting and

on the day of the first sitting after 21 August.

The INITIATOR (Mr R Van Voore): Other than a problem that might

occur with a request to talk button which would require its

replacement, just as a very basic issue, what might go wrong with

the button, the request to talk button, as it appears at the station

of a member in the National Assembly?

Mr R POLIAH: I suppose there is any number of things when we talk

about electronics that could go wrong. It could be that the button

itself could be faulty and does not connect, or the electronics that

support that button and detect the button might go faulty. It could

be a cable that connects that unit out to the back-end systems could

be faulty, potentially. I suppose in the nature of electronics

anything could happen.

The INITIATOR (Mr R Van Voore): And that category of “anything can

happen”, as described by you just momentarily that of course – I

shouldn’t say of course – that would be picked up, would it not, in

the testing procedures that you and your team would run on the

equipment?

Mr R POLIAH: Yes, certainly. There is a number of ways to detect

that. There are a number of management systems that actually poll

each of the individual stations to check its status and if there was

a problem we would be able to pick up the problem there. If there

was a physical button that was faulty in the testing we would be

able to detect that. Obviously, if we pushed a particular button it

did not respond, then there would be a problem. We would replace it

or try and fix it.

The INITIATOR (MR R Van Voore): Sorry about that, Mr Poliah. You say

that the replacement procedure is described in detail in your

standard operating procedures and that you do keep sufficient spares

on site. I am trying to hurry things along. And that you do keep

sufficient spares on site – who then does the replacement? Are these

the people in your team, or do you have get outside contractors in

to replace faulty equipment?

Mr R POLIAH: No, it is the team that is there, busy testing. So it

could be a member on my team, it could be a contractor who would

replace it because the procedure is very detailed and is very simple

to follow. So, essentially, anybody who has been trained in the

procedure could do it. We keep sufficient spares on hand to replace

faulty units.

The INITIATOR (Mr R Van Voore): Thank you. You said the system was

commissioned – I think you said... or installed in February 2014.

The system that you replaced with this – what I call the brand

spanking new system - how long had that system been in use in the

National Assembly Chamber?

Mr R POLIAH: The old system in the National Assembly Chamber was

installed in 2003. So that would make it almost 10 to 11 years old.

The INITIATOR (Mr R Van Voore): The committee has or over the course

of the few days of the hearing so far, also had the benefit of video

footage and that video footage was from cameras installed in the

National Assembly. If you can just describe how those cameras

operate.

Mr R POLIAH: There are about five cameras in the National Assembly

Chamber that are located at strategic positions in the Chamber. All

of those cameras are operated remotely as are these ones. In this

very building, on the third floor, we have a control room and a

operator who sits behind a set of controls, and he then manages the

cameras in terms of the shots, the framing of those shots and the

order in which he switches between the various cameras.

The INITIATOR Mr R Van Voore: The committee has also heard other

equipment described as ENG. If you can just explain what that means

and the circumstances in which ordinarily that equipment would be

used - the ENG camera?

Mr R POLIAH: I think the acronym actually stands for electronic news

gathering – ENG, which actually refers to a camera that is portable

and is normally sitting on the shoulder of an individual and allows

them to walk around and record footage. We use that camera from time

to time for archive outside broadcasts and internal events for

Parliament.

The INITIATOR Mr R Van Voore: Thank you very much, Mr Poliah. Mr

Chairman, at this stage I don’t think I have any further questions

for Mr Poliah. With your leave, might I suggest a brief and just a

very brief comfort break? The witness has been in the room for some

time I do understand there was a delay earlier on, but probably just

a very brief comfort break for Mr Poliah, please.

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE (Mr L

B Mashile: Thank you, Mr Van Voore. Hon members, I think it is a

request that ordinarily you can’t refuse – if it is for a comfort

break for the witness, because we need the best out of him; and only

the truth. Can we grant a five minutes comfort break to the witness

and of course to all of us? And can we then come back and continue

exactly at 12:15 if my watch is the same as yours.

Comfort Break at 12:09.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE COMMITTEE: Order! I think we spoke about

resuming with our proceedings at quarter past - for minutes -

irrespective of the times on our watches. If you just add five

minutes, then I think we should be back - all of us - and save for

any necessary caucus that may need extended time. But, if you need

extra time, you can indicate as such.

Mr Van Voore, we are back. When we left out here - just before

(earlier) – you made the request: You said you have got no more

questions. Then I am checking with you now, officially, whether that

is still the case? I recognise you.

Mr Van Voore: Thank you, Mr Chairman. That is indeed still the case.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE COMMITTEE: Thank you very much. Hon members,

are there any further clarity and examining of the evidence that Mr

Poliah has given to us that you require? This is the opportunity to

do so. I recognise hon Lotriet; then hon Twala. Am I pronouncing

your surname correctly? [Interjections.] Thank you very much. Then,

hon Filtane – I am improving to pronounce it correctly. Any further

member to ask? It looks like the rest are covered. Hon Lotriet!

Dr A Lotriet: Thank you Chairperson. Through you, I would just like

to enquire: In terms of the request to talk units [and] procedures,

we have now heard that you test twenty at a time until you go

through all of them. Have you ever tested more than 20 at a time,

for example, a large number up to a hundred to see what the effect

is? Whether there isn’t some incident perhaps where some of the

systems would be excluded or disconnected in any way? Have you ever

tested something like that?

Secondly, you also referred to the fact that if there is an incident

on a day - when there is faulty equipment or a problem – that

[incident] it is logged. Who logs the incident; and when is it

addressed? Is it addressed during the seating or is it done

afterwards?

I would also like to know that on the day, the 21st of August, the

day in question – I can distinctly recall on the evidence that we

have sent the video footage that there were incidents of members’

microphones or the To Talk buttons didn’t work – was that logged on

that particular day because I think you said earlier that there were

no incident reported on that day?

Then, I would also like to know – you refer to the cameras and the

audiovisual – is that switched on and off remotely? So, let’s say

for example, on the day of the 21st, who switched off the audio after

the incident? Because there were still visuals but the audio was

switched it that off?

Just lastly, does the Speaker’s seat – the equipment that the

Speaker has in front of her ... Is there a facility that she can in

fact disable all other microphones? Thank you.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Can we take all the

questions so that if they are similar then you should be able to

answer then correctly? Hon Twala?

Mr D L TWALA: Thank you, Chair. I have got a problem with this

document upon which this witness is relying. The document is dated

the 8th of May 2014 and the problems that we are about happened post

the validity of this document and thus the evidence contained

therein. Can you take us through that process in relation to the

document? Thanks.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Hon Filtane?

Mr M L W FILTANE: Thank you, Chair. Just a few questions: Indeed,

one of them is definitely one of clarity. The reports, like the one

in Page 110 - I am just sampling that one out; there’s quite a few

that you referred to – reflect working time of something like seven

hours, whereas you had said that you would normally start at ten and

finish by twelve o’clock, routinely. We need some clarity on that

because another report reflects eight hours.

Now, I hope I’m putting these questions to the right person. This is

the next one: Why is it that there was no reported malfunctioning on

the 21st when in fact we know that there was some malfunctioning?

[Laughter.] Who signed the document on Page 107? And now, the reason

I am asking this is because the document itself makes provision for

three signatures. Somewhere in Page 42, it says, “Two engineers are

required.” Why is it that only one person signs when in fact

something like two or more engineers are required to perform the

task?

Lastly, what is the rate at which the equipment can sequence the

speakers? Milliseconds! That would be in the calibration of the

equipments. Chair, I think it is important for us to actually get

the original and let it be circulated because these are technical

reports – I’ve pointed out some questions, [and] concerns - and

these are not certified copies either.

I am not in any which way suggesting that this may not be true but I

think as a matter of procedure, [with] evidence that is being

submitted here we need to see the original because these are

actually reports. If need be, we can take you through the number of

which specific reports do we actually need to see the originals.

It’s a process that would take not more than ten minutes for us just

to see and then we say we accept that these copies are a reflection

of those originals. I think that will satisfy us. Thank you.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE CHAIRPERSON: Ja ... hon Booi!

Mr M S BOOI: No, I just wanted to also say to the member that it’s

always important to solicit from other members, how much – what - do

they think about such a suggestion, before you come to a conclusion

that all of us warrant the same assistance he is looking for. He

always works on an assumption that we all want what he wants,

forgetting that we also want to be consulted as a collective.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE COMMITTEE: Well, I am sure then you will be

able to speak amongst each other and have a position on this on this

particular matter like as you did before, the whole of last week.

You have been cooperating with each other, I think, and resolving

some of the little hiccups in between. Of course, is that ... hon

Mncwango, I think, was on the line after I had said that all of you

are covered. He refused to be covered. This is an opportunity then

to pose a question that will assist you hon Mncwango.

Mr M A MNCWANGO: Well, thank you for this opportunity, Mr Chairman.

I have got just a few questions to ask the manager sitting across

there. The first question has to do with the cameras in the House. I

heard you say that the cameras are actually remotely controlled from

a particular point. I just want to know exactly on the day in

question, which is 21st of August, who was operating these cameras?

Secondly, on the day, were these cameras actually working properly?

Because, in the clip that we actually saw, the cameras were fixed on

a particular direction most of the time, to a point where we did not

see exactly what was happening in the House generally. The cameras

were fixed in a particular direction - fixed on a particular group

of people, of hon members - and thereby actually not giving anyone a

complete picture of what was actually happening in the entire House

at that particular moment. That is one.

Number two has to do with Document 111 in the bundle that was made

available to us. Document 111 also has to do with the National

Assembly Chamber Power-up Checklist where it is actually given a

clean health of bill in terms of the colour coding that is given

there which is green to which you confirm that it actually means

that all the systems were checked and they were find to be accurate

and working. I just want to hear from you the authenticity of this

document given the fact that in the space where the NAC

representative, which is the National Assembly Chamber

representatives, did not sign it? What is the authenticity of this

document?

The third question is to do with ... It’s a specific question: Were

there any engineers in the House on the 21st of August? The following

one: Was the Speaker’s equipment working on 21st of ... it ... How

can we actually get that particular information? And the last one is

that ... has to do with ... because I have a particular experience

on these gadgets on the same day. Can you actually tell us whether

you are aware that on the 21st of August 2014, some request to speak

stations were actually not working, in the light of your evidence

that on the 21st everything was actually checked and was found to be

working? Thank you, Mr Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE COMMITTEE: Thank you, hon members. I am sure

hon members will remember that Mr Poliah – I think we was introduced

as manager for ICT (information and communication technology). Yes,

he is a manager and has got a whole lot of people underneath who are

actually doing all sorts of technical work going down. As long as we

are just simply aware of that so that we are clear on the kind of

answers that you will get: Correct answers or answers that are

reported, done by other delegated technicians going below. As long

as you just understand that. Mr Podia, you can respond to the

questions that have been raised. Thank you very much.

Mr R POLIAH: Thank you very much, Chair. On the matter that the

member asked about regarding what would be described, I suppose in

the IT world, as flood testing, large-scale testing, stress testing

or load testing, which would generally involve 400 Members of

Parliament hitting their buttons simultaneously and how the system

would respond – if I interpret your question correctly – the answer

to the question is yes, we have tested.

In the initial design of the system, it was designed with that

worst-case scenario in mind. So the system is well capable of

handling those 400 requests or “requests to talk” buttons being

pushed at the same time. We tested it and we confirmed it before we

went live with the system and before the state of the nation

address. We brought in staff from all over Parliament to sit at the

desks, and we held what we called then a mock sitting, and we put

the system through its paces.

Of course, now in the current configuration of the system, we only

display the first 20 members that push the button. That does not

mean that the system did not record the other 400. It’s just in

terms of the Rules and the way we were required to display the

information. We were only required to display the first 20.

In terms of who logs the calls, if there is an issue that is raised

in the House – generally, I think I need to say this – the engineers

are ... We have two engineers on site. One is usually sitting in the

Hansard Bay and the other one is in the data centre. They do

simultaneous monitoring of both the proceedings of the House and the

equipment in the data centre.

If an issue is logged or a member reports a particular piece of

equipment being faulty or not working, the procedure for us is to

verify that the equipment is faulty immediately after the sitting.

Now we may not necessarily replace it at that time; we may do so the

next morning if it is faulty, or certainly we will try to fix it

before the end of the day. This is because sometimes sittings start

as early at 10:00 in the morning.

The engineer, if he does discover a fault, will log it with us and

we’ll make a record of it. And then the procedure kicks in in terms

of the replacement of that particular faulty component.

On the day of 21 August, I have no record of any item that was

logged. I do recall that the engineers did test the “request to

talk” system after the sitting to check whether there were any

faulty units. I think that was then confirmed again when they did

the Monday test, which is a complete test of all the units in the

Chamber. There is no record of any of those units being replaced or

being reported as faulty.

In terms of the audio – who turned off the audio on that particular

date – we were requested to mute, and that is generally done from

the Hansard Bay. So we can mute the audio from there. Regarding the

question around whether the Speaker can disable the audio: her desk

does not have that functionality. We have recently installed such a

functionality that can be operated by the table staff as well as the

sound operator in the Hansard Bay, which will turn off the floor

microphones only and leave the table staff microphones and the

Speaker’s microphones operational.

With regard to the document date that was referred to around 8 May:

I think I must put that in context. The contract with this

particular company was up to a particular date in this year. Of the

deliverables they had to give us was a standard operating procedure.

So, while the date is there, the documents have since been handed

over. Now, the date was subject to a handover of all the official

documents and, as part of our contract, one of the deliverables was

the standard operating procedure.

A lot of questions have been asked about the standard operating

procedure. I think it is important for me to give some context. The

standard operating procedure is a working document. It is a living

document. The output and the final document that we received was on

a CD and is electronic in version, or in its nature, for the simple

reason that every time we change a component or we refine the

processes in a standard operating procedure, we then amend the

procedure. Hence, we keep the document in its electronic form. The

engineers also access it in its electronic form. Sometimes they may

carry a hard copy of it, but the latest version is always stored on

our servers and in an electronic version. So, the document is valid.

It is the document we have used for testing, and it does belong to

Parliament.

In terms of the number of hours ... [Inaudible.] ... I think it was

on a particular page. The hours that they log are the time that they

started and they came in to do the testing until the end of the

sitting. So, sometimes they may stay a little longer to complete if

there was a reported malfunction to check. Sometimes they may even

perform additional tests, or they may check. The hours that they

work would depend on the length of the sitting, because the

engineers do not leave until the sitting is done, the system is shut

down and all of the equipment is locked up before they leave.

I think I did answer the one on the reported malfunction on the day.

In terms of the National Assembly Chamber representative signing the

document, the engineers obviously test pre the sitting. We check. We

perform all of our tests together with our IT staff. The sign-off

that you see here - the person who is responsible for the checking

and double-checking the Chamber - is, in terms of our service

management operations, within IT as we have a service desk. And the

representative who is the head of the service desk operations is

responsible for signing off in terms of IT.

The National Assembly Chamber sometimes, when they are available,

they do sign the document. It sometimes is difficult to get them

because before the sitting they are extremely busy, running around

setting up and getting things done. So sometimes it is possible to

get them to sign off on it and sometimes not, but we certainly will

make an effort to make sure that they sign off. We do brief them,

though, before the sitting that all is in order. If there are any

issues, we also report them to them. And, I think, they can confirm

that at some point.

I think we spoke about the sequence rate of the equipment. The

member asked ... and I think the question was potentially related to

the initial question, which was how quickly can it ... Could you

clarify that for me?

Mr M L W FILTANE: My question, sir, was: According to the way the

equipment is calibrated, what is the frequency at which it can

sequence the speakers? We are talking seconds or milliseconds here?

That would be the way it was designed. Thank you.

Mr R POLIAH: One of the things I did was to try to understand the

spec sheets, of course. The difficulty here is that when you are

looking at a manufacturer’s specification sheet, generally the

information is related to their intellectual property. So often they

will not give you information like that. But in our design of the

system, one of the things that we looked for in terms of the rate is

that we wanted ... The difference between – and this is subject to

confirmation – a person coming first or second on the list could be

in the microseconds. I can’t tell you exactly how many microseconds,

but it could be in the microseconds.

You must understand that we are dealing with electronic equipment.

The electronic equipment operates at a clock speed that is in the

Gigahertz range. I hope I am not getting too technical. So if you

look at those kinds of frequencies and you calculate that into a

time space, you are looking at very minute fractions of a second.

About the document validity, again, the standard operating procedure

is a living, working document that we use to support the National

Assembly Chamber. Our versions of the document were changed on a

day-to-day basis, as and when we need to amend them. We keep them

electronic. We try not to print them out for a number of reasons. We

like our trees. And the engineers generally access the electronic

version. So this is a valid document. It’s the one that we use to

test the Chamber in its current form.

In terms of the cameras: were the cameras working? Yes, they were

working. I think some of the footage did indicate a number of

different perspectives in terms of the way the cameras focused while

the sitting was in progress. So the cameras were operational.

In terms of the camera operators themselves ... I think we must also

take into cognisance that this is one of the first times we have had

an incident like this in the National Assembly Chamber, so I suppose

we are dealing with human beings. And if they focused on a

particular area – and I’m not sure that they did, but I’ll assume

that the member has watched the full video – I’m sure it was just

simply to capture the moment and that there was no other motive.

I have spoken to the camera operators and they operated within the

guidelines that we had given them for that day. So the cameras

weren’t picked ... fixed for a particular reason.

Again, I think there was a question around Document 111 – why was it

not signed. I thought I had spoken about that earlier. Yes, the

sign-off sheets are authentic, as far as we are concerned, in terms

of our service management procedures for the National Assembly

Chamber. Were there engineers in the House on the day? Yes, as I

described earlier: we have one engineer that monitors the backing

systems in the data centre and we have one engineer that is located

in the Hansard Bay.

Were there any reported RTT units not working on the day? Again, the

engineer in the Hansard Bay would have taken note had there been any

complaints by members around particular equipment that was not

working. Obviously, there is nothing we can do while the sitting is

in progress, because the technical staff are not allowed to come

onto the floor of the House while it is in session. The only time we

can come out is once the sitting has adjourned, and, even if the

sitting is suspended, we try not to come onto the floor.

When the meeting was adjourned I was told that they did check the

“request to talk” buttons, and they could not find any faulty units.

And, again, when we did the Monday check, which is a thorough

assessment and diagnostic of all the systems, we did not find any

faulty units that needed replacement. There were no calls logged.

I’ve looked at the records. I did not find any spares that were

drawn for that particular day to replace them.

C/W: Chair, I think that is the last of the questions. I hope I have

answered them.

The CHAIRPERSON ...

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Is there any one who thinks that there is a

question they posted but was not responded to? I need those ones

first before I take the second round. It’s hon Filtane’s question,

and then hon Lotriet – you have a question that was not responded

to? It’s a follow-up question? Then please wait a second. Hon

Filtane.

Mr M L W FILTANE: Chair, I want to know why is it that there was no

report submitted on the malfunctioning of the system on 21 August

2014. That is very critical. You have repeatedly said that no such

report was submitted. Why? Thank you.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Without really protecting the witness, I think

that question has been answered. It will be a little bit important

to remind ourselves to listen carefully. You can repeat the answer,

Mt Poliah.

Mr RAVI POLIAH: Hon Chair, as I said earlier, on 21 August 2014 -

does sit in the House and thus take note if there are particular

complaints from members around malfunctioning equipment. Immediately

after the sitting we try and verify whether the equipment is

malfunctioning to make necessary repairs. If they tested the

equipment and did not find anything wrong at that particular time,

then there would not be a log because it does not require any

remediation or repair. If we had repaired a component or replaced

something, then there definitely would be a log.

Mr D L TWALA: Chair, firstly, I would like the witness to take us

through page 113 and just give us an indication as to his

understanding of that which is being communicated and interacted

upon on page 113.

Secondly, the witness has actually made a very interesting

concession that on the day in question, because of the events of the

day and the fact that it is something that had never been

experienced before, the camera tended to focus on a specific group

of people, thus robbing this committee of a holistic view of events

that unfolded in the House on that particular day. Is there any

information, apart from that which we have seen on videos presented

here as reflective of the events of the days, that we haven’t been

showed in terms of the footage. If no, can we access that footage so

as to have a holistic view of the happenings in the House on that

day in question? Thank you.

Mr S ESAU: Hon Chair, my first question would be a similar one in

terms of page 116. Please give us an understanding of the emails

that were sent between individuals on that day referring to the

House, the preparation and other issues maybe. Some of them are not

very clear because it’s noted as “Not give”, “Not given” when

certain questions are asked. So, please explain page 116.to us

briefly

Secondly, the Secretary to Parliament noted that some of the

equipment was not working on the day; however the Secretary to

Parliament did not log that with the ICT service desk. So, there

seems to be a comment on the one side, and from the engineer’s side

there seems to say something else. The engineer was present during

the sitting.

Lastly, I would like to also know what happens when people want to

talk at the same time, and press the button. Is there a possibility

that only one person can talk at a time and not many microphones can

be on for people to respond or wanting to speak and press the button

out of their own accord, not that they have been recognised but they

press the button. What are the issues that could develop if many

people press and want to speak at the same time?

Dr A LOTRIET: Chair, I am making a follow up on the question I asked

earlier about switching off the audio because that does impact on

the evidence that was led already because we could only see the

visuals and could not have the audio. Could you perhaps give an

indication of why it was switched off and who gave the instruction

that it be switched off? Thank you.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Are we done? Alright. Have you collected your mind

now after writing the questions? Just like last week when I said to

the hon members that it is a little bit important to ask maybe one

question at a time so that the witness doesn’t find himself or

herself battling with ordering your questions rather than organising

your responses. When you are faced with many questions it becomes a

bit of a problem, I just hope that he is capable of being

multidisciplinary to deal with the question ordering and response

ordering. If you are ready you can take us on.

Mr R POLIAH: Chair, I hope I understood the members’ question

correctly around the footage: Was there any additional footage that

we did not submit to the committee? Was that your question?

[Interjections.] The answer is: No. We submitted all the recordings,

both from the ENG and from our master tapes as we recorded them. So,

what you have that was put before the committee is all of our

recordings. We have not withheld any of the recordings.

There was a question around the Secretary having acknowledged or

identified some faulty units. Again, the engineer would have been in

the House and generally the Secretary would have spoken directly to

the engineer to review and check, and we would have checked; either

the very afternoon of the sitting or certainly when we have done our

Monday checks, we would have checked each and every item again and

then the pre-sitting. So, if there had been any faults that were

discovered either on a Monday or before the pre-sitting or even

immediately after the sitting, we would have logged it and replaced

it. It is in our interest to make sure that all the equipment is

fully functional at the National Assembly chamber. As to why it

wasn’t working on that particular day, I don’t have an answer for

you because as I said, we did our diagnostic testing and we were

unable to find anything in particular that was wrong with the

system.

There was a question around a scenario where there were many people

pushing their buttons at the same time. The system is designed in a

particular way; it’s a toggle system. If you push it once, it

switches on; if you push it again it is going to switch off. That is

the nature of it. So you could push it a 100 times, depending on how

many times you push it, the unit will record whatever you do, so you

are either pushing it on and off, and on and off. You are not

sending 100 requests to the server because when you push the button

it logs that request and the system picks it up, when you push it

again it’s going to switch it off and the system takes it out. So

it’s the nature in which the system is designed to operate, to

handle such instances where people are pushing it on and off.

Therefore it is a design feature. As I said we did test 400

simultaneous pushes of the system when we installed it just to

confirm and to test it.

In terms of the details of the emails that some of the members

requested, you will notice that these are pretty much standard in

most of the documents that we get. So if you look at what they are

asking is: If you are logging a call, then these are fields that you

must submit in order for us to log the call.

I will give you an example on page 116. It says: Where physically or

in the network is the trouble observed address Cape Town Parliament.

So, in this case, we are logging a call for not an issue with the

system but for them to come out and do the preset checking. It’s not

a technical problem but it’s the way their service desk operates. It

also says: When the symptom was first noticed? Not given, because

there was no technical fault; it’s simply a sitting that they need

to support us on. If there was a technical fault we would log the

exact nature of the fault, the details and we would answer then all

of those questions. So you will notice that these questions are

there; they are standard questions in the email.

The question that the member asked about why the audio was switched

off, again we take our instructions directly from the table in terms

of the footage of the sittings. We were asked to mute the sound by

the table and my technicians then complied.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): You are done? [Interjections.] You have a question

that has not been responded to. Alright. Can you just raise that

specific question that has not been responded to? Hon Esau also has

the same problem; please start hon Twala.

Mr D L TWALA: Chair, I specifically referred to page 113, and asked

the witness to take us through what is written there. We are lay

people; we are not that intelligent, if he can assist us with that.

Thanks.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Can we then allow him to attend to that instead of

overloading him with many questions. That is probably why he skipped

some other questions. Have you got page 113?

Mr R POLIAH: Yes, Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Have you internalised it?

Mr R POLIAH: Yes, Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Alright then, you may respond.

Mr R POLIAH: Thank you, Chair. Again, if you look at page 113 – I am

sorry that I referred to page 116 – you will notice that the

questions that they are referring to are similar in nature. I think

it is the way these have been printed and their format which makes

it look a little different. For example, it asks: What’s wrong with

it? Spotted in the National Assembly Chamber, so again it’s the

similar thing that we had on page 116 where we log a call but not

because there is an issue with the National Assembly Chamber, but

because there is sitting that needs to spotted and etc.

Again, it says: Where physically or in the network is the trouble

observed. It is same on that email on page 116. So these are

standard issues that they issue when they log a call; they service

test and send us a confirmation of that call with these fields in

them. It could be any nature of the call; that’s really what they

send to us. Essentially those are exactly the same type of questions

that they have. This is the standard email that comes from the

service provider.

The CHAIRPERSON: You have a question that has not been responded to.

Can you just raise that specific question that has not been

responded to, I am sure hon Esau also has the same problem?

Mr D L TWALA: Hon Chairperson, I specifically referred to 113, and

asked the witness to take us through what is written there because

we are lay people we are not that intelligent; if he could assist us

with that.

The CHAIRPERSON: Can we then have him to talk to that other than

overloading him with the questions, probably that may be the effect

of him skipping some questions. Have you got page 113:

Mr POLIAH: Yes.

The CHAIRPERSON: And have you internalised it?

Mr R POLIAH: Yes.

The CHAIRPERSON: Okay, you may respond

Mr POLIAH: Thank you, Chair. If you look at page 113, and I am sorry

that I referred to page 116, you can notice that the questions they

are referring to are similar in nature. And I think it is the way

these have been printed and the format thereon that makes it look a

little different. For example, what is wrong with it is that sports

for energy chamber so again it’s the similar thing that we have in

page 116, where we log a call but not because it is an issue with

the National Assembly Chamber but there is a sitting that needs to

be spotted, etc.

Again, it says where physically or in the network is the trouble

observed, and it is the same on that email where physically on the

network, on page 116. So, these are standard question that they

issue when they log a call; then testing services sends us a

confirmation of that call with these fields in them and it could be

any nature of the call – that is really what they sent to us. So,

essentially those are exactly the same type of question that they

have. This is a standard email that comes from the service

providers.

The CHAIRPERSON: Hon Esau.

Mr S ESAU: Hon Chair, my question was very specific, and it is: if a

number of people press a button how many people can speak at the

same time? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, I know it is sequenced and generally

people speak in order, but what if many people press buttons; how

many people can speak at one given time?

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE COMMITEE: I would ask the witness to really

answer that for – I think it would be for the third time now since I

have been here. Maybe he would be willing to repeat that, Mr Poliah.

Mr R POLIAH: Thank you, Chair. I assume that the hon member is

talking about the request to talk but when you say push the button,

so if 400 members in the Chamber push the request to talk button; it

is only the first 20 that is captured in the screen, for that

particular question. And the order in which they pushed the button

is captured from first to last. It is then up to the Speaker to

acknowledge who on that list gets to speak. All the request to talk

system does is to register who pushed the button and in what order

they pushed the button, and displays that on the screen of the

Speaker and on the Tables. So, we only display the first 20 buttons

pushed for that question.

The CHAIRPERSON: Yaa! I think the understanding has to be made

clear, may be I may be not framing the answer in the more correct

way. You know the members must also try and verify themselves. You

know when you are in front of a key board that you are typing and

press two buttons at the same time only one will be recorded the one

that is first. I understood what you were saying, it may be in

seconds that is making the difference between the two buttons that

you pressed at the same time but the electronic systems will make a

difference. Even in seconds while you think that you have pressed

the two buttons at the same time, the pressure on the buttons will

not be the same at the same time. It will make a difference and the

equipment will sense that difference. Is that a follow-up question,

hon Esau?

Mr S ESAU: I think I just need a direct answer. No two people can

speak at one time. I want to know that because that answer is not

given and I can understand sequences, but as long as my mike is on,

nobody else can speak, is that true or does it go off automatically.

The CHAIRPERSON: Okay, just explain that other part.

Mr R POLIAH: Chairperson, I think I need to put on record that the

microphone system is not linked to the request to talk system. The

microphone service systems are pressed independently. So, the

request to talk system captures the order in which you press the

button. If the Speaker acknowledges it, then the member walks up to

the microphone, switches on and speaks. In the National Assembly

Chamber we allow up to five microphones on the floor to be turned on

at any given time.

Mr M A MNCWANGO: Thanks Chair. This is basically a follow-up

question that I asked before in relation to the footage of the day

in question. There is a concession that the witness has made as well

as the Chairperson, that we are dealing with human beings who might

gotten excited and forgot to observe and do their duty as expected

and thus focused their attention on the 20 individuals or 25 in the

House, thus robbing this committee of very valuable footage that

could have given us the a proper perspective of what really happened

on the day in question.

In you answer you indicated that you submitted everything to whoever

requested you to, whoever that is, I don’t know. I am not sure if

that which you submitted to whatever power has played itself out in

the videos that we have been take through. That is my contention

that the video that evidence as presented thus far in this hearing

is not fully reflective of the event of the day; then how do we

recover that missing footage that covers other events in that day

which are not covered in what has been presented.

Mr B T BONGO: On a point of order, Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON: Let us hear the point of order, Mr Bongo.

Mr B T BONGO: Chairperson, it would appear as if the hon member is

asking what he has asked before. And the man who is now putting the

question, I think, he is just superfluous. I suggest that if he has

issues that he may want to raise or arguments he must be able to

separate that from questions because he is advancing an argument.

Than maybe advance and the procedure does provide for such arguments

to be advanced at a later stage. So, for now he must not pose

superfluous questions that may not assist us. Thank you, Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON: Okay, I think your point of order is sustained. The

views and the arguments can be held now for your deliberations

because now we just needed facts of what really happened. And we

just reserve our views for your own deliberations at the appropriate

time.

Dr A LOTRIET: Thank you, Chairperson. I would just like to go back

to the audio, the witness said that the Table requested that it be

switched off, and could he perhaps be more specific as to who from

the table requested that? Thank you.

Mr M A MNCWANGO: Chairperson, I had actually asked whether the Madam

Speakers equipment was actually working on that day and I did not

get an answer to that; and the second one was whether there were any

engineers in the House on the day. I am asking that question because

I had problems with my own personal request to speak system and it

is captured in the Hansard that I actually had to use someone else’s

station to speak because mine could not working.

The CHAIRPERSON: There is a point of order, hon Mncwango, can we

hear it.

Mr B T BONGO: Chair, I think it is important that members must

listen attentively and very careful to these proceedings because I

take it that hon Mncwango is not listening properly, this

question ... [Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

Mr M A MNCWANGO: No! That’s derogatory! To use that language is

derogatory. No! [Interjections.] No, no, no.

The CHAIRPERSON: Order! Order! [Interjections.]

Mr B T BONGO: This question, Chair, was asked ... [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON: Order!, just a second, hon member. I think hon

Bongo, you can just withdraw that one of saying simply say he is not

listening carefully.

Mr B T BONGO: I withdraw, Chair. What I am saying is that this

question was specifically posed ... [Interjections.]

Mr M A MNCWANGO: Chair, on a point of order, can he withdraw

unconditionally. [Laughter.]

The CHAIRPERSON: I thought that he has withdrawn that but he then

continued with his point of order that he was raising.

Mr M A MNCWANGO: I would be happy with that withdrawal

unconditionally because that was an attack on my integrity.

[Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON: Order hon members; let us just deal with this point

of order. I think we just have to conclude the point of hon Bongo.

Mr B T BONGO: Yes, Chair. I was listening very attentively. The

question that he was asking was asked before and it was properly

answered by saying that on the day in question they never picked up

anything that said that the system was not working. So, how much

answer do we need? I am not attacking his integrity may be his

listening capacity ... [Laughter.] Thank you, Chair.

Mr M A MNCWANGO: Chairperson, on a point of order ...

[Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON: Order! Order, hon Mncwango! Hon Bongo you are not

assisting us ... [Laughter.] I think it is really derogatory what

you have just said. And you need to withdraw it unconditionally. The

truth, of course, is that the question that hon Mncwango is asking

has been asked many times. And it has been responded to many times.

And if the witness is prepared to just go through again. We would

allow him to do so, however, I thought it was fully answered. Can I

ask the witness if he could simply attempt to respond to that

question?

Mr R POLIAH: Thank you, Chair. Is it just that question or you want

me to deal with the other as well? There were a number of questions

before this one.

The CHAIRPERSON: Well, the question that he has just asked, which

the one that makes him agitated is, I think that is the question

that needs to be addressed.

Mr R POLIAH ...

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE (Mr B

L MASHILE): Hon Bongo, you are not assisting us. I think what you’ve

just said is really derogatory and needs to be withdrawn, hon

member.

MR B T BONGO: I withdraw unconditionally, Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE (Mr B

L MASHILE): Thank you very much. The truth of all of course is that

the question that hon Mncwango is asking, has been asked many times

and it has been responded to many times. If the witness is prepared

to simply go through it again, then we’ll allow him to do so. But, I

thought it was fully answered actually. Can I just ask the witness

if he could just simply attempt to respond to that question? Can you

please continue?

MR R POLIAH: Chair, is it just that question or do you want me to

deal with the others as well? There were a number of questions that

were asked.

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE (Mr B

L MASHILE): The question that he has just asked, which is really

making him agitated. I think that’s the question that needs to be

addressed. Yes.

MR R POLIAH: As I said, we had an intern in the House and there were

several. I don’t know how many, but if members did complain about

their particular units, we would have then checked them immediately

after the sitting. As I said, it is not possible for us to do any

checks or maintenance while the House is in session. We would have

checked them again when I look at the reports. We would have checked

them again on Monday where we do our full diagnostic testing. There

were no reports of any units being replaced or faulty. All the units

were checked and tested.

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE (Mr B

L MASHILE): Thank you very much. Just hold on to other questions.

Mr M L W FILTANE: Would the witness kindly confirm that he has no

first-hand knowledge of the test that were conducted? It’s all

reports that had been generated by his subordinates so that we can

place that evidence in its appropriate box. Thank you.

Mr M R MDAKANE: Chair, at the time I was raising my hand I wanted to

raise a point that we are in a hearing. We should avoid being

tempted to get involved in committee mood. Time for committee

discussion is still going to come. Therefore, I thought that points

of order and all other points in a hearing generally should not be

raised. We must not be tempted to use the points of orders. At the

same time, we must not be tempted to start arguing whether the

evidence is correct or not. In leading the evidence, the witness is

presenting what he knows he has taken an oath on. We should reserve

some of the issues for the committee discussion. Otherwise, Chair,

that was the point I had when I raised my hand. Also, the point that

I wanted to make a follow-up on was that I heard the witness saying

that as far he knows the system was working on 21 August 2014. He

has said this statement not less than five times. I think that the

point that he has raised, he has raised. Chair, it is my view that

the reason we wanted the witness to come here was to know whether

the system was working in the House on that day or not. The witness

has indicated several times that as far he knows the system was

tested and it was working. Therefore, it is my view that we are not

in the committee deliberations at the moment, we are in a hearing

and we must allow the processes of the hearing to proceed

accordingly.

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE (Mr B

L MASHILE): Hon Twala, do you still have another question?

Mr D L TWALA: Chair, first all I think we need to place things in

context. The witness is an expert in his field. We know nothing

about that which he knows talks about or specialises in. We only

have this opportunity to get as much information as possible from

the witness so as to move from an informed basis on what happened on

the day in question. If questions are going to be raised and others

find them to be superfluous, that begins to talk into the ability of

the witness to talk into the issues of the day. On the day in

question, sir, how many cameras were operational? What was their

focus? Thanks.

THE CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE (Mr B

L MASHILE): You can attempt to respond to those questions. Of

course, as I have indicated hon members, is that, you know, the

actual technical matters that are delegated functions of

functionaries below, then must be recognised. I think he will be

able to respond but we have an indication that there is a room at

level 3 – level 3, I think – where there is a control room and there

are technicians in there that are working there and manning the

cameras on a day-to-day basis. They have to do that in any normal

proceedings of the House or for any committee room. I think you can

respond and still make that clarity because we already had that

clarity before. But you can still repeat it so that when we get out

of here, we all have clarity.

MR R POLIAH: Chair, I think there was a question around who

specifically asked the engineers and unfortunately I was not in a

Hansard Bay at the time. So, I can’t respond to that question. Was

the Speaker’s equipment tested? Yes, it was and it was found to be

working because, as I said in one of my previous responses, we check

the entire system because it has various components. The Speaker’s

screens particularly on the day of questions, is important. So, we

always check it. How many cameras were operational? I think I did

cover that one. It was five in the National Assembly and we had five

operational. As to what their focus was, generally Chair, we have

some guidelines in which we give our operators in which to operate

and record the sittings of the House. We don’t give them any

particular mandates but simply to broadcast what happens in the

House.

THE CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE (Mr B

L MASHILE): Any other question that has been missed on those that

have been raised? Hon Filtane, it looks like you believe that your

question has not been answered.

Mr M L W FILTANE: I don’t know if he has answered my question. Maybe

it’s not a problem. My question was: Does the witness have first-

hand knowledge of what is contained in the reports he has submitted

or is he relying first on those uncertified photocopies? This will

help us to place his evidence in the right box. Thank you.

THE CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE (Mr B

L MASHILE): I have a little bit of a problem because you have

actually redrafted the question that you posed before. You have

redrafted it. Yes, but let the witness then respond to the one that

you have said now. The one that you were referring to was not

exactly the way you have put it now. Just respond to that one.

MR R POLIAH: Chair, I can confirm that I was not in the House during

the testing because it is not part of my functions to be there. But

you are correct, it is a delegated function. We had four engineers,

two from our contractor and two from Parliament that were part of

the testing and they confirmed that the systems were operational. On

the basis of that and the report that was submitted to me, I am now

testifying that the systems were operational.

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE:

Okay, it looks like Mr Twala would refuse to eat if he does not ask

this question. [Laughter.] You may ask, Mr Twala.

Mr D L TWALA: Sir, what is the compilation of events and activities

in the House meant for? Is it for evidence or for the public? What

drives the need for this footage? Thanks.

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE: I’m

not really clear about what you have asked. Do you mean the

recordings, the video footage, Hansard and all that why are they

being done? Is that what you are asking? Just repeat it because we

also want to be clear that he has responded to your question fully.

Mr D L TWALA: I am just asking a very simple, direct question,

Chair. There are video cameras in the House located at different

parts, naturally to compile a record of sorts. Is that record meant

for use as evidence or anything else? Thanks.

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE: I

think now that is a little bit clear. You can respond.

Mr R POLIAH: Chair, what I can confirm is that when we broadcast and

record footage in the House, it is sent to the national

broadcasters, including DSTV, e.tv, SABC and anybody else who

requests that footage, and they take it live. We stream it via our

YouTube channel, so it is available to the public online. We record

it as archive material. What it is used for I can’t tell you exactly

because we keep the archive when it is requested, either for members

of the public or internally, we submit an accurate recording of that

sitting.

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE: We

are over the time that lunch has been made available. It is getting

cold. I’m not sure whether we have enough microwaves in the holding

room. I recognise hon Mdakane.

Mr M R MDAKANE: Chair, the point that I just want to raise - I am

not sure whether I could refer to it as a question – is to the

manager who is a witness here. The question that I want to pose is

that the 65 team that you are leading reports to you almost on a

daily basis about what is happening in the ICT area in Parliament.

Are they doing that?

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE:

Okay, I think you can respond to that.

Mr R POLIAH: Chair, I think it is important to keep in mind that the

unit that manages the audio video systems at Parliament is a unit

and it has a unit manager. That unit manager reports to me on a

daily basis on particular issues that he needs to escalate to me or

that need my intervention.

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE:

Okay, it looks like the reporting is through the normal line

functions of the directorate. Do you have a follow-up?

Mr M R MDAKANE: Chair, the point that I was raising to the manager,

is that we are here as a lead evidence giving person. All those

units, generally speaking, work under your directorate. The point

that I was raising is that on 21 August, I suspect, the unit would

have reported to you everything that has happened in the House. Did

that happen? That is the point that I am raising.

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE:

Okay, you can respond to that.

Mr R POLIAH: The answer to that is yes, during, while the matter was

happening, and we also had several sessions after to discuss what

happened in the House.

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE:

Okay. Hon members, it looks like we have satisfied ourselves with

the questions that we wanted to ask. There may still be a question

or whatever, all that matters is how significant that question is,

what sort of value will that particular evidence that you are

looking for going to assist you in your deliberations moving

forward. I would have loved us to take a break for lunch before some

of us collapse unceremoniously. Hon members, let’s try and be back

by 13:50.

An HON MEMBER: Is the witness still under oath?

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE: Yes.

The witness, of course, ... I think as we have concluded, we may

release the witness. Okay, okay. Let me just hang on a little bit

for it looks like we have a counter from hon Mncwango.

Mr M A MNCWANGO: Chair, I just wanted to know whether in the report

that he received immediately after what had happened on 21 August,

was there any mention made that there was a particular facility, a

request to speak facility, that did not work?

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE: Hon

Mdakane wanted to say something as well. Are you covered?

Mr M R MDAKANE: I think I’m done. I’m very happy with the answer

that was given to me.

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE:

Okay. Thank you very much. Let us have a situation where hon

Mncwango would say ‘I’m done, I’m happy.’ Can you respond to hon

Mncwango, otherwise we may not have lunch.

Mr R POLIAH: Chair, again, the staff did indicate that there was a

member who indicated in the House that his button was not working

and again we checked it after the sitting to verify and they

reported that to me.

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE:

Okay. I think this should be the end of the questions from the

members. Mr van Voore, you have heard the members going up and down,

left and right, forward and backward. Do you have any comments,

anything to raise? You are recognised.

The INITIATOR: (Mr VAN VOORE): Thank you, Chairperson. I have two

issues. Firstly, I have no further questions either than to comment

that I’m indebted to Mr Poliah for having come to explain to the

committee. I think there were some rather useful factual issues

which he has reversed which the committee can then deliberate on.

Secondly, there is an entirely house-keeping question. You did

indicate that we should be back at 13:50, I fear that that would

give us some 15 minutes from now. Unless there is a compelling

reason to do so, might I suggest 14:00? [Laughter.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE:

Okay. I think I’ll accede for you to be a shop steward of the

members. [Laughter.] Hon members, I think that takes us to lunch. Mr

Poliah, we need to thank you for having made yourself available on

the invitation of the committee to come and assist them with some

evidence that will assist them in the deliberations towards the

conclusion of this exercise. I really want to say thank you on

behalf of the committee, and you are then released. Hon members,

let’s go and have lunch and come back at exactly two o’clock on the

request of your shop steward. [Laughter.]

LUNCH BREAK FROM 13:25-14:00

HEARING RESUMED AT: 14:00

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE(Mr B

L Mashile): Hon members, I think we have got no reason to prolong

our already long lunchtime. We need to move with speed because it

looks like we maybe here until in the middle of the night.

Hon members, we have concluded with the first witness and I want to

recongnise Mr Van Voore to proceed if we have another witness lined

up today.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): Thank you, Mr Chairman. We do have

another witness lined up today. It is the Serjeant-at-arms. I will

just check if the Serjeant-at-arms is outside the main door.

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE (Mr B

L Mashile): You can do so. And somebody should check whether the

microphone for the witness is working. We have learnt that these

things can just go bust at any given time. Sometimes fluctuations of

electrical supply and all that can damage equipments. It doesn’t

suggest that it was not checked before. It doesn’t suggest that.

Order, hon members, we are in session. We are in session now. We

have not suspended anything. They are calling a witness to walk in

and we don’t have all the liberty to make noise like during the

break. The hearing is in session.

Hon members, Mr Van Voore has indicated that he is calling a

witness; the witness called is a Serjeant-at-arms. I think, much

more appropriately, is Ms Mhlomi. Have I correctly ...

Mr M R MDAKANE: Mohlomi!

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE(Mr B

L Mashile): Mohlomi. Hon members, Rule 138(a) of the Assembly Rules

requires me, prior to the witness giving evidence, to inform her as

follows.

Ms Mohlomi, please be informed that by law, you are required to

answer fully and satisfactorily all the questions lawfully put to

you or to produce any document that you are required to produce in

connection with the subject matter of the inquiry. Notwithstanding

that the answer or a document could incriminate you or expose you to

criminal or civil proceedings or damages. You are, however,

protected in that the evidence given under oath or affirmation

before the House or Committee may not be used against you in any

court or place outside of Parliament except in criminal proceedings

concerning a charge of perjury or a charge relating to the evidence

or documents required in these proceedings.

Ms Mohlomi, I want to know whether you have any objection in taking

an oath or making an affirmation.

Ms R MOHLOMI: I have no objection.

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE(Mr B

L Mashile): And then which one do you prefer to do, between an oath

and affirmation?

Ms R MOHLOMI: Affirmation.

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE(Mr B

L Mashile): Okay, if you do affirmation, Ms Mohlomi, say these

words, ‘I confirm that the testimony that the testimony or evidence

I am going give is the truth and only the truth and binding on my

conscience.’

Ms R MOHLOMI: I confirm that the testimony that the testimony or

evidence I am going give is the truth and only the truth and binding

on my conscience.

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE(Mr B

L Mashile): Thank you very much for having done so. I now recognise

Mr Van Voore to proceed with the evidence.

Mr B T BONGO: Chair, can we just check whether the witness is on the

necessary record.

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE(Mr B

L Mashile): Was it off?

Mr B T BONGO: It does not seem to be on from ... [Interjections.].

We have to start afresh for record purposes. Thank you.

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE (Mr B

L Mashile): Eh, sorry for the electrical equipment. They have got

the capacity to, actually, derail our procedures.

Hon members, we will redo this because it is necessary that it goes

to the record. Hon members, Rule 138(a) of the Assembly Rules

requires of me, prior to the witness giving evidence, to inform her

as follow.

Ms Mohlomi, please be informed that by law, you are required to

answer fully and satisfactorily all the questions lawfully put to

you or to produce any document that you are required to produce in

connection with the subject matter of the inquiry. Notwithstanding

that the answer or a document could incriminate you or expose you to

criminal or civil proceedings or damages. You are, however,

protected in that the evidence given under oath or affirmation

before the House or Committee may not be used against you in any

court or place outside of Parliament except in criminal proceedings

concerning a charge of perjury or a charge relating to the evidence

or documents required in these proceedings.

Now, Ms Mohlomi, do you have any objection in taking an oath or

making an affirmation.

Ms R MOHLOMI: I have no objection, sir.

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE(Mr B

L Mashile): Thank you. If you have got no objection can you then

indicate whether you want to make an oath or an affirmation?

Ms R MOHLOMI: Affirmation.

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE (Mr B

L Mashile): If you want to do an affirmation please say these words,

‘I confirm that the testimony or evidence I am going to give is the

truth and only the truth and binding on my conscience.’

Ms R MOHLOMI: I confirm that the testimony or evidence I am going to

give is the truth and only the truth and binding on my conscience.

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE (Mr B

L Mashile): Thank you very much for doing so. Hon members, I then

recognise Mr Van Voore to proceed with the witness who has just made

an affirmation. Continue.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Ms Mohlomi,

will you please confirm that you are employed in the capacity as

Serjeant-at-arms in the National Assembly.

Ms R MOHLOMI: Yes, I am.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): And for how long have you been

employed in this capacity?

Ms R MOHLOMI: Since 2007, but when I was appointed in 2007 my job

title was Under Secretary Table Administration and I was responsible

for managing the then Serjeant-at-arms.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): And when did you become the

Serjeant-at-arms rather than Under Secretary Table Administration?

Ms R MOHLOMI: In 2010 when Mr Kleinwerk went on retirement, I, under

the direction of the then Secretary to the National Assembly, took

up the role and responsibilities of Serjeant-at-arms. The reason was

that in Parliament Serjeant-at-arms are senior level members of

staff. It was an arrangement that I found when I was appointed into

the job in 2007 that there was someone else who was carrying out the

responsibilities of Serjeant-at-arms rather than the Under

Secretary.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): Thank you. The reason why you have

been asked to come before the committee relates, of course, to the

events that took place in the National Assembly on 21 August. Just

to confirm, were you in fact, in the National Assembly on that date

21 August?

Ms R MOHLOMI: Yes, I was.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): And that related to the session:

Questions for Oral Reply - Questions that had been posed to the

President of the Republic for oral reply by the President?

Ms R MOHLOMI: Yes, that’s correct.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): In the ordinary course in the

National Assembly at any one sitting, is there a particular place

where you sit, and if so, will you please describe to the committee

where that is.

Ms R MOHLOMI: The bench that is used by the Serjeant-at-arms is at

the back of the House and indirectly opposite the Presiding Officer,

at the door ... it would normally be the front of the House, but it

is on this side of the House – as you enter the door facing the

Presiding Officer, the Serjeant-at-arms would be sitting on the left

hand side there.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): What I would like to do now, Ms

Mohlomi, is to ask Mr Jerome Adonis to take us through various parts

of the video footage and for you just to explain to the committee

what, precisely, is taking place at that time.

VIEWING OF THE VIDEO FOOTAGE [Interjections.]

Sorry, Mr Adonis, the first part of the footage I would like you to

go to is that part which starts at 56 minutes and 13 seconds up to

and including 56 minutes and 31 seconds, please.

VIEWING OF THE VIDEO FOOTAGE

Thank you. Ms Mohlomi, were you in the Chamber of the National

Assembly at that point when you heard the Speaker, first, calling

upon you to assist?

VIEWING OF THE VIDEO FOOTAGE

The INITIATOR (Mr R Van Voore): Thank you. Ms Mohlomi, were you in

the Chamber of the National Assembly at that point, when you heard

the Speaker first calling upon you to assist?

Ms R MOHLOMI: Yes I was, Chairperson.

The INITIATOR (Mr R Van Voore): Did you get up immediately at that

time or was there a subsequent point at which you rose?

Ms R MOHLOMI: Well, you will note that the Speaker is saying, “I

will call the Serjeant-at-arms to take out members” and at that time

I did not stand up, because the Speaker was not calling for the

Serjeant-at-arms then. She said if you do not do x, y and z, I will

call upon the Serjeant-at-arms. The Serjeant-at-arms does not want

to look too eager, you know, to come and remove members or anything

like that. So, I do wait until I get an instruction that says x, y

or z.

The INITIATOR (Mr R Van Voore): Thank you. Ms Mohlomi, I would now

like to show you further part of the footage with the assistance of

Mr Adonis. It is that part of the video footage commencing at 56

minutes 36 seconds up to and including 56 minutes 48 seconds. So, it

is 56 minutes 36 seconds up to and including 56 minutes 48 seconds.

VIEWING OF THE VIDEO FOOTAGE

The INITIATOR (Mr R Van Voore): Can you please describe having heard

the Speaker say what she said at that point? What did you do next?

Ms R MOHLOMI: I then moved from where I was seated and came around

amongst the opposition parties and some of the ANC members, because

that is where the path is, to come to members of the EFF.

The INITIATOR (Mr R Van Voore): Thank you. I would now like Mr

Adonis to play further portion of the footage. It is that portion

from where we ended off last up to and including 57 minutes and 32

seconds. So, if you could just let it run from where it is now

please, Mr Adonis, up to 57 minutes and 32 seconds.

VIEWING OF THE VIDEO FOOTAGE

The INITIATOR (Mr R Van Voore): Thank you, Mr Adonis. At this point

you said earlier on that you had risen from the seat where you

ordinarily sit to the left of the Speaker’s chair and that you

moved, you followed a path that will take you past the seats or

benches of the majority party and then ultimately up to the point

where you are standing at the seats or benches occupied by the

members of the Economic Freedom Fighters. Are you in the frame that

we are looking at, at that point?

Ms R MOHLOMI: Yes, I am. Firstly, I am walking towards the place

where I am at this frame and then I am standing next to Mr Ndlozi,

there.

The INITIATOR (Mr R Van Voore): And did you have any interaction,

conversation or engagement with Mr Ndlozi?

Ms R MOHLOMI: I tried. I do not recall having a conversation,

because I do not remember Mr Ndlozi responding to me directly. But I

did try to say, Mr Ndlozi, please, the presiding officer has spoken

you are requested to leave the Chamber. But I don’t recall getting a

response from him.

The INITIATOR (Mr R Van Voore): Thank you, Ms Mohlomi. There is

another part of the footage that I would like you to view now and

then get your comment on that. It is probably simple if we just let

the footage run from where it is now please, Mr Adonis, up to and

including 58 minutes and 4 seconds.

VIEWING VIDEO FOOTAGE

The INITIATOR (Mr R Van Voore): Thank you. Madam Serjeant-at-arms,

there is a bit of activity there now but the committee is keen to

hear and this is one of the purposes that you were called before the

committee. It appears that there is some interaction, engagement and

talking between you and two members in particular, maybe more in the

House at this point. If you can please just identify them and

explain what has transpired.

Ms R MOHLOMI: The member I spoke to and who responded to me is Mr

Malema and Mr Shivambu standing next to him, did listen to what I

was saying for a bit, but did not speak to me.

The INITIATOR (Mr R Van Voore): And what did you tell Mr Malema or

say to Mr Malema and what was his response, if any?

Mr R MOHLOMI: I spoke to Mr Malema in Sepedi and told him that the

Presiding Officer has spoken. I said,

Sepedi:

Ntate Malema, modulasetulo o boletše, o re le tšwe ka mo Ntlong. [Mr

Malema, the Speaker has spoken, she says you must leave the House.]

English:

Mr Malema responded by ...

Sepedi:

... ga reye felo! Ga reye felo! [We are not going anywhere! We are

not going anywhere.]

English:

I then started, almost pleading I think, and I said, Mr Malema,

please it is very difficult for me to do this part of my work. It is

very difficult for me to approach you like this. Please, do not make

it even more difficult than it is. The Presiding Officer wishes you

to leave the House and if you do not leave it means that I must get

the security to come and take you and the members of your party out

of the House.

The INITIATOR (Mr R Van Voore): And what was Mr Malema’s response to

your further pleading as you have described it?

Ms R MOHLOMI: Mr Malema’s response was ...

Sepedi:

... babitše! Babitše! [Call them! Call them!]

English:

Members will see him doing this; he was saying “Babitše! Babitše”!

Which means call them! Call them!

The INITIATOR (Mr R Van Voore) After that interaction as just

described by you now, Ms Mohlomi, did you persist or what did you

do?

Ms R MOHLOMI: I did not persist. I saw that Mr Malema was not going

to co-operate and I left and went outside of the House, to go and

communicate with our head of parliamentary security.

The INITIATOR (Mr R Van Voore): My apologies, you say you walked out

of the House to go and communicate with the head of the

parliamentary security, did you find this person?

Ms R MOHLOMI: When I went outside, some of her staff were outside.

Two, three or four of them were outside. But I looked and did not

see her. I actually probably even walked a little bit this way, but

I was quite anxious not to be outside the Chamber for too long. So,

I went back almost immediately.

The INITIATOR (Mr R Van Voore): The Speaker had by then, I think I

heard her say: I am suspending the House for three minutes. From

your recollection, did the Speaker in fact do so? And if that is the

case, where were you in that first suspension of a few minutes?

Ms R MOHLOMI: Yes, the Speaker did indeed suspend the House. I don’t

know if it was exactly three minutes, but the House was suspended

with all the members there. I came back into the House and I think

for a while I was standing right at that door that I use to go out,

the one on the left hand side of the Speaker, in the middle passage.

The INITIATOR (Mr R Van Voore): You heard the Speaker say:

“Serjeant–at-arms, please assist me in relieving the members who are

not serious.” The other members of the committee here this afternoon

also heard the Speaker say that. You then proceeded, as you

described, from your chair and you followed a certain path. Who did

you understand the Speaker to be referring to?

Ms R MOHLOMI: It was clear to me that the Speaker was referring to

members of the EFF. For me, it was not the issue of whether the

members were serious or not. My instruction was to take members who

were disrupting, as I understood, the proceedings of the House. And

what I saw and heard was that the members of the EFF at that point

were standing up, they were shouting and some of them were banging

on the tables, on their benches even though the Speaker was saying

to them that they are not recognised.

So, for me the instruction was clear who it is that the Speaker

wanted to be removed from the House.

The INITIATOR (Mr R Van Voore): I just like to ask Adonis to play

another rather short clip and you might have covered this area or

this part of the clip already, but I think it is useful all the same

to ask Mr Adonis to play the clip. It is that clip starting at 59:56

up to and including 1:05.

VIEWING OF THE VIDEO FOOTAGE

In that frame on the screen now, will you confirm that there appears

to be a person standing at the door, in the back of that frame and

from where I sit, that appears to be you as the Serjeant-at-arms?

Ms R MOHLOMI: That’s correct.

The INITIATOR (Mr R Van Voore): Thank you. If you can just let it

run a bit further, Mr Adonis.

VIEWING OF THE VIDEO FOOTAGE

The INITIATOR (Mr R Van Voore): Thank you. The adjournment as it

turns out - and this is not at all controversial or in dispute; the

adjournment wasn’t for three minutes but it was actually for seven

minutes. Were you in the House during the course of that adjournment

of a few minutes?

Ms R MOHLOMI: Yes, I was. I had to ... I have a number of staff

members who report to me, who do Chamber duty. As I said also, I was

a little anxious to be outside of the Chamber and not see what is

happening inside the Chamber because I couldn’t find the section

manager of protection services. I came back into the House also to

converse with my colleagues on the floor of the House as to what to

do next.

One of the things that we spoke about was that people must be on the

outside of the benches and not be walking up and down at that time.

The INITIATOR (Mr R Van Voore): And then we hear the Speaker at some

point saying to the members in the Chamber that security has asked

us to co-operate in this respect, and then there was a longer

adjournment - I think that adjournment was nearly some 40 minutes

but that’s not really the point - this was a longer adjournment.

Were you in the Chamber for that longer adjournment also?

Ms R MOHLOMI: Yes, I was. I left the Chamber for a few minutes to go

to the restroom.

The INITIATOR (Mr R Van Voore): Thank you. I am now going to ask Mr

Adonis to play what I am referring to now as CD 2, and this record

some footage recorded on what has been referred to as the ENG

camera. The first part of the footage is roughly one minute and 18

seconds. It appears to depict you interacting with some members of

the EFF.

VIEWING OF THE VIDEO FOOTAGE

If you can just take us through what precisely was happening at that

point.

Ms R MOHLOMI: Well, Mr Malema and the other two ladies were asking

for water. In fact, they were asking me: “Why are you not serving us

water, why are you not serving us water?” My response was that there

is water available at the back of the House, that way - and if

members would like to have some water, they can go and get some.

The INITIATOR (Mr R Van Voore): Thank you. And then roughly 2:18,

there is another part of the footage where you appear to be either

followed by or in the company of members of the House. I would just

like to hear your description of that. It is at roughly two minutes

and 18 seconds.

VIEWING OF THE VIDEO FOOTAGE

If you can just take the committee through what has just happened

there.

Ms R MOHLOMI: The two members were following me towards the back of

the House where we keep the water but they were called back. They

did not actually go and get the water.

The INITIATOR (Mr R Van Voore): The committee viewed the footage

earlier, if the committee wishes to view it again, I am sure that

the committee will ask you to do so. But we had viewed footage

earlier of what appears to be – and I don’t think this is in dispute

either – personnel of the SA Police Service in the National

Assembly. Were those people there? Were you involved at all in any

discussion relating to calling them in or bringing them into the

Chamber?

VIEWING OF THE VIDEO FOOTAGE

Ms R MOHLOMI: No, I was not involved; I involved myself with the

Chamber service officers who are normally the people who serve

members. All of us were on the floor of the House, and I saw members

of the police service coming in. I was not part of any discussions

to get them on the floor of the House.

The INITIATOR (Mr R Van Voore): Part of your work, Serjeant-at-arms:

does it involve interacting with members of the SA Police Services,

in relation to the workings of the House or the preparation for the

sitting and, if so, could you explain to the committee what that

would entail?

Ms R MOHLOMI: Yes, Chair, I have to work with members of the SA

Police Service, because they are responsible for security if

something happens where, for example, there is breakage on the

premises of Parliament, etc. But they are also responsible for

ensuring the security of the Chamber. For every sitting, the members

of the SAPS, the dog unit, come in to - what they say - sweep the

Chamber, both on the floor and in the gallery. Once that has been

done, people are not allowed to come into the House until members

start converging in the Chamber.

So, members of the SAPS would sit and guard that people do not come

into the Chamber at all once the dogs have been. Also the SAPS are

around the Chamber all of the time. So, apart from speaking to them

about work, we talk about the work that we do, etc, etc.

The INITIATOR (Mr R Van Voore): Thank you. Still staying with

the ... I think it is the ENG footage. There is a clip that I would

like us to view. I would like you to explain to the committee what

was taking place there. It starts at 18:45 up to and including

20:48.

VIEWING OF THE VIDEO FOOTAGE:

The INITIATOR (Mr R Van Voore): Thank you, Mr Adonis. Ms Mohlomi, if

you can please just explain what precisely took place in the clip or

that part of the clip that we have just watched now.

Ms R MOHLOMI: Three members of the National Assembly burst through

the door; it’s the door in the middle of the passage on the right-

hand-side of the presiding officer. You will have seen that I was

not right at the door, I was standing somewhere off the picture.

But, three members came through the door and they were saying things

like we will go to them; we will get them; we will get them.

One of the members went out immediately, but two of them remained.

The one lady and the one gentleman remained in the Chamber. We spoke

to them - my colleagues and I - and we pleaded with them. I remember

saying to the gentleman ... One of the things I remember saying was

that the media is sitting up there and they are recording all of

these things happening. Can you imagine what will happen if you

really did go towards the EFF?

Eventually the gentleman did leave and the lady did leave even

though they did not use the same door. The lady went out the door

that we usually use for the Speaker’s entrance and the gentleman

used that door that is in the clip now.

The INITIATOR (Mr R Van Voore): The footage that I asked Mr Adonis

to play is from roughly 18 minutes and 45 seconds up to and

including 20 minutes and 48 seconds. That seems to be the total time

on the footage - of some 2 minutes and 3 seconds from persons

entering and then subsequently leaving. Did those persons, those

particular three persons that you described, come back into the

Chamber before the House was reconvened at any time after that

incident?

Ms R MOHLOMI: No, they did not come back.

The INITIATOR (Mr R Van Voore): And then subsequently, the House was

in fact reconvened only for it to be adjourned at roughly 16:17 in

the afternoon. Were you in the Chamber at that time?

Ms R MOHLOMI: Yes, I was.

The INITAIATOR (Mr Van Voor): From your knowledge, did the members

of the EFF leave the Chamber at any point during the first

adjournment of some 3 minutes, or 7 minutes, rather, as it turned

out, and then the longer the adjournment, did they leave the Chamber

at any time?

Ms R MOHLOMI: Chair, I’m not sure if any of the members left but the

group as a collective was there at the time when there was a brief

adjournment.

The INITIATOR (Mr R Van Voore): Thank you, Mr Chairman. At this time

I have no further questions for Ms Mohlomi.

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE (Mr B

L MASHILE): Thank you very much Mr Van Voore for the part that you

have actually gone through. I think it will assist the members

moving forward. Is there any member that wants to get some more

clarity on the evidence that has already been led? I will have hon

Esau, hon Lotriet, hon Filtane, hon Mncwango and hon Twala

Mr S ESAU: Hon Chair, I think the first question I would like to

raise is the one that the Sergeant-at-Arms indicated that when she

tried to deal with the situation the hon members refused to

cooperate and insisted on staying in the House and not to obey any

order from the Speaker’s side. And then she said she was going to

approach Security of Parliament, came back in, went back out, but a

bit later again. At what stage was the Security of Parliament

actually involved in the process? And can she just briefly explain

to us hon Chair, when did SA Police Service, SAPS, actually come

into the House as we can see on that clip, and where is the Security

of Parliament itself? And of course there is a difference between

Security of Parliament and the SAPS presence at Parliament as a

National Key Point, NKP. I think those are the things that I just

like to have some clarity on from what I see in the clip.

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE (Mr B

L MASHILE): Is that question clear?

The SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: Yes!

Dr A LOTRIET: Chair, my colleque has asked the question that I

wanted to ask, but I would also perhaps just like to know, who has

the prerogative to call security into the Chambers? Is it the

Speaker and the Sergeant-at-Arms or only one of the two? Thank you.

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE (Mr B

L MASHILE): Hon Lotriet, and then, can you just be a little bit

clearer. When you say security, are you referring to Security

Services in Parliament or security, meaning SAPS outside, just so

that she is clear with what you are talking about?

Dr A LOTRIET: I am referring to Parliament Security

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE (Mr B

L MASHILE): Okay! Thank you very much. And then hon members, if you

have more than one question, you will get the second round, so that

you are able to follow that your question has been responded. Let’s

just ask one question, then we get the second round and we do so, so

that you are able to measure whether all the questions have been

responded to. I think it is an opportunity for hon Filtane.

Mr M L W FILTANE: Chair, do you have authority to remove members

from the House after a call for adjournment has been made? Thank

you.

Mr M A MNCWANGO: Through you, Chair, the Sergeant-at-Arms was

actually asked by the Speaker to quote the specific words uttered by

the Speaker. “Serjeant-at-arms, please assist me with relieving the

members in this House who are not serious about this sitting to take

their leave,” and then in your own words you actually went – you

approached Mr Ndlozi to ask him to leave the House because the

Presiding Officer had said so. Why did you approach Mr Ndlozi

because the Speaker did not mention Mr Ndlozi?

Mr D L TWALA: Chair, in one of the videos that we have seen, you

naturally were moving around the House in an endeavour to control

the situation. In your ... How can I put this? What is it that you

witnessed? You have EFF members standing. In one of the steles,

there are also members from other parties standing. How many people

were standing at the time at which you interfaced with Mr Malema?

Thanks.

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE (Mr B

L MASHILE): Okay. Is there any further question? There is none for

this round for the remaining members. Hon Mohlomi, don’t ... Thank

you very much, Ms Mohlomi. Don’t interpret the removal of jackets

from hon Filtane and Mncwango. [Laughter.] There is no intention of

a fight. It’s only that it is long that we have been here. Then, you

can calmly respond to the question.

MS R MOHLOMI: Chair, the first question has to do with at what stage

the parliamentary protection services was involved and when the SAPS

came into the Chamber. To the second question, I cannot say with

certainty at what point the SAPS came into the Chamber because,

first of all, I was not involved in the negotiations that were

taking place – the Secretary to the National Assembly was the one

interacting with the leadership of the National Assembly.

So, what I saw were members of SAPS in uniform on the floor of the

House even though for sometime they were not doing a lot. They were

standing around – some of them ended up standing at the door etc,

but I don’t know exactly at what point on that day they came into

the Chamber.

The protection services – I said that when I went outside the door,

there were three or four of our colleagues from the protection

services standing outside. And my issue was that these people,

because they report under the Section Manager of Protection

Services, I was hoping to have a discussion with her in order for

the people to move into the House, and unfortunately I did not have

contact with her at all on that day. I believe that she was actually

at the front – the side of the Speaker’s entrance at the time when I

was looking for here.

Mme Lotriet was asking, who has the prerogative to call

parliamentary security? Is it the Speaker or the Sergeant-at Arms?

The Sergeant-at-Arms has no prerogative of any kind unless

instructed by the Speaker or directed by the Speaker to do anything

at all. There is no prerogative for the Sergeant-at-Arms to do

anything or to even stand up and be seen doing anything during

sittings of the House.

Ntate Filtane, the question is whether the Sergeant-at-Arms has

authority to remove members from the House after the call for

adjournment. First of all the Sergeant-at-Arms does not have

authority to remove. Obviously the authority rests with the Speaker,

first of all.

Second of all, after adjournment, in this particular case, I don’t

know if Ntate Filtane is referring to that. In this particular case

the request by Speaker – the instruction by Speaker for members to

leave was done as far as I remember before adjournment, during the

sitting.

So, if the Speaker said we will adjourn for three minutes so that

the people can be taken out, that was in my understanding done in

the context of a sitting of the House. Again, the Sergeant-at-Arms

must follow the instructions of the Speaker, when instructed to do

whatever it is, take members out – whatever it is during a sitting

of the House. That’s what the Sergeant-at-Arms will do. I am not

sure if I have answered that question Mr Filtane to your

satisfaction.

Mr Mncwango asks why I approached Mr Ndlozi. Much as I cannot really

find any other reason why, I suppose that in my mind I was telling

myself Mr Ndlozi is the spokesperson of the party because there were

other members of the EFF standing behind him who were also standing

etc. But I guess in my mind I was telling myself this is the

spokesperson of the party and probably I will get somewhere in

trying something. Obviously I did not on that day. So, I proceeded

to the leader of the party.

Mr Twala wants to know how many members were standing at the time

when I approached Mr Malema. I cannot say how many members were

standing, but I can say that it was very clear to me what the

instruction of the Speaker was. Not only did the Speaker actually

point with her finger, she also moved her body towards the people

that she wanted me to remove. So, I suppose at the time my

instruction did not have anything to do with the other people who

were standing around, but the people whom the Speaker had indicated

to me to go and help her remove from the Chamber.

Mr M L W FILTANE: Chair, at this point in time I will confine myself

to asking a follow-up question. I have yet to deal with my second

question because the answer, as my body language would have

indicated, does not...

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Go for a follow up. You will have an opportunity

for the other question, I think.

Mr M L W FILTANE: Thanks a lot, Chair. Video clip fifty-six minutes

thirty-six seconds to fifty-six point four eight shows, and the

audio says, “Sergeant-at-arms, please relieve me by taking ...” this

is the Speaker. Then you say you went towards the EFF members. I

have not said to I said towards because you explained to us the road

leading to them to cover you, okay...

The second video shows... the Speaker says, “I am calling the

security. I am suspending the House. The House is suspended.” Now, I

have recorded here that, at this point in time, the Serjeant-at-arms

had not yet spoken to the EFF members when the Speaker said I am

suspending the House. That is where, madam, my question comes from.

Given your earlier explanation, did you get any subsequent

instructions from the Speaker to say, follow through on the

instructions that I gave you whilst the House was still in session?

If not, do you have authority after the House has been adjourned to

carry out an instruction that was given prior to the adjournment of

the House? I hope now you understand me a lot better. Thank you.

Mr D L TWALA: Chair, in one of the stills we see the Serjeant-at-

arms almost within proximity of what I will refer to, based on

uniform and insignia, a very senior police official. Would you kind

of clarify that? You saw the senior official. Who was he? And in

your understanding how did he get to be on the floor of Parliament?

The instruction to you was, can you assist me, remove these members

who are not serious about the business. I will not go in verbatim.

In your understanding, who were these members? That will be

extremely helpful. Thank you.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): I think I do have the right or the power to

caution members if they ask a repetitive... or say a repetitive

thing, just to caution them, really, not to do so. I am sure that

the last question that hon Twala said, I am sure it has been asked

many times. So it’s... but I mean... if she is prepared to repeat

it... but we just need to avoid that. I think we had hon Esau on the

line.

Mr S ESAU: Chair, in terms of the Serjeant-at-arms... the role,

power, responsibility of the individual... now, generally the

Serjeant-at-arms assists the Speaker in the discipline of the House,

and, if members are not orderly, they can be asked to be removed.

Now I just want to know, in terms of the job descriptions of the

Serjeant-at-arms, were those steps followed? Because, from what I am

hearing, the protection services were not really available to

support the Serjeant-at-arms and the police entered without the

knowledge and understanding of the Serjeant-at-arms. Therefore,

somebody else gave instruction, which is more senior.

[Interjection.] No, no, no. I would just like to...

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Let’s just hear the point of order. Ntate Booi.

Mr M S BOOI: [Interjection.] Just be patient. I was saying, Chair, I

thought that the earlier ruling was saying that we should not start

behaving as if we are starting to debate. I thought that we are

soliciting clarities. But, in way the member is now beginning to

pre-put his question, it is quite clear that he is now beginning to

come to conclusions about the role of the Serjeant-at-arms on that

particular day.

Mr S ESAU: Chair, I can respond. First, all of us are governed by a

job description when we take office, even as Members of Parliament.

I am simply asking the question, did you exercise your

responsibility as a Serjeant-at-arms and follow the procedures laid

down in your job description.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Okay, okay, I think that question... I think she

should be able to answer that one. Hon Mncwango?

Mr M A MNCWANGO: Chairperson, the Serjeant-at-arms was actually very

busy on that day, which can be seen in the clips there. One of the

things that you actually said you were going to do after talking to

the hon Mr Malema in vain, you said to him in Sepedi, you are going

to call the security and he responded in Sepedi. Excuse my inability

to repeat exactly what you said but, in your own translation, you

said he was actually saying “call them”. Then you actually went out

to call the security. But then, you were followed by members of the

SAPS. Is that the security that you went out to call or you actually

just had some people actually, you know, exploiting the situation,

and actually following you? I mean people who were not supposed to

be in the House because you did not call them in. You were looking

for Parliamentary security. I just need to get some clarity on that.

Thank you.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Hon Kilian?

Mrs J D KILIAN: Chairperson, parts of my questions were, in fact,

posed. I would like to hear the responses and then have an

opportunity to pose follow up questions.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Okay. Ms Mohlomi, maybe you can also just repeat

that part of your Sepedi version when you spoke to Malema so that it

becomes a little bit clear and then continue with the responses.

Ms R MOHLOMI: Chairperson, I spoke in the main in Sepedi to Mr

Malema. I guess because I am more comfortable. It is my mother

tongue and I know that Mr Malema also understands and speaks Sepedi.

Therefore I said to him, Ntate Malema, Speaker o re sepelang.

Meaning that the Speaker says you must leave the Chamber, as a

summary. Mr Malema in his response said – I might not have included

this previously but he did say that – “Ga re ye felo, re nyaka

tšhelete”. We are going nowhere we want money. At the time when I

was trying to plead, I saw that I was not getting anywhere, I said

to Mr Malema “Ke tla swanela ke go bitša masekhurithi a tle o tlo le

ntšha ka mo.” I will have to call the security to come and take you

out of the Chamber.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Yes, continue with the responses to the questions.

Ms R MOHLOMI: To which Mr Malema said “Ba bitše.” Meaning, call

them. Chair, I have written the questions down but I have not

written them according to the order that they were asked. Therefore,

I will just go according to the first one that I have here.

The question – I think it is by Mr Filtane – about whether the

Serjeant-at-arms has authority to remove members after the House has

been suspended. That is the question. I am not sure Chairperson,

whether the suspension of the House on that particular day rules out

the instruction that was given. You will remember that the Speaker

did say, “We are suspending the House so that these members will be

removed from the House.” She did say “so that the Members would be

removed from the House”. So, in my mind the instruction that was

given right at the beginning of the disruption was continued with

the instruction that said, we are suspending... so that these

members can be removed.

The other question has to do with the job description of the

Serjeant-at-arms, whether the role relating to the job description

was carried out. Chairperson, the Serjeant-at-arms, as much as she

has the responsibility to remove... and I say remove in inverted

comas because removing somebody obviously would mean that you would

either nudge them on or handle them in some way. I do not think it

is the intention of any Parliament for Members to be removed in that

way. On this particular day, it was difficult because it was not one

member. I must say, my own experience of a member being removed was

only once was only once, and I did not even have to remove. When I

approached the member, the member left and I was very relieved. But,

on this particular day, we had a number of members standing

together, shouting and screaming. It would not have been possible

for any Serjeant-at-arms, I suppose, to be able to carry out... if

we understand removing, meaning that she must do it herself, alone.

As far as the administration is concerned, there is co-operation

between the protection services of Parliament and the office of the

Serjeant-at-arms in carrying out the duties. For example, you will

see when there is a vote that we depend on the protection services

to help us to secure the doors and close the doors because we do not

have enough people inside the House. So, there is that working

relationship between us. It was expected, at least from my side,

that the protection services are the ones who should be coming into

the Chamber to remove the members.

The fact that I did not find the leader of the group probably has

led to the Members not being removed, hence the question, but I was

conscious that these people do not report to me and that they had

somebody who is at a similar level as I am reporting to. Therefore,

I thought that it would be right for her to be there when the

instruction is given, she has to be the in fact with her contingent

of staff.

Mr Mncwango is asking a question about the members of the SAPS

following me into the Chamber. I am sorry I do not recall them

following me, but I certainly did not call members of the SAPS to

follow me into the Chamber. As I indicated, my intention to go

outside of that door was to get support from the internal protection

services section staff, So, if there is a clip that shows members of

the SAPS actually following me, I do not know how it happened. I did

not call them; they really did not even speak to me at all.

Mr Twala is asking that I was at close proximity to a senior

official. I do not remember that. Which part of the clip Mr Twala is

referring to?

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): You’re done? Are you done for now?

Ms R MOHLOMI: No, this question I’m unable to answer what Mr Twala

asked because it refers to a part in the clip. If I can be shown

that part first please.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Do we have the capacity to identify the clip, Mr

van Voore?

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): Mr Adonis? ... I’m assisted ...

there’s some guidance. It is apparently just before this particular

frame and roughly at 20 minutes 10 seconds.

VIEWING OF THE VIDEO FOOTAGE.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): I think if you take it at 20 minutes

and just let it run.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Looks like you need batteries.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): I’m afraid Mr Chairman ...

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Is the electronics failing us again?

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): ... that the electronics appear to

be getting the better of us at this stage. I’m confident that it

will take no more than a few moments to resolve.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Okay, I think while they are battling with the

electronics this side, hon Bongo wanted to speak, hon Booi wanted to

speak, hon Killian wanted to speak and hon Mdakane wanted to speak,

in that order. Hon Bongo?

Mr B T BONGO: Thank you Chair. I just wanted to confirm with the

Serjeant-at-arms that on the day in question there was nothing

untoward that she was doing except to act in terms of the rules of

Parliament and the instructions given by the authorities.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): You got that, right? Mr Adonis, just remove the

mic so that if it makes some sound then it should not make noise

until you have got an opportunity. Okay. Hon Booi?

Are you ready? Okay, I will do so.

Mr M S BOOI: What really interests me ... I want to find out about

the behaviour patterns at that moment ... I mean with the Serjeant-

at-arms versus a Member of Parliament. How would you ... the

perception created for a member who was not next to you and the

perception created in the public ... what would you think about it?

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Okay, instead of proceeding can we have that clip?

Because I think it is ready.

VIEWING OF THE VIDEO FOOTAGE.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): Mr Adonis, if you could rewind it.

There is somebody with a police cap – a hard one rather than a soft

hat. The person has just moved out of the frame a few seconds before

this. So, if you can just rewind it a little bit please.

VIEWING OF THE VIDEO FOOTAGE.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Okay, and then I’m sure you have been assisted.

You will be able to respond?

Ms R MOHLOMI: Yes.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Okay, and then we had hon Killian who was on the

line.

Mrs J D KILIAN: Was somebody not interrupted ... but Chairperson, I

can proceed. I just wanted to confirm from hon Mohlomi if she can

recall any previous incident of such a grave nature in her tenure as

Serjeant-at-arms? Has she ever been requested to walk somebody out

the House in her tenure?

Secondly ... May I proceed Chair? ... And if she can tell us about

the details.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Can we save her ... so that you will get another

opportunity to raise a second question.

Mrs J D KILLIAN: Okay.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): uTata Mdakane, did you want to take your question

now? It’s yours. You’ll take it next or now? Okay, you are staying.

Okay, you can proceed to respond.

Ms R MOHLOMI: Chairperson, I will respond to Mr Twala’s question

about me being in close proximity to senior officials of the SAPS.

The only person I know ... and I say know simply because I work with

him ... you know, especially on sitting days ... is the gentleman in

plain clothes. The general I don’t work with. I happen to know he’s

General ... I think ... Lamoer. But the person I speak to from time

to time in carrying out my duties is Captain De Klerk, because he is

the head of the unit that works in Parliament. The other police

officer standing to my left ... also I can’t say that I can

recognise him. It might be one of the people who work in

Parliament ... I don’t know. They happened to come to our space

there when we were speaking to the two members, but I don’t know how

they got there. I did not ... I wasn’t involved in calling them into

the Chamber.

Mr Bongo, I can confirm that I’m convinced that what I attempted to

do on that day was simply to carry out an instruction by the

presiding officer – the Speaker of the House – and I don’t know

about anything untoward ... I just did what I was called upon to do.

I don’t know if that will be enough, Mr Bongo?

Mrs Killian is asking whether there were any previous incidents when

I was requested to remove a member. There were two incidents before,

but as I indicated, one: where I actually walked from my bench

towards the member but before I got there the member left. And

another instance was as I was standing up because the Speaker had

said, “Serjeant-at-arms, remove the member.” The member actually

packed his things and left. So the incident of the 21st of August

was very, very new to me. I had never done anything like this ever

in my life.

Utata Booi was asking about the perceptions that I think have been

created ... MPs and the Serjeant-at-arms. I did not understand that

question very clearly, Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Ja, it is was problematic because it was actually

asking your views, instead of hard facts. Ms Mothapo?

Mrs M R M MOTHAPO: Thank you, Chair. In the video clip, there is an

incident, Ms Mohlomi, where hon Malema appears to be very angry and

throwing his hands in the air. It is at that time where he was

saying, in my mother tongue, “ga re ye felo, ga re ye felo, goba ba

bitše, ba bitše” [we are going nowhere, we are going nowhere or call

them, call them], because there he appeared very angry.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Okay, and then hon Mncwango?

Mr M A MNCWANGO: Thank you for your indulgence, Mr Chair. I just

have two and nothing else. I just want... I’m interested in this

question of the instruction that you were given, Madam Serjeant-at-

Arms, that... you were given an instruction to go and remove people.

You said that you thought that the Speaker actually was referring to

the members of the EFF because she was actually even facing in their

direction. In the same direction... the members of the DA... the

EFF... and my leader of... the leader of my own party was in the

same direction. And you went there and spoke to Mr Ndlozi and Mr

Malema. In your own mind, did the Speaker actually mean that you

remove the entire... let’s say she actually was referring to... you

were right to say that she was referring to the EFF. Was she

actually referring to the... Were you actually going to be moving

out the entire component of the EFF or just another member? If you

had succeeded to move them out, would you have removed the entire 25

members of the EFF, in your own understanding of the instruction?

The last one. If you could just identify for us that gentleman

who... and the lady... who you actually followed and tried to

restrain. Who is that gentleman and that lady? Who are they?

THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Okay, and then I think we had hon Kilian with

another question. You have the floor.

Mrs J D KILIAN: Thank you, Chairperson. It appears to me – or maybe

Ms Mohlomi could assist us – if I read the Act, it appears that the

Speaker is responsible for the security at Parliament, together with

the Chairperson, in terms of section 3 of the Powers and Privileges

Act.

Section 4 then proceeds further to say on what... when members of

the security must be around, enter upon, remain in the precincts,

etc, for the purpose of performing any policing function or perform

any policing function in the precincts only with the permission or

under the authority of the Speaker. But then, it proceeds further to

say, the police, the protection services, however, may intervene if

they have a fear of maybe an immediate danger to the lives... or

damage to property, etc. And then only in such circumstances, can

they inform the Speaker afterwards.

In other words, it is not the Speaker calling on them to come in;

they protect the number of members who are around. Could you just

confirm that that was your understanding as well, so that we

understand your responsibility as Serjeant-at-Arms to be more

ceremonial and only because of the very limited number of members of

protection services around, that you are to walk members out, but in

cases of imminent threat, obviously, there is an additional security

function by the police services as stipulated in the Constitution

and in the Act. Could you please just confirm that? Thank you.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): I just hope that she has a copy of that particular

Act and then to be able to comment on it. If not so, and then, it

may be difficult but, if you know, then make the necessary

explanation and response. Is there any other member that wanted to

pose a question? Hon Filtane and then followed by hon Mdakane. Let’s

have Filtane first, hon Mdakane. He raised his hand before you.

Mr M L W FILTANE: Thank you, once more, Chair. About SAPS, the SA

Police Service... When would you feel obligated to call SAPS as

different from the parliamentary security services? I’ll tell you

what is going through my mind because I want just an answer. Would

you do so when you feel that there is a potential crime to be

committed that you would... that you must call the SAPS, or would

you do that for a different reason? I am mindful of the quotation

that hon Kilian has just read. I think it is just as well that I am

posing this question after she has explained the legal situation.

But my question still stands for a certain reason in respect of what

she could do. Thank you.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Okay, hon Mdakane.

Mr M R MDAKANE: Chair, I wanted just... I think when the... Ms

Mohlomi would know Rule 42 in the Rules Book of the National

Assembly that defines really the role of the Serjeant-at-Arms and

how to do and what not to do. But I wanted to pose just a short

question. You may comment, Ms Mohlomi, or also not comment on that

if you think that I am putting a difficult question. What was your

understanding of what was happening in the House when the hon

Speaker called upon you to assist her? And then you have stated, of

course, that it was the first time in your life that you were facing

a situation like that. That would assist me to understand your

movement from that corner to this corner. And that, in your mind,

what was your understanding? What was happening in the House? But

also, given the fact that Parliament is a national key point...

Parliament is a national key point. And then security forces will

always be around Parliament because it is a national key point. And

then in fact when we come this side, every day, there will be one or

two SAPS people around here. It simply means that, in my view... but

we will discuss that, Chair.

I wanted just to raise that what was your own understanding? You

have been here for some time. Surely you have seen many things

happening. You have evolved with the institution. That’s why I

thought that your understanding of what was happening in the House

on that day when the Speaker called upon you to assist her... And

that was the point that I wanted you also to assist me to

understand. Then, if it is a fair question, you can answer. If you

are not... [Inaudible.]... on that issue.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Okay. Ntate Booi?

Mr M S BOOI: Chair, I was now going through the Powers and

Privileges Act and look at four. I just want you to look at that,

that presence of security services in precincts of Parliament, and

your relationship. If you could just go through that and then, in

terms of that, tell me where do you fit within that. I accept the

fact that you said... [Inaudible.] ... there is a control over

precincts of Parliament. But we want to go to four which deals with

the security which seems to be your main responsibility. How much do

you understand the Act itself in relation to the security services

and their role? If you could just read it so that all of us can see

if you are far in understanding your role in terms of the security

services.

An HON MEMBER: A point of privilege, Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Hon members, the question in relation to the

Act... shouldn’t we then give her a minute or two to actually be

able to go to that particular provision in the Act, and look at it.

Remember that, at the moment, of course, we are just throwing

questions that she never knew that you are going to throw in. The

level of preparedness to respond to your question maybe not be up

the level that we may ask her to respond. And we may also be a

little bit unfair, because I think if we could give her just some

two, three minutes... If she is ready, she will indicate to us, and

be able to respond on the two questions.

I think it is three. It is now hon Kilian, hon Filtane, and hon Booi

who have spoken to the provision of security services in relation to

the Act, and how she fits in and how she understands that particular

paragraph and... So it is...

I think, let’s be honourable enough to accord her an opportunity to

look at that. Is that acceptable, hon members?

Mr M L W FILTANE: That is exactly what I wanted to say, Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Thank you very much for you understanding. Then we

can keep quiet ourselves... [Interjections.] Tjoepstil.

[Interjections.] Okay, yes, you can for tea, and then let’s make

sure that the tea doesn’t take more than 10 minutes. Then the

witness will be able to look at that specific document so that we

get the correct understanding, not a rush-rush...

Thank you very much. Go for your tea. Maximum six minutes, then the

other three minutes, then you are walking back.

[THE PROCEEDINGS WERE SUSPENDED TO ALLOW FOR A TEA BREAK]

The Committee resumed after a tea break.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr L B Mashile): Hon members, I hope that our witness may be ready.

Then she can proceed to respond to the questions. And when you

arrive at that specific question that benefited us to have some tea,

then you’ll just proceed and make all those explanations. If you are

ready, you may proceed.

MS R MOHLOMI: Chair, I don’t know if this thing is on. Can I start

with the ... with your permission, Chair, can I start with the

question by Mr Mncwango? Mr Mncwango was asking whether my

understanding was whether the entire component of the EFF was

supposed to be removed from the House following the instruction to

remove. Chair, I did not, at the moment of the instruction, actually

think about what it is ... who it is that will be ... because it was

... you will have seen on the clip that it was a number of members

of the EFF who, in turn, first of all, stood up, even though the

Speaker kept on saying, “I have not recognised you. I have not

recognised you.”

Secondly, members who stood up and shouted at different intervals -

there is quite a good number of them who stood up and were shouting

– it was not possible for me to actually pinpoint which members of

the EFF were the ones to be removed. The only thing that I was

certain of was ... is that a good collective of the members of the

EFF were the ones that the Speaker wanted to be removed from the

Chamber.

Member Mothapo’s question about when Mr Malema is seen throwing his

hands in the air – was it the time when he was saying, “Ga re ye

felo. We are not going anywhere”? That is correct, Ma’am.

Chairperson, that is the time in two ... the first, he said, “We are

not going anywhere. We want the money.” And then the next ... the

gesture was “ba bitše, ba bitše”, like this. And that is correct,

Ma.

The other questions have to do with section 4 of the Powers and

Privileges Act, the issue of the presence of security services and

the ... my understanding of the role of the Serjeant-at-arms. Also,

the other question is whether, when I was called to assist,

considering that Parliament is a national keypoint, what it is that

that meant, and also, the issue, I think it was about at what ...

how ... when would I call the security services, under what

circumstances, I think Mr Filtane asked.

You know, with your permission, Chairperson, I think that there is a

little bit of background to this. The duty of the Serjeant ... the

work, the job of the Serjeant-at-arms in this Parliament is slightly

different from the Serjeants-at-arms in other Parliaments in this

way: Previously, the Serjeant-at-arms was responsible for the ...

what I call traditional Serjeant-at-arms work, which involved

support to the presiding officer during sittings of the House, but

also the issuing of tickets – you know, gallery tickets – and also

the managing of the group of people who are responsible for the

security. In other words, the protection services of Parliament

would report under the Serjeant-at-arms. That’s what happens in

other Parliaments.

In this Parliament, a few years ago, this was changed with the

establishment of the security services. Previously, I understand

that the few ... the small contingent of security that we had here

reported under the Serjeant-at-arms, I believe. But during my time,

we had already established the parliamentary Protection Services

Section. And that is where the work that relates mostly to the

security element of the job of a Serjeant-at-arms was removed to be

done by the Protection Services Section.

So, in order to answer this question, the Serjeant-at-arms in this

Parliament would go as far as securing or assisting the presiding

officer inside the Chamber, and whatever else that is required,

including liaison with the security services, including calling them

out here, would be done by – I suppose – the manager of the security

protection services in the institution. So, to answer what Mr Booi

is asking, my understanding of section 4 and the role of the

Serjeant-at-arms, that is how I understand my role – that the

issue ... the work is divided between the Serjeant-at-arms and the

protection services.

So, at the point where I call upon the protection services, that is

where, probably most or all of the issues under section 4 of the Act

will come into place. I see ... my understanding is that the

Serjeant-at-arms, in our case, is sort of the link between what is

going on in the House and what it is that we might need to do, as

far as security services is concerned.

Mr Filtane is asking whether I would feel obligated to call SAPS

instead of the parliamentary protection services, under what

circumstances. Generally, as a staff member of Parliament, not only

in my role as Serjeant-at-arms, if I saw something that was

happening, I ... somebody was being beaten up within the precincts

of Parliament, or I suspected that something ... you know that the

FMPA requires me to actually report these things if I see that

something is being stolen, for example. So, generally, as a member

of staff, I would actually call ... in fact, possibly what I would

do, because I wouldn’t know who to contact at the security services,

my first port of call would probably be our parliamentary protection

services, and I guess the same in the ... in my duties as a

Serjeant-at-arms. I probably would fall onto asking our

parliamentary protection services because they have a better ...

more red line, you know, between themselves and the security

services.

Mr Booi’s question about the perceptions that might have been

created – I don’t know how to answer that. [Interjections.]

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE (Mr B

L Mashile): Alright. Thanks. If you do not have an answer for that,

it is fine. There is no crime. Hon Twala, you can put your question.

Mr D L TWALA: Ms Mohlomi, what is the significance of the Mace that

you so ... yes, the knob-kierie ... [Laughter.] ... you know, that

comes into the Chamber to signify the beginning of business, and we

afford it serious respect, and it is treated with dignity by all of

us, including members of staff? That would be one.

Number two, you have been here for a number of years. You have gone

through a variety of experiences with different executives and

Parliaments whose function it is to conduct oversight on the

executive. You have borne witness to what you will call serious,

robust debates. You know, you have the executive responding to

Questions as raised by Members of Parliament in the fulfilment of

their duty to conduct oversight. In your experience, have the

answers been adequate enough, satisfactory enough to satisfy the

members as they pose such questions? Thanks.

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE (Mr B

L Mashile): Hon members, I need to protect the witness from that. I

think we are trying our level best, hon members, you know ... if you

try and solicit a view, you are creating a problem. Do not solicit a

view. We must simply get exactly what happened, hard facts as

evidence. Then the views and the political understanding and all

that, reserve it for your own deliberations at your own level as

politicians. That last question, I think it is seriously unfair, and

not necessarily just unfair – even misplaced to the person that you

are putting it to.

Remember that is just an official, and her job is a Serjeant-at-arms

and does not engage in political activities or whatever. Therefore,

to expect her to have an opinion on the answer, which I think the

Rules book that we have, it also indicates that even the Speaker –

it is not her duty to actually really make that determination, as a

presiding officer or all presiding officers. So, I think that one

last question, hon Twala, don’t expect it to be answered. If you

want to replace it with another question, you may do so.

Mr D L TWALA: For clarity’s sake, Ms Mohlomi has expressed an

opinion deriving from her experience in this Parliament: She has

never borne witness to this or that activity. That is an opinion.

Now, if a question is premised on the same basis as her previous

answers to other questions, why should she not be able to answer

this one?

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE (Mr B

L Mashile): Hon member, I did not think that you were going to argue

about that one. I thought that you were going to put another

question because surely we do not need to argue about that one. If

we become aware that that is a situation that is happening, we will

always call ourselves to order. I mean if it crops up from her

answer and then saying whatever she is saying is fine, but for us to

actually expect her to give an opinion as a witness is wrong from

the Members of Parliament. That is what I am just communicating to

ourselves and that we just simply make sure that we are really

putting fair questions, actually to get the evidence that will

assist you in relation to the work that you have in front of you.

Hon Mncwango?

Mr M A MNCWANGO: Mr Chairman, there is one question that my sister

over there actually did not answer. Mine was actually to identify

for us the gentleman and the lady, firstly. The second one actually

which probably would be the last one from my part is that I do not

see any role that was played by parliamentary security on that day,

despite the fact that the Speaker had actually specifically asked

you to get the security to do something about the situation that had

developed. I have been following this clip through and through, but

I was not able to identify a single member of parliamentary

security, not to say that I actually know every one of them, but I

have not had any witness actually saying that one is a member of the

parliamentary security unit. Why were they not there? How secure is

this Parliament if such an event could take place right up to the

end without them actually, you know, taking any notice of what was

happening and then make themselves available to try and intervene?

Thank you.

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE (Mr B

L Mashile): Alright, you may proceed, Ms Mohlomi.

Ms R MOHLOMI: Apologies, Mr Mncwango, I really did forget to answer

this question about who the people are who burst into the Chamber. I

forgot their names. I do know that they are members of the National

Assembly, and I know that the gentleman is a member of the ANC, I

think. The two members who came bursting ... that is what you are

asking, sir? Yes, yes. [Interjections.] Mr Mncwango was looking for

who they are. Really, I cannot remember their names now.

About the role played by the parliamentary protection services that

day, in one of my answers to a question, I did indicate that as I

went outside, three of my colleagues from protection services were

actually at the door. You will see there are people in lime green

shirts out there. I do not think that they were absent and that they

were far away from what was happening. I guess that they were

waiting for an instruction to be given to them to do whatever it is

that they are required to do in terms of their standard operating

procedures, so they were around. They were around the Chamber. I

won’t say that they were not here at all, Mr Mncwango.

What is the other question now? Mr Twala asked the question about

the significance of the Mace. I ... well, one of the things about

the Mace is that it is one of the things that we inherited from the

Westminster system, and it is supposed to show ... one of the things

is to show the authority of the Speaker. But we have had a time –

there was an incident once when we didn’t have the Mace in the House

because the locking system did not work properly, but the

proceedings did go ahead, and they were recorded in the normal

manner. There was nothing untoward about that sitting of that day. I

suppose that is one thing that members would think about. In my

training, it signifies the authority of the Speaker.

I cannot remember. Is there any more?

The CHAIRPERSON (Mr R L Mashile): I think you are done except for

that other question which I ruled out.

Mr M S BOOI: For record purposes, I want to enunciate my question,

seeing that 4(2), it’s what I want to be able to see as I’m

narrating the events and the way you came in. It says, when there is

an immediate danger to the life or safety of any person or damage to

any property, members of the security services may without obtaining

such permission enter upon and take action in the precincts insofar

it is necessary to avert that danger.

That is what I’m dealing with, because, you see, I mean I heard

noise, hon ... [Interjections.] ... the hitting of the hats and

everything, I mean it has never happened, that is not like a ball

pen falling, it was clear that there was hitting of hats, lot of

noise was taking place, which is not been like quite a normal

parliamentary activity. So, I’m just saying, when the Speaker gave

the instruction because she is the one that really gave the

instruction.

I mean, was that the environment that was prevailing at that point

in time that determined the whole interaction to take place? Because

it is covered by the law, that is why I was interested for you not

just read 4,1 but to also look at 4,2 that at that stage, when all

of us our lives were in danger, and you have the right to answer the

question was taken away.

The CHAIRPERSON (Mr R L Mashile): I’m still being taken a little bit

aback and I think - order! – I think there is no danger with the

referral to the section in the Act. The minute there is a need for

an interpretation and to express a view that when the challenge

arises, and I think she can indicates where she fits in, in what

that law stipulates.

Mr M A MNCWANGO: Well, I’m not sure, Mr Chairman, in terms of your

own ruling just a few minutes ago, whether she would not be

expressing an opinion, if she were to delve into the interpretations

of this because, people like myself, I find it completely irrelevant

in the whole proceeding, because it could be argued whether there

was immediate danger or what. So, I don’t want to get into that, but

I’m merely concerned that we could be actually asking her to express

an opinion.

The CHAIRPERSON (Mr R L Mashile): Hon members, just a second. Hon

members, that’s why I’m saying, that part which hon Booi is asking

her, to express her view, that’s the one I’m saying it’s not

correct, but the referral of that section and for her to see where

she fits in, in terms of the provision of the Act, that’s fine, that

is fine.

Mr M S BOOI: Chair, can we replay the video there? You’ll definitely

see, when the Serjeant-at-arms went over and had an interaction with

hon Malema and at that level, that’s why I’m raising this particular

point to see what happened at that point in time, was it the law? I

mean, I’m reading the law, it’s the law - the point of order I don’t

understand. The law talks about danger. It’s not an expression of

opinion, it’s the circumstances and it’s what was happening in that

particular minute.

The CHAIRPERSON (Mr R L Mashile): I just need to make this clear,

hon members, the Serjeant-at-arms is operating under the instruction

of the Speaker, and it is the Speaker that made a determination and

made a ruling. By asking for members to be taken out, she made a

ruling and whether the Serjeant-at-arms was thinking there was

danger or no danger, or it was high or low, there is nothing she

could do until there was an instruction to do so.

That’s why I was saying, for her to express an opinion on that one

it would be problematic. But for the provision in the Act, as it

spells out when and under which circumstances police or security

services can come in, she can actually indicate where she falls in

on that particular process as the Serjeant-at-arms, she can do that,

but not express an opinion whether there was more danger or less

danger.

That’s the one I’m saying let’s reserve that to our own

deliberations and not expect her to express that view. I’m pleading,

because we need to get responses from the witness and putting

questions to the witness, and not take too much time sorting

ourselves out on procedures that we are supposed to be long clear

about them.

Do you want to raise a question, hon Twala? Okay, if that is the

case, let me take hon Mdakane first as he raised his hand before all

of you. That’s why I wanted to come to you if you wanted to raise

questions.

Mr M R MDAKANE: Hon Chair, in a hearing there is no point of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Mr R L Mashile): I order.

Mr M R MDAKANE: No, there is no point of order, this is a hearing,

it’s not a committee meeting. The fact that you’ve allowed it, does

not mean that it is correct. There is no point of order in hearing.

The witness is there, we are putting question to the witness; there

is no point of order. The point of order is going to happen when we

discuss this matter substantive in our own committee.

But the point, Chair, which I wanted to raise, is that I’m not sure

that the panellists can propose closure into the matter. It is

important because there are witnesses who are coming but we should

stick to the reason why the witness is here, because we agreed that

the witnesses will be here.

There is a main purpose why the Serjeant-at-arms is here, not to

reinterpret the law, I guess. But to explain some of the laws that

we have observed in terms of the entire clip. Yes, getting the video

that we were watching. I do think that, Chair, maybe the fellow

panellists they should accept that they should exhausted the

question that were relevant to the subject matter, that’s why the

Serjeant-at-arms was called here.

Don’t forget that there are witnesses that are appearing now, are

the witnesses that were identified by the committee, therefore they

were here to serve a certain specific reason and then if we have

exhausted that reason, Chair, my view is that we should really close

the matter and continue with the other witnesses if they are still

available. Otherwise we may discuss all our other issues, the

interpretation, and all these; I don’t think it’s very fair for any

witness on this matter, Chair.

I really propose that there are panellists; our duty is to ensure

that we listen to the entire evidence, and when we meet then, we can

then discuss some of these issues, and then point of orders will be

made there, not in the hearing. That’s what I’m proposing, comrade

Chair, that we should do.

The CHAIRPERSON: (Mr R L Mashile): Okay, hon Mncwango, no not now,

you’ll follow Twala, then Filtane and then yourself. But I think

that the proposal that has been made by the hon Mdakane still

remains, and then we should just remember that it has been made and

then we continue and make those questions knowing that the proposal

is there.

It is correct, hon members, that when we agreed on the names of

these witnesses there were motivations that were made that made all

of you to agree that a specific witness should come because there is

a specific gap to close on your evidence and therefore, that has

been done. But if we go all out and ambush the witnesses, then you

may not be correct to your own decisions that you have made.

That’s why it is very difficult when you have the power and the

right in terms of the schedule to cross question a witness for me to

stop you from doing it, but I really do ask for your understanding

to really make sure that you do ask the questions that you said you

wanted to ask to get answers to close those specific evidence gaps.

If you go all out, know that while you are doing that, but you are

really true to the main reasons you persuaded each other to agree on

these witnesses to come. Yes, let’s continue hon Twala. I will

excuse you, hon Twala, because you were not in that meeting, then

any possibility of jumping outside the circle, you would just try

and humanly – order! – and we will humanly just advise that, no,

you’ve just skipped the circle and then we would rely on your

understanding. Continue!

Mr D L TWALA: Thanks Chair. Look, I was basically seeking clarity on

the statement you made earlier, but what I would rather do ...

because then we might inflame emotions ... let’s agree as you have

proposed, as well as hon Mdaka has suggested, that we are done with

the witness. She can be allowed to leave. Thanks.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Ja, that is progressive and seriously progressive.

Hon Mncwango, I am sure you’ve just heard him; he is just next to

you. Order, order, hon Bongo! I think you have been quiet since

morning; if you could sustain the quietness. Hon Mncwango, you are

on the floor.

Mr M A MNCWANGO: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I’m actually going to

surprise you, because I agree with Mr Twala and also the proposal

made by hon Mr Mdakane. However, I would feel comfortable that that

proposal is implemented only after the witness has actually been

able to identify those two people. We need to help her do so, by

actually playing that clip, because I could ... some of us in this

room could actually help you identify the names of those ...

THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Hon members, I think the members in question are

on the clip, and if Mr Van Voore ... if it is a possibility to

identify that particular section on the clip, then you can just play

it. Then she sees them ... if she knows their names then she says.

Then hon Mncwango will be now supporting the end of this session.

Can we give them a minute or two to identify that part of the clip?

VIEWING OF THE VIDEO FOOTAGE

Mr M A MNCWANGO: Through you Mr Chairman, she could also probably

try to explain why she was restraining them. Restraining ... I am

using this word very cautiously.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Hon Mncwango, just be orderly. You wanted

identification ... [Interjection.]

Mr M S BOOI: Ja, because now all of us must use our privileges as

members. We can’t be suppressed.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): If she wants ... if she knows their names ...

otherwise then you may go on a wholesale identification of everybody

that is appearing on the video, and it can’t be correct. You have

made your plea that we play the clip. If she knows the names of

those two, then she does so. Let’s give her an opportunity if she

can remember the names of those members and then do so. If she

doesn’t recall the names, it’s fine. Madam Mohlomi ... Order, hon

member!

Mr M S BOOI: Chair, no, we are bossed ... no, we are being pushed

also because I raised the question ... I also want to see the video

and be able to explain what do I mean by danger, because I don’t

think, in terms of the law ... I mean it’s written down ... It’s a

law, I want to see and I want that video to go back to where I’m

seeing that’s where the Serjeant-at-arms was standing, because if it

comes to that push we would all have to follow the same procedure

and stay here until late. There is nothing wrong, there’s nothing

wrong.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Well, hon members, let’s hear whether the

Serjeant-at-arms knows the names of those two persons that hon

Mncwango wants to be identified. And of course, we are definitely

sure that hon Mncwango knows all of them by name. No, no, no, no,

no, please hon Mncwango, let’s just be honest with ourselves and be

hon members continuously until the end of the fifth term. Madam

Mohlomi?

Ms R MOHLOMI: Chair, I regret, I know the members, I know their

faces, I know where they sit in the Chamber but I can’t remember

their names now.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Okay, if that is the case then that brings us to

the end of this specific witness.

Mr M A MNCWANGO: Can I help Mr Chairman because I know the

gentleman is hon Luzipho.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): No, no, no, no, hon Mncwango, I don’t think that

you are painting the correct picture to ourselves and even the

public. Because when you asked for them to be identified, you said

you don’t know them, whereas we know that when we were viewing the

video you really called those people by names, yourself. The time

when you got an opportunity to look at the video even before the

evidence was led, you actually even talked to the real names of

these people. Now today you say you don’t know them ... she must

identify. Now she says she doesn’t have the names ... then now you

want to help that you know the names. I think it is not correct. Can

you identify those names in our deliberations and discussions

yourself?

Mr M A MNCWANGO: Thanks, Mr Chairman, I will ... that we will do

with the aide of this clip. All I had wanted was that the lady

identifies the names of those people because I believe strongly that

she knows them. She interacted with them. If she had forgotten about

their names now, but she can actually go and refresh her mind.

Mr M S BOOI: On a point of order, Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Hon members, you need to assist us hon Mncwango,

otherwise it will look like I am trying to suppress you and the

intention is not to do that. You see, you are labouring on a belief.

You believe that she knows them. You are not saying that she knows

them and that is a little bit problematic. But, if you just wanted

the names to be on record here, then you should have just done

so ... because she says she doesn’t know the names and we have to

actually take the word from her. Therefore, I think this should

bring us to the end of this specific witness, then as seconded by

hon Twala.

Then, I want, really on behalf of all of you hon members, to thank

the Serjeant-at-arms for having agreed and made herself available to

come to this hearing and give us the evidence or responses to the

questions that have been lawfully put to her. She has done her

best ... to the best of her knowledge and I hope that whatever

responses she has given us, will assist you members in your

discussions and deliberations in order to actually reach a point

where you can go back and report to the House. Mr Van Voore, is

there anything that you need to say in relation to your witness?

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): Mr Chairman, other than to thank

Madam Mohlomi – Serjeant-at-arms – for her co-operation here this

afternoon, I have no further questions for the Serjeant-at-arms.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Thank you very much, and we really do thank you

again Madam Mohlomi, le ka moso [even tomorrow]. Hon members, I

think ... [Laughter.] ... ja, she is released. I just need to also

maybe recognise Mr Van Voore ... if there is any other witness that

is coming. Mr Van Voore?

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): Mr Chairman, the arrival of other

witnesses is sadly a matter beyond my control. I did indicate

earlier that I anticipated potentially two more witnesses – one of

them being the Chief Whip of the Opposition; the other being the

Deputy Chief Whip of the Majority Party. I have not been informed

that either of those two persons is within the precincts, and I

suppose the committee will be guided by you, Mr Chairman, as to how

we proceed.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Hon members, as we have indicated at the beginning

of this particular hearing, hon Steenhuizen ... the latest is that

he is arriving late, and even when he arrives, he has got another

engagement that he’s gonna go ... he’s not gonna come here. That is

the challenge that we are having.

And then the Deputy Chief Whip of the Majority Party ... then we

understood that she’s gonna be here in Parliament for this hearing

around 17:00. I think her flight will be landing at 16:00. So we

still await for her to be here.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE:

Now, in relation to the two Ministers, Minister Mahlobo is in Angola

as it has been explained when we started. Minister Cwele is in South

Korea as it has been explained. Now, in relation to the two

Ministers, given your discussions on the evidence or the gap that

you wanted them to come and fill in, we received an affidavit from

Minister Mahlobo on that specific gap that you discussed and wanted

him to give evidence on, together with Minister Cwele. He has sent

the affidavit from Luanda and we got it this morning and it has

reached this desk.

Last week when we suspended, the intention was that, of course,

today we will be meeting and receiving this evidence from these

witnesses. Therefore the situation that we are having is that today,

hon Steenhuisen is not going to be here, even if we can wait here

until 21:00 or 22:00 or midnight. He has got another engagement when

he lands here late. Of course, as I have said, the Deputy Chief Whip

is going to be here around 17:00 and we are not going to have the

two Ministers, but we’ve got an affidavit in relation to that

specific matter that you wanted them to actually clarify.

Hon members, ntate [Mr] Twala, followed by Lotriet and then Mdakane.

I hope that you are raising a hand not to debate the matter but to

indicate the way forward on how to deal with it.

Mr D L TWALA: Chair, I would suggest that we defer the meeting in

view of the fact that the two witnesses are not available, perhaps

until tomorrow. On the issue of the Ministers, we would naturally

want to engage with them. I don’t think an affidavit will be

sufficient; it is not that interactive. In my view, I would rather

advise that if we are to get anything, and be perceived to be fair,

get the Ministers to come in as well and be subjected to the same

rigorous interaction that the members have had with other witnesses.

I thank you, Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE:

Okay. Hon lotriet.

Dr A LOTRIET: Chair, I just want to indicate that hon Steenhuisen is

available tomorrow. I remember that we also, at the beginning of the

meeting, said that we could look at tomorrow as a possible

opportunity for witnesses.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE:

I will explain something after that. Hon Mdakane.

Mr M R MDAKANE: Chair, just for me not to cause my own confusion. I

just understood all along that when we deal with matters of

procedural and processes nature we meet as a committee and not as a

panel. We only meet as a panel when there is a witness in front of

us. Right now in fact, we are in a committee session. I think we

must not set a precedent because if we set a precedent today, we

must continue doing that. I think we must break, meet as a

committee, take decisions and come back because I think we will be

setting a bad precedent anyway that sometimes the committee meets

and when everyone is there, all over the country, I think we are

going to cause harm to the process that we are involved in.

My view, Chair, is for us to just meet in our small room, have our

discussion on this matter and then we come back and do what we are

supposed to do as a panel. I think that is what we should do, Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON: Thanks for that help and as I have said I was not

expecting discussions, but just simply a way forward on how we deal

with this matter and unfortunately it just got out of hand.

Hon members, a proposal is being made that you retreat to your

committee room. Actually, during that time we will also be waiting

for the Deputy Chief Whip because I think it is just about 16:35.

While you are having that discussion and taking decisions, probably

when you come back and handle the Deputy Chief Whip, we should then

be able to pronounce how we move forward.

You see, hon members, all what I was saying is that we suspended the

hearing last week to this Monday and having regard that tomorrow or

from tomorrow until Thursday, many committees are supposed to adopt

their BRR reports, because it is actually the closing date, and we

are supposed to be participating fully in those BRR. We never had an

intention that this will extend to tomorrow because it is actually

encroaching into territory of the parliamentary work that cannot be

shifted.

Last week after we suspended the hearing to today, we got a note

from Mr van Voore that he will not be available on Tuesday morning.

I think whatever decisions that we take should also talk to that

specific matter.

Can we then request members to go and have - I am not sure whether

there is additional tea and snacks there while you are discussing

over this particular matters. Then we will come back. We will keep

checking up on the Deputy Chief Whip. If she is available then at

17:00 we will reconvene and continue.

The hearing is suspended until 17:00. Thank you, hon members.

COMMITTEE RESUMED AT 17:36

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE (Mr L

B Mashile): Thank you. I think it is now very late in the afternoon

and we need not misuse any other time now; we must use it

fruitfully. Thank you hon members for having had a discussion and

arrived at some understanding on how we will be moving forward and

also, of course, the decision that we should really show some

respect to the next witness that we have been waiting for. We have

pressurised her to travel to actually make this time to ensure that

she graces this occasion and assists us to be able to move forward.

I think it is proper that all of us understand the human respect

that we have shown as the committee members and, of course, given

the fact that tomorrow there is going to a big meeting of Parliament

which the witness that is supposed to be called now maybe in the

centre of that meeting and which may render her unavailable

tomorrow. Therefore, your agreement or consensus on the matter that

she continues to give evidence is appropriate under the

circumstances.

Hon members, I would need to then indicate, as I have said before in

relation to the Minister from whom we have received an affidavit and

it reads as follows: I am Mbangiseni David Mahlobo, an adult male of

42 years of age with a domicile of 10 Rocket Street, Steiltes,

Nelspruit. I am a member of the National Assembly for the Fifth

Parliament of the Republic of South Africa and the Minister of State

Security appointed during this fifth administration.

On 21 August 2014, I was in the Chamber, after a short adjournment

of the plenary session during the President’s oral reply with my

colleague the hon Dr Siyabonga Cwele, we approached fellow

parliamentarians, the hon Malema and Shivambu who are the leaders of

the EFF. We tried to request the two members to co-operate and leave

the Chamber to avoid any unnecessary scuffle with the parliamentary

protective services. The two indicated and flatly refused our plea

and vowed that even if the session had to resume, they will continue

where they left off. Myself and the hon Cwele decided to leave the

two when it became clear that our plea was not favourably received.

Then, signed by the hon Mahlobo. It is signed at Luanda, Angola, on

the 19th of October 2014, and stamped, of course, in the South

African Embassy of Luanda. That is the affidavit that is in front of

me and a copy, of course, will then be forwarded to Mr Van Voore.

Hon members, can we then recognise Mr Van Voore? It looks like the

hon members want to raise something. Let me start with Filtane and

followed by Twala.

Mr M L W FILTANE: Thank you, Chair. I suggest that we do not enter

into any discussion on this affidavit at this point in time. The

main reason is being that we have yet to establish who in Angola has

got authority to allow himself to be deposited with an affidavit.

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE (Mr L

B Mashile): Okay, hon Filtane, that has never been an indication, I

am sure you heard that I was moving to Van Voore to proceed with the

witnesses. Really, there is no discussion on that one. We are just

reading it into the record as we have agreed at the back office and

I do not really think that there is any danger. There is no

discussion on it. Is that in order? Are you covered, the hon Twala?

Mr D L TWALA: Chair, I need to get clarity; I do know if I am

covered. If you say that you are just reading it for the record,

what are the implications of such a reading? Thank you.

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE (Mr L

B Mashile): Well, hon members, I am not sure whether I should really

reopen the thing because we have actually agreed that this is

accepted from the Ministers but you need an opportunity to cross-

question them. That was the agreement. You see, so if that is now

what you agreed I think ... can we proceed? I recognise Mr Van Voore

to proceed.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): Thank you, Mr Chairman. The next

witness is Ms Dlakude, the Deputy Chief Whip of the Majority Party.

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE (Mr L

B Mashile): Thank you. I think that she can be called to come in.

Can we check that that mobile microphone is necessary? If it is no

longer necessary so that it does not intimidate her. Let us double

check the microphone there on the desk whether it is working. If it

is working then the mobile one is not necessary. No, the other one.

Put it on. Do you need the mobile one, because all of them are

working? Okay. Thank you hon members and the hon Dlakude.

Hon members, Rule 138 of the National Assembly Rules requires me

prior to the witness giving evidence to inform her as follows: Hon

Dlakude, please be informed that by law you are required to answer

fully and satisfactorily all the questions lawfully put to you or to

produce any document that you are required to produce in connection

with the subject matter of the inquiry. Notwithstanding that the

answer or document could incriminate you or expose you to criminal

or civil proceedings or damages. You are however protected in that

the evidence given under oath or affirmation before the House or a

committee may not be used against you in any court or place outside

Parliament, except in criminal proceedings concerning a charge of

perjury or a charge relating to the evidence or documents required

in this proceeding. Hon Dlakude, do you have any objection to taking

an oath or making an affirmation?

Ms D E DLAKUDE: No, Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE (Mr L

B Mashile): Do you want to make an affirmation or take an oath?

Ms D E DLAKUDE: I will take an oath.

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE (Mr L

B Mashile): Okay, hon Dlakude, you will have to say the following: I

swear that the testimony or evidence I am going to give is the

truth, and only the truth, so help me God.

Ms D E DLAKUDE: I swear that the testimony or evidence I am going to

give is the truth, and only the truth, so help me God.

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE (Mr L

B Mashile): Thank you very much for having done so. I now recognise

Mr Van Voore to proceed with evidence.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Good

afternoon, Madam Dlakude. Thank you for your time this afternoon.

The reason why you are here has been explained – the committee would

like to clarify some issues with you arising out of ... or rather in

relation to 21 August 2014. If you can just confirm the position

that you occupy within Parliament and its structures.

Ms D E DLAKUDE: Thank you, Chairperson. I am the Deputy Chief Whip

of the Majority Party.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): Thank you. Were you present in

Parliament on the day in question, and that day is 21 August 2014?

Ms D E DLAKUDE: Thanks Chair, yes, I was.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): As the Deputy Chief Whip and in

overrule times - before we are getting to the details - what would

have been your role and your responsibility in Parliament, as the

Deputy Chief Whip of the Majority Party?

Ms D E DLAKUDE: I will be brief on that one. My responsibility is to

ensure that there is order in the House and also to uphold the

decorum of the House. Thank you, Chair.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): On the day in question, was the

Chief Whip of the Majority Party present in the House, and if not,

do you know why the Chief Whip was not there?

Ms D E DLAKUDE: The Chief Whip of the Majority Party was not in the

House; he was on sick leave.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): Thank you, Ms Dlakude. The next

question is, there was a ... or rather, a suspension, yes, of the

House on 21 August 2014. The Speaker announced the first suspension

which was for a few minute. It is not disputed that the Speaker

called for a suspension of some three minutes which actually then

went on for seven minutes. And then there was another suspension

much longer, I think it went on for roughly 35 ... There was a

longer suspension either way the committee has heard evidence or the

committee was given an indication that there was a meeting of Chief

Whips that took place during the suspension. If you can just explain

what you have in your knowledge of that and what your role was in

relation to such a meeting.

Ms D E DLAKUDE: Thank you, Chair. I am the one who convened that

meeting of the Chief Whip’s forum because it is a consultative

meeting which involves all the Chief Whips of parties that are

represented in Parliament. Thank you, Chair.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): In relation to the events that took

place on the day, what led you to convene that meeting or to call

that meeting?

Ms D E DLAKUDE: As Chief Whips, we consult each other on any matter

that concerns the House, so it was my responsibility to do the same

– to consult the other Chief Whips of other political parties. Thank

you.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): Thank you, and then, if you could

just explain to the committee – the Chairman and the committee –

what transpired in that meeting of the Chief Whips?

Ms D E DLAKUDE: Chairperson, in that meeting, as Chief Whips of

parties represented in Parliament, all of us, we were very concerned

about the events that unfolded in the House. So, we spoke in one

voice where we agreed that we cannot be held at ransom by other ...

by a group of people or members of the EFF. So, what we did, what we

agreed upon is that we were going to proceed with the House. So,

that was our agreement. We were going to proceed with the business

of the House, yes.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): And after that agreement had been

reached, what are the steps that you took and, if it is within your

knowledge, what are the steps that your colleagues took also as

Chief Whips?

Ms D E DLAKUDE: We got advised whilst we were in that meeting

because I was sitting with two Secretaries to Parliament. So, Adv

Phindela advised us that the security were saying that we must

remove our members from the corridors so that they could move those

members of the EFF out of the House. So, we agreed that we were

going to move our members from the doors of the Chamber so that the

security could do what they wanted to do to remove those members

from the Chamber. Then we would be able to proceed with the business

of the House.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): Briefly put, what was the venue of

that meeting of the Chief Whips?

Ms D E DLAKUDE: The Chief Whips’ boardroom, V16.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): Thank you, and after you say there

was the decision made to remove members from the corridors, I think,

what practical steps did you and other Chief Whips then take?

Ms D E DLAKUDE: We went back towards the Chamber. I was on my way to

brief the Speaker on the outcome of that meeting.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): And upon going back to the Chamber,

were you able to carry out the decision that had been reached by way

of removing members from the corridor, maybe to another place, or if

you can just explain to the committee what actually then transpired.

Ms D E DLAKUDE: As we were walking towards the Chamber, we could see

that members were moving inside the Chamber – all our members. All

members of different political parties were moving back into the

Chamber, so I checked where the Speaker was, only to find that she

was already in the House sitting in her chair. So, I went to her to

brief her on the outcome of the meeting and also to know exactly

what was happening. So, she managed to tell me that she decided to

reconvene the House so that she could adjourn it – to avoid members

from being removed forcefully from the House. That is what she told

me.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): From you having called that meeting

of the Chief Whips or maybe just the preliminary question, in

calling the meeting of the Chief Whips and asking your colleagues to

meet in the Chief Whips’ Forum at boardroom ... or the Chief Whips’

boardroom at V16, how practically did you do that? Were they easily

accessible to you, if you can just give us a bit more detail on

that, please?

Ms D E DLAKUDE: As Chief Whips, we have this Chief Whips’ Forum of

which we will have our meetings every Wednesday from 10:00 to 11:00

so it is a practice that we do because we consult each other on the

business of the day or the business of the week, so we always do

that. Yes. The venue is always accessible to all of us. That is

where we usually meet.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): On the day in question, on

21 August 2014, there was a suspension of the sitting for a

particular period, and you have now informed the committee that you

then decided that you should call a meeting of the Chief Whips.

Just, I know it might sound obvious, madam, and you find that you

are repeating. Please, please bear with me. What practical steps did

you take in pulling the Chief Whips together and getting them to

meet in the Chief Whips’ boardroom on that day, 21 August 2014?

Ms D E DLAKUDE: After the Speaker suspended the House for – I am

sure it was for the second time, the longer period – so, I went to

the Speaker to inform her that I was going to call the Chief Whips’

Forum. So, we were in Mr Xaso’s office. After that, I went out, and

all the Chief Whips were there. Mr Steenhuisen was the first one

that I called. Then I went around calling the others because they

were standing in the corridors.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): Thank you. Now, back to ... you said

... back to the point at which you said the Speaker then informed

you that she had decided to reconvene the House for the purposes of

adjourning it, and I think you said the Speaker also said that this

was to avoid members of the EFF being removed forcibly. You will

recall the evidence you gave a few moments ago in relation to that.

What I would like to do now is before I show you a part of the video

footage, you said there would have been every Wednesday between

10:00 and 11:00 a meeting of the Chief Whips’ Forum in which various

issues are discussed. Was there such a meeting on the Wednesday

before 21 August?

Ms D E DLAKUDE: Yes, we had a Chief Whips’ Forum, and all the

parties were represented in that meeting.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): Was there anything in that meeting

of the Chief Whips’ Forum that gave a clue as to frustrations that

people might have had that would lead to something untoward

happening during the sitting that took place on 21 August 2014?

Ms D E DLAKUDE: There was none.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): What I would like to do at this

point is to ask Mr Adonis to play a certain portion of the video

footage, madam, and then, for the committee and for yourself to

watch that part, and then I would just like to ask you some

questions in relation to it. The footage that I will ask Mr Adonis

to play is really not long. It starts at that part of the clip which

is at 23:40 and ends at 25:40.

Viewing of the video footage

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): Thank you, Mr Adonis. Ms Dlakude,

the video footage shows ... focuses on ... depicts various

conversations, I suppose, between people, and then it appears to me

that there is a part of the footage that shows you standing next to

the Speaker. I think it is on the Speaker’s right, and you then move

forward, and you are seen in conversation or engaging with a group

of people, and then the video footage shows you walking across the

floor of the Chamber in another direction. If you can just talk the

committee – the Chairman and the committee – through what was taking

place at that time, please.

Ms D E DLAKUDE: That was the time I was talking to the Speaker. Then

there were other members who were standing there, and you can also

see also the Table staff was there. So, these other members were

telling us that we must take our seats, as the Speaker had decided

to reconvene the House. So, by the time ... when I walked across the

House, I think one Chief Whip was talking to me ... was asking me

what exactly was happening, so I had to go to that hon member and

explain what happened – what was happening at that time. Thanks.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): Thank you, and then – I am nearly at

the end of my questions – in the meeting of the Chief Whips between

you and your colleagues in room V16, was there anybody who had

proposed that the South African Police Service must be called in to

remove the members of the EFF?

Ms D E DLAKUDE: No, we were not discussing the issue of the security

or the police. We were trying to find for ourselves how to proceed

with the business of the House. Yes.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): Thank you, and in the part of the

footage that you have just described now where you are seen standing

close to, next to, the Speaker, and then moving across on your way

to one of the other Chief Whips, at that point, was there any

discussion that you were part of where it was suggested or you heard

somebody issue an instruction for the South African Police Service

to be called into the Chamber to come and remove the members of the

EFF?

Ms D E DLAKUDE: No.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): Thank you very much, Ms Dlakude. Mr

Chairman, I have no further questions for the witness at this time.

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE (Mr B

L Mashile): Thank you very much, Mr Van Voore. Hon members, I think

then it is the opportunity for you to actually ask for further

clarity on the evidence led. I recognise hon Lotriet. You can

proceed. It looks like other members are happy.

Dr A LOTRIET: Thank you, Chairperson. I would just like the hon

Dlaluke to confirm this for me ...

Dr A LOTRIET: Thank you, Chairperson. I would just like the hon

Dlakude just to confirm this for me. I want to make absolutely sure

that I heard correctly – that, at the Chief Whips’ Forum, the

meeting you had, there was agreement that you would proceed with the

session that afternoon; that you would not be held ransom by the

events of the afternoon by a specific party, but that you would

proceed, and that you then went to the Speaker to inform her of the

decision of the Chief Whips.

Ms D E DLAKUDE: Yes. That is ...

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Ja, you can respond. Proceed.

Ms D E DLAKUDE: Oh. Sorry, Chairperson. Yes. What we discussed was

that we are not going to be held ransom by members of the EFF. As

soon as they are removed from the House, we are going to proceed

with the business of the day. So, that’s the message I went back to

inform the Speaker.

Mr M L W FILTANE: Thank you, Chair. We appreciate the sacrifice you

made to come all the way to be here with us this late afternoon, and

we understand the role that you tried to play on the day, especially

when you said you want to make sure that the decorum of the House,

you know, is maintained.

However, my concern, Madam, is whether, actually, when you went back

to the Speaker and you were made to understand that she had decided,

in the meantime, to reconvene the House, given that set of

circumstances, how would you, then, define your role as Chief Whips,

vis à vis her role and power to reconvene? Because she hadn’t yet

heard, according to what you have just told us, that you had decided

that the House must reconvene. But when you go back, you had

consulted with her before going out and meeting as Chief Whips, but

when you come back, you find that she has already decided to

reconvene, anyway. And now, where ... how do you reconcile your role

as Chief Whips, vis à vis that of hers, in terms of authority to

proceed the way she did? Thank you.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Let me ask her to proceed ... to respond.

Ms D E DLAKUDE: Thank you, Chairperson. The Chief Whips’ Forum

doesn’t take decisions, or make decisions that are binding to the

Speaker. The Speaker is the presiding officer, so we just consult

each other and try to sell whatever we agreed upon to the Speaker.

So, that’s it. We don’t have powers to make decisions, binding

decisions, as the Chief Whips.

Mrs J D KILIAN: Chairperson, thank you to the Deputy Chief Whip, and

yes, indeed, we are all grateful that she made the effort to be

here. Chairperson, we have heard what the hon Deputy Chief Whip has

said and that is also in line with Rule 221, which makes the Chief

Whips’ Forum a consultative forum of matters ... of co-ordination of

matters for which the Whips are responsible, and (b) which the

Speaker may consult when appropriate. So, it means that, ultimately,

it is a consultative forum and it has no standing in terms of

decision-making.

But I would just like to understand, if she could perhaps share with

us, if there was any direction given in that meeting of how the

Chief Whips felt they would advise the Speaker to proceed, given the

tense circumstances there. Was there any idea of how they would move

... how decisions should be moved to conclude and to do its business

that afternoon? Was there any suggestion that any forces should be

called in, etc? Or was it just the message that they wanted to

convey – that there was unanimity in the ranks of the Chief Whips

that they cannot be held to ransom by one party? Can she, perhaps,

just explain that to us? Thank you.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Ja, you may proceed.

Ms D E DLAKUDE: Thank you, Chairperson. What I can say is that, all

of us, we were upset by what happened in the House. As members, as

honourable Members of Parliament, we are expected to behave in a

manner that is acceptable. We have the Rules that guide us. We have

the conventions that are there in the House that assist in running

the House and, also, the Procedures that are there. So, we are

expected to respect those.

So, in that meeting ... before we go to that meeting, the Speaker,

when she adjourned ... when she suspended the House for that period,

she called for security. We went to that meeting knowing very well

that the parliamentary security people will come and remove the EFF

members, so that we can go back, because we have a responsibility –

all of us, as members representing different political parties – to

change the lives of the people out there. That is our role. So, we

felt that we couldn’t be held back by people who decided to do what

they did in that House. So, that is all that we were worried about –

that we really need to do our job, as expected. Thanks, Chairperson.

Mr D L TWALA: Thanks, Chair. Hon Dlakude, you are seen on the video

with a lot of people, naturally as a precursor to your leaving to

convene with the other Chief Whips. Among them, are Minister

Mahlobo, Mr Mthembu, and quite a number. Can you enlighten us on

their roles in relation to the decision that was ultimately agreed

upon – that the Chief Whips’ Forum would have to be convened with a

view to getting things started? Thanks.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): Sorry, Mr Chairman, to intervene at

this stage. I am not sure whether this is a point of order or just a

correction, but there seems to be a suggestion in the question that

the hon Deputy Chief Whip of the Majority Party is seen in the

company of others, the hon Mahlobo, the hon Mthembu, before she

leaves the Chamber to convene the meeting of the Chief Whips.

I was at pains to go through the questions rather slowly and

methodically, and in the ordinary fashion that one does. The putting

of evidence on the record is time-consuming. The hon Deputy Chief

Whip has explained very clearly that that interaction, which I asked

Mr Jerome Adonis to play, being the interaction, as recorded at

23:40 up to and including 25:40, took place after the meeting of the

Chief Whips. That is a fact that is not open to any confusion or any

other suggestion. It’s a rather straight-forward fact. In fairness

to any witness, if the witness ... if a question is posed as to a

supposed fact with a supposed factual context, it would have to be

preceded with an accurate factual context.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore)

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Okay, I think that correction is right. I think it

is just simply that connection that the hon member is making to say,

whether those specific members had any influence in the decisions we

have taken and as you are indicating that that interaction was after

already the decision has been taken in the Chief Whips Forum,

therefore, automatically then the influence of that particular

interaction at that time is not there to the decisions that have

been taken in the Chief Whips Forum because it is after the fact.

You can continue of course with this correction. The correction is

sustained. Continue.

Mr D L TWALA: Thank you, hon Chair. Probably we will have to reverse

the video for me to refresh my memory. That was my observation based

on the video.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Okay.

Mr D L TWALA: So, I don’t know whether the video, the way in which

it kinds of reflects events ...

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Well, hon Twala, when the question was put to the

witness, was that you are seen moving with certain members and then

eventually you walk on the floor of the Chamber to the other side.

Then the witness says that is the time when she was coming from the

Speaker and then another Chief Whip who was actually asking some

questions about their decision that they have taken. Then she was

going to explain because what was happening was not the same as what

they agreed in the Chief Whips Forum.

Now another Chief Whip wanted an explanation, what is happening?

Because when she left the Chief Whips Forum then her mandate was to

go to the Speaker to communicate their decision but then what was

happening in the House was different from what they expected. And

then she says that she walked across to go and address another Chief

Whip that side. I think that question was put to her and she

responded like that.

Okay. I think then you are right. The next person is hon Mncwango

and he will be followed by hon Mdakane.

Mr M A MNCWANGO: Thank you Mr Chairman. I also would like to thank

the hon Deputy Chief Whip for making time to come and actually meet

with us to enlighten us on certain issues and her role in trying to

bring about stability in the House.

I appreciate the fact that the resolution at the Chief Whips meeting

was to continue with the business of the day. And you must have been

taken aback when you walked into the House and found that the

Speaker was already presiding there. And this is what she said:

Hon members, on that note, I can assure you that we were in

consultation with all opposition parties and agreement has been

reached on how we should approach the issues of the rest of the

work of this afternoon.

Hon members, I have been told that there are no sittings

tomorrow. Therefore, we will proceed according to the programme

of Parliament as has been announced. Hon members, with those

words, I adjourn the sitting of this House.

And that was 16:17. This actually ran contrary to the feeling and

the decision of the Chief Whips which was plausible that you, as

Chief Whips, should not succumb to that kind of what was happening

there. But I do not see any correlation with the decision of the

Chief Whips and the actions of the Speaker. And the Speaker says,

“We were in consultation”, I suppose with the Chief Whips Forum.

Would this be right that the Speaker was actually referring to you

as a collective of Chief Whips with which she said she was in

consultation with?

And the last one was that you actually said that when you left to

the Chief Whips meeting, the Speaker had said that she would

actually call the security to remove EFF members. In your

recollection, did she actually call the parliamentary security? If

so, did they actually remove members of the EFF, and if not why not?

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Okay, I hope that you have captured all the

questions because they have been too much actually. Attempt to

respond to those that you can respond to, you will be reminded of

those that you may have forgotten. You may proceed.

Ms D E DLAKUDE: Chairperson, thank you. The Speaker doesn’t sit in

the Chief Whips Forum. Like I said, the Chief Whips Forum doesn’t

make or take binding decisions. It is a consultative forum. So,

there was no way that the Speaker could have been in that meeting

that I was in.

As for the security, yes, the Speaker did call for security. That is

what I heard because I was in that House. She called for security. I

also indicated that after the Chief Whips Forum I went to the

Speaker and she told me that she decided to reconvene the House and

adjourn it because she did not want to see hon members being

forcefully removed from the Chambers. Thank you Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Thank you very much. Can we now take hon Mdakane.

It looks like hon Filtane is contesting it. U lava ku rhanga. Okay,

proceed.

Mr M R MDAKANE: Chair, two small questions. Of course, we are highly

appreciative of the Deputy Chief Whip to attend and thank you for

that. Two small questions really. Do you recall how many whips of

other parties attended your Chief Whips Forum because as you know

that there would be Chief Whip of the Majority party, the biggest

opposition and all other whips and ... but in other areas there is

one-person-party. Do you recall how many really attended in terms of

the parties and what was your understanding of what was happening in

the House on the 21st August this year?

Of course, you have explained already what is the duty and

responsibility of the whips in ensuring that there’s observance of

the Rules and also the decorum of the House and the behaviour and

conduct of members, I think we have explained that. Prior to the

meeting of the Chief Whips Forum preceding the sitting on the 21st

was the Chief Whip of the EFF or the third largest party in

Parliament in that meeting? Thanks.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): You may proceed when you are ready.

Ms D E DLAKUDE: Thank you Chairperson. What I can recall is that all

the Chief Whips of political parties whom we always meet with every

Wednesdays, they were all there except for the EFF Chief Whip. The

Chief Whip or his deputy were not part of that Chief Whips meeting

that we had on the day. So, on Wednesday the 20th, yes the EFF was

represented in that meeting because they are always represented in

the Chief Whips Forum. There is no Chief Whips Forum that we had and

the EFF was not part of that meeting except for the one on the 21st

because they were inside the Chamber. So, I called the chief whips

who were outside the Chamber.

The second question you asked me was about my understanding of what

was happening on that day. Chairperson, this is my second term in

Parliament as a Member of Parliament. I have never experienced such

a shocking, embarrassing situation that happened on that day. So, to

me as an ...

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Hon Twala ...

Mr D L TWALA: Just for clarity sake, I think that these matters of

opinions and people’s feelings on issues, I think we have been

cautioned as such. So, I am surprised that you are actually allowing

it when you yourself ask us to desist from conducting ourselves as

such. Thanks.

The CHAIRPERSON OF THE POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE

(Mr B L Mashile): Hon Twala, you are definitely correct. You are

definitely correct.

The CHAIRPERSON: Hon Twala, you are definitely correct. You are

definitely correct. I was just about to say, if it’s possible, she

may not answer that one. But then she preceded you before I could

say that. If she could stop at that particular point that she has

raised, I think, that would assist the process. I think the hon

Filtane was next.

Mr M L W FILTANE: Thank you, Chair. This is about Rule 56, page 92.

In the event of grave disorder at a meeting the presiding officer

may adjourn the meeting or may suspend the proceedings for a period

to be stated by him or her.

Given that nowhere is the role or intervention of and by Chief Whips

when such an occasion presents itself, why did you bother to meet as

Chief Whips? Thank you.

The CHAIRPERSON: It is nice that the question has been crafted

differently, but the answer – you already had it on a question

crafted differently from the one that you have ... I hope that our

witness will be willing to repeat it. You may proceed.

Ms D E DLAKUDE: Thank you, Chairperson. As whips we have the

responsibility to ensure that we uphold the decorum of the House and

to also make sure that our members behave in a way that is

respectful and honourable as hon members. So that is the reason I

had to convene the Chief Whips’ Forum so that we could share – like

we have already shared. We shared with them. The pain was for all of

us. So we agreed that we are not going to allow this to happen. So,

that is the reason.

The CHAIRPERSON: Let me just check whether there is any other member

that wants to speak, because, of course, I have the hon Bongo on the

list. Then, the hon Twala, you want to follow; then we will go back

to the hon Filtane. Bongo, take us.

Mr B T BONGO: Thanks, Chair, and thanks for coming, Deputy Chief

Whip. My question flows from the last question, which you answered

very well. Am I correct in saying that all the Chief Whips at the

meeting in question were in agreement that the behaviour that was

displayed on 21 August was indeed in contempt of the Rules of

Parliament?

Ms D E DLAKUDE: Hon Chairperson ...

The CHAIRPERSON: Hon members, regarding this specific question that

is being put, I am allowing it to continue because it explains why

they convened that meeting. They cannot convene that meeting if they

are not worried about anything. That’s why I just allowed the hon

Bongo to complete it and hear ... like the question that we asked:

What was the mood that Mr Van Voore asked in the meeting, which

explained how those whips felt in that meeting. That’s why I allowed

it to continue, because he actually talks to the reason why that

forum was convened. You may proceed.

Ms D E DLAKUDE: Chairperson, the feeling was mutual. For the first

time, maybe, in this Fifth Term, we spoke with one voice – all of us

– the opposition, all parties represented in this Parliament ... the

Chief Whips, we agreed on what we were talking about. The feeling

was mutual. Thanks.

Mr D L TWALA: Thank you, hon Chair. Thanks go also to Mr Van Voore

for the correction. The consultation, hon Dlakude, that you are seen

in ... I have now been corrected by Mr Van Voore in that it happened

after the fact. But I’ll presume ... That is when you were coming

back from the Chief Whips’ Forum with a view to reporting to the

Speaker that you were of the view that the House should proceed with

its business. Then you learnt that, no, no, no; a different decision

had been taken after a consultation. Would I be correct to assume

so? Thanks.

Ms D E DLAKUDE: Chairperson, as I said, the Chief Whips’ decisions

are not binding on the Speaker. At the end of the day, the Speaker,

as the presiding officer, is the one to take a decision on what to

do. So, I went back to the Speaker - I was coming from the Chief

Whips’ Forum. I went back only to find that the Speaker was sitting

there. Then I conveyed the decision of the Chief Whips’ Forum. I

didn’t have a problem with her deciding to reconvene the House,

because our decisions are not binding at all. Thank you.

Mr M L W FILTANE: Thank you, Chair. We are getting there. I am very

happy with the progress we are making.

The CHAIRPERSON: You are getting there very slowly.

Mr M L W FILTANE: Okay. Thanks for the response to my initial

question. I have a clearer understanding of the virtually

meaningless role of Chief Whips in a situation of this nature.

Having said that, could you please advise us as this committee if

you aware of any procedural steps that are supposed to be taken in

the event of such an occasion, as we experienced on 21 August,

besides what is stated in Rule 56? Thank you.

The CHAIRPERSON: Are we talking about the future?

Mr M L W FILTANE: I am talking about existing. Is there anything

else that is provided for in the Rules for dealing with a situation

of this nature? The reason I am asking this question, Chair, if I

may substantiate is because I find a lot of - for lack of a better

expression - I would say forces. I would say institutions, you know,

and so on: forums, working apparently, I say “apparently”, at cross-

purposes.

The Searjeant-at-arms explained her role here.

The CHAIRPERSON: Let’s hear ... [Inaudible.]

Mr M S BOOI: We were told that there no points of order. So, let’s

proceed. There’s no point of order.

Mr M L W FILTANE: No, no, no. There is no point of order. We were

told. We agreed on that before the break. I proceed. He is out of

order. Let me proceed.

The CHAIRPERSON: Okay, it looks like there is a consensus that you

want to proceed.

Mr M L W FILTANE: Yes, thank you very much.

The CHAIRPERSON: But one thing for sure is that, hon members, you

have a responsibility to make my job easier. You are not obliged.

You just have a responsibility to make my job easier by trying to

play within the lines, because when you crisscross, you make my life

difficult to lead you. Therefore, I think the explanation that you

have made should be much clearer now on the question that you are

raising, because from my side I thought that you were referring to

procedures. If a similar incident happens like that, then I was

having a problem with that, because we are talking to a particular

day and particular activities that happened there and what the facts

are, and then we should be getting evidence on those. Not future

planning or future ambitions. Thank you very much.

Mr M L W FILTANE: Let me finish off. I had just one more sentence to

say, which will ... [Inaudible.]... I wanted her to be in a

comfortable position to respond. I notice that there were a number

of persons with authority and responsibility that seemed to have

been working at cross-purposes. It doesn’t appear that there was co-

ordination, you know, of the efforts to try to quell the situation.

That’s why I am asking if there is procedure laid down for dealing

with matters of this nature. Thank you, Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE (Mr L

B Mashile): Okay, I think she would respond, except that some of

these things are upon us as Members of Parliament to understand the

hierarchy of Parliament and all the centres of power and how they

relate to each other in Parliament and understanding the Rules and

how they are applied and the limitations of power to specific

sections of Parliament.

In relation to the hierarchy in Parliament, it is up to ourselves,

because – one thing is for sure – if we are going to expect the

witnesses to educate us, how these relationships are, then it would

be a bit of a problem, because we are supposed to take the higher

ground on that than what we are actually presiding on. You may

continue.

Ms D E DLAKUDE: Chairperson, other than what is prescribed by the

Rules, procedures and conventions, I know nothing. I don’t know if

there are other steps – no. I am guided by the Rules, procedures and

conventions of the House. Thank you.

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE (Mr L

B Mashile): Hon Mdakane, I can feel that we have actually now

exhausted what we are supposed to do.

Mr M R MDAKANE: Chair, in fact, I wanted to make some proposals, but

the point that I wanted to make first is to assist hon Filtane in

that it is important for him just to take the Rules page 86 and 87

on what a Chief Whip Forum is and what its duties, responsibilities

and functions are. It would be very important for us to do so. But

the point that I wanted to make regarding what the Deputy Chief Whip

said - I tried to listen attentively when she said “the feeling was

mutual”. Was it mutual happy, mutual angry, what was the mutual

feeling about? Were they angry about what happened or were they

happy? Because she says the feeling was mutual. I think it is

important for her to assist us on that. Just to ensure that we have

a definitive way of putting it. That’s the point I wanted to raise.

Ms D E DLAKUDE: Chairperson, we were actually upset – all of us – in

that meeting, because we felt that our rights were violated -our

rights of changing the lives of the people who deployed us in

Parliament. We were actually upset. Thank you.

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE (Mr L

B Mashile): Thank you very much. I am sure hon Mncwango is

struggling to be the last person to pose a question.

[Interjections.] You have the platform.

Mr M A MNCWANGO: Chairman, not at all. I had actually said that I

had exhausted what I wanted to ask. I just want to concur with the

witness and say that, at least our Chief Whip was very angry in that

the responses to the questions were not forthcoming.

I think I just waned to make that clear, because we have not called

him in here to actually tell us how he felt about what was going on,

but he shared his feelings with us at our caucus that he was gravely

concerned that questions by members are not treated seriously. Thank

you.

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE (Mr L

B Mashile): Thank you, it looks like we have exhausted all of the

questions that you wanted to put. There may still be some questions:

How significant is it that if you still struggle to still put it or

you go home with it and then the significance of it is up to all

members to evaluate, but it looks like what we intended to do we

have been able to do. Let me first check with Mr Van Voore.

[Interjections.]

You think that you actually won’t be able to sleep if you do not put

this question? [Interjections.]

Mrs J D KILIAN: Chairperson, hon Mncwango made a comment about his

Chief Whip’s report to caucus. Can the hon Deputy Chief Whip please

inform the meeting if any such comments were made during the Chief

Whips Forum meeting by the hon Chief Whip of the IFP?

Ms D E DLAKUDE: No, he didn’t. He didn’t.

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE (Mr L

B Mashile): Thank you. I think we are simply trying to avoid getting

into that, because we know that is what we are hearing now. You

can’t test it. Hon members, let’s get Mr Van Voore to hear if he has

got further questions or furthers comments about the witness.

The INITIATOR (Mr R van Voore): Chairperson, mercifully, I think for

the members of your committee and yourself, I have no further

questions. But I think it is appropriate that I thank the hon Deputy

Chief Whip for having made the time available. She has travelled a

significant distance and for many hours to be here this afternoon to

come and assist your committee. Thank you, Mr Chairman and thank you

to the hon Deputy Chief Whip.

The CHAIRPERSON OF POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES COMMITTEE (Mr L

B Mashile): Thank you. I also think, on behalf of the committee and

committee members, we thank you very much for having responded

positively to our invite and also making the responses that we hope

will be able to empower us to be able to process all the evidence

and the particular charges that are in front of us to be able to

make a determination, as expected, by the House. Also, of course, to

indicate that we do appreciate, because of the kind of pressure that

you were put under, to travel over that long distance, to make this

particular time. We are thankful for that. In kind as well,

apologising having started about 30 minutes late, when we agreed

that we would be starting with you at 5 o’clock – as promised.

Because the committee members had another engagement that they had

to resolve before we resumed the hearing. We also appreciate your

understanding towards that. You are now released.

Hon members, I think we have agreed, as we are having one big

meeting in Parliament, also, we have received information that hon

Steenhuisen will be available tomorrow, then agreed that we will

continue with the hearing tomorrow afternoon at 5 o’clock to receive

the evidence from the hon Chief Whip of the Democratic Alliance. We

will do so tomorrow.

We plead with members to speak to the relevant authorities in

Parliament who are in power for our work tomorrow – plead with them

to be released so that we are able to have that meeting at

5 o’clock. This brings us to the end of the hearing today.

The hearing adjourned at 18:46.