Steenhuisen’s submission on why he was right and Malema was wrong
Steenhuisen cited a 1998 ruling by former house speaker Frene Ginwala which exempts comments made against the beliefs and policies of political parties as a whole.
John Steenhuisen. Picture: Twitter
The recent, albeit unsurprising, conduct of MPs in Tuesday’s parliamentary sitting has sparked a wave of conversation about who should face what sanctions for what they said and did.
Two such MPs are John Steenhuisen and Julius Malema who kicked off the fracas by insulting each other.
Malema interjected while Steenhuisen was speaking and Steenhuisen responded by referring to the EFF as “VBS looters”.
Malema, who was standing while Steenhuisen hurled his insult, countered by calling Steenhuisen a racist young white man who had been accused of rape.
The house then spiralled into chaos which prompted the DA and EFF to get physical with one another.
In the aftermath of the drama, house chairperson Thoko Didiza ruled that Steenhuisen’s “VBS looters” remark to Malema and Ndlozi is unparliamentary.
“It’s always unparliamentary to insinuate another member is acting dishonourably whether directly or by implication,” stated Didiza.
The remark was derogatory and impugned Ndlozi and Malema’s integrity and dignity and that it was not substantiated in terms of the National Assembly rules.
Didiza instructs Steenhuisen to withdraw his remark.
He refuses, says there’s a previous ruling which set a precedent. 2/
— Scapegoat (@AndiMakinana) November 7, 2018
Reporter Andi Makinana tweeted that Didiza instructed Steenhuisen to withdraw his remark but he refused, citing a previous ruling which set a precedent that exempts him on the grounds that he referred to the EFF as a whole while the EFF referred to him personally.
Sharing a photo of a submission he made to Didiza, Steenhuisen argued that video footage of Tuesday’s proceedings show that “the comment was not directed at a specific member but was directed at the EFF as a political party who were interrupting me whilst I was attempting to take a point of order in the House”.
He then cited a 1998 ruling by former house speaker Frene Ginwala which exempt a comment that called the National Party racist.
Ginwala’s ruling read: “We have always drawn a distinction between allegations against members of the House and the expression of opinions about the beliefs and policies of political parties. Accordingly, references to a member as “a racist” have been held to be unparliamentary. Allegations that a political party supports racist views or has or is implementing racist policies are made frequently and have not been held to be unparliamentary. They are, in my view, a part of normal political discourse and any attempt to limit this would set a dangerous precedent.”
Steenhuisen ended off his submission by stating: “the use of the words VBS looters without any prefixing it with any individual members name as well as the use of the plural form is ample evidence that the remarks I made were directed at the party.”
— John Steenhuisen MP (@jsteenhuisen) November 7, 2018
READ NEXT: Steenhuisen encouraged to sue Malema over rape allegations
For more news your way, download The Citizen’s app for iOS and Android.
