Communications and digital technologies minister Solly Malatsi says he reserves the right to “pursue all necessary avenues”, including legal action, to ensure that the rules of the National Assembly are adhered to.
National Assembly speaker Thoko Didiza has not tabled to table the minister’s withdrawal of the SABC bill.
Malatsi's spokesperson Kwena Moloto said in reply to questions Monday that the minister awaited the response from Didiza on the matter.
“The minister has acted in full compliance with parliamentary procedures. The rules are clear: if a request for the withdrawal of a bill is submitted and the bill has not yet been read a second time — as is the case here — the next procedural step is for the speaker to proceed with ATCing (tabling) it to formalise the withdrawal,” said Moloto.
The Sunday Times reported that Malatsi accused Didiza of violating the parliamentary rules she is supposed to uphold by failing to withdraw the bill which he has serious reservations about. He told the newspaper that it was “astounding” that more than a month after he formally told Didiza of his decision to withdraw the bill she had yet to take the necessary action.
“The fundamental thing here is that that the speaker is the custodian of the National Assembly rules. If the minister writes to the speaker to say withdraw this bill... there is no other option for the speaker to do any other thing,” said Malatsi.
“She is trying to seek some political intervention here by saying ‘engage the portfolio committee’. I went and engaged the portfolio committee and remained steadfast in my position and the portfolio committee accepted that,” said Malatsi.
The fundamental thing here is that that the speaker is the custodian of the National Assembly rules. If the minister writes to the speaker to say withdraw this bill... there is no other option for the speaker to do any other thing.
“And then we wrote back to the speaker to say the view remains the same. And it’s very clear that there is stalling from the speaker’s office to withdraw the bill, which is extraordinary because that would be in violation of the very same rules she’s supposed to uphold. It would be unprecedented.”
His withdrawal of the bill prompted deputy president Paul Mashatile to write to Didiza to inform her that the cabinet had passed a resolution stripping ministers of the prerogative to unilaterally withdraw bills from parliament. According to the Sunday Times Malatsi rejected this, saying the cabinet resolution and Mashatile’s letter to Didiza could not be applied retrospectively.
“This notion that withdrawal of bills must come to cabinet... No-one can stipulate in law or the constitution to say this is the clause that says this must happen.
“This is a convention simply because SA, since our democracy in 1994, has been under one party in government and party practices get duplicated into government to say it’s convention, whereas it’s a gentleman’s agreement.”
Malatsi said it was not possible to retrospectively enforce the cabinet decision.
After the Sunday Times article appeared, the ANC chair of parliament's communications and digital technologies committee, Khusela Sangoni Diko, said the committee had never supported Malatsi's withdrawal of the bill.
“It bears repeating that bills before parliament from the executive do not belong to individual ministers but to the cabinet as a whole. Minister Malatsi’s attempts to dismiss constitutional procedure as mere convention or a gentleman’s agreement is not just incorrect, it is a dangerous misrepresentation of the law.
“The constitution, to which all members of the cabinet are bound, explicitly states that executive authority is vested in the president who exercises such authority together with other members of cabinet to ... prepare and initiate legislation.
“As such, no single minister, including minister Malatsi, has today or ever had the authority or power to unilaterally introduce or withdraw bills in parliament without the consent of the cabinet. The rules of the National Assembly do not take precedence over the constitution,” said Sangoni Diko.
“The minister should fully comprehend the limits of his powers.”
She said the amendment of the SABC bill would be among the first orders of business for the committee in the new year. She disputed Malatsi’s objection to the bill because of the absence of a funding model as “unfounded, flimsy and inconsequential”. The bill merely mandated the minister to produce a framework for a funding model within three years.
Sangoni Diko said that the doors of the committee remained open for “constructive engagement” with Malatsi. Moloto said Malatsi also remained committed to meaningful and effective collaboration with the committee.
“The minister maintains that the decision to withdraw the SABC Bill is grounded in valid concerns raised by stakeholders. The bill does not adequately address the funding model for the financially constrained public broadcaster and concentrated too much power in the hands of the Minister regarding the appointment of the SABC board,” said Moloto.
Malatsi’s withdrawal of the bill was supported by groups such as the Support Public Broadcasting Coalition, Media Monitoring Africa and the SA National Editors’ Forum.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.