Eish! 7.9.2018 01:26 pm

EFF MP withdraws ‘in your little wet dream’ comment at land hearings

EFF MP Mogamad Paulsen. Photo: People's Assembly.

EFF MP Mogamad Paulsen. Photo: People's Assembly.

The parliamentary committee was hearing oral submissions from a business lobby group opposed to amending the constitution when the EFF MP made the comment.

EFF Mogamad Paulsen was asked to withdraw an “offensive” comment during oral presentations on the possible amendment of section 25 of the constitution to allow for land expropriation without compensation.

The joint constitutional review committee was hearing oral submissions on Friday from the independent business community Sakeliga, which submitted that it is opposed to the amendment of the constitution.

Paulsen first questioned why the lobby group had been opposed to the amendment of the constitution when it has already been amended 16 times.

The EFF MP further said the group should reflect on the role its members had played in creating inequality in South Africa, a situation exacerbated by land dispossession and landlessness.

“So, let’s say in your little-wet dream we don’t amend the constitution, which we will do,” Paulsen said, at which point an MP interjected, asking that Paulsen withdraws the comment because it was “offensive”.

Paulsen withdrew the comment and rephrased his question which sought clarity on how members of the group would change their behaviour towards addressing inequality.

“I say this because you also oppose the mining charter and you have members who are in the mining industry. If you look at what mines have done in damaging the environment, forcefully removing people and also being involved in illicit financial flows. How will you change your behaviour if we were not to amend this constitution?” Paulsen questioned.

Responding to Paulsen, a representative of the group, Professor Malan, first explained that he is a sympathetic and charitable individual who never distinguishes between the different races of students he works with on a daily basis.

The professor responded: “Nothing in this submission, or conduct on my part, could ever be interpreted as projecting or as implying some kind of callous or harsh or hateful attitude towards anybody, including black people. Those people living in woeful circumstances of poverty, I feel for them and I think that in fact, we should, within a proper constitutional framework meeting the principles of constitutionalism as I have set it out, should go out of our way to actually address their predicament.”

The group had submitted, among other points raised, that amending the constitution would lead South Africa down the same path as Zimbabwe following its land grabs.

For more news your way, download The Citizen’s app for iOS and Android.

 

 

07

today in print