I reject Action South Africa’s deliberately malicious and politically motivated accusations regarding my decision to take the finding of Parliament’s Joint Committee on Ethics and Members’ Interests on review.
I took the Committee’s ruling on review due to a number of serious procedural and constitutional flaws, including the Committee’s failure to follow its own rules, its refusal to allow me to make oral representations, the introduction of evidence without giving me an opportunity to respond, the committee’s failure to notify me of a minority view, their failure to publish this in the Announcement, Tabling’s and Committee Reports publication, and failure to protect MP’s freedom of speech against Parliament’s attempt to police lawful political speech made outside of Parliament.
At each step, the Ethics Committee did not follow their own rules.
However, what Action South Africa fails to answer is that Mr Alan Beesley’s own claim in a legally deposed affidavit that I called people “hobos” was dismissed by the Committee.
This is a serious matter.
An MP deposed to a legally binding affidavit, made a claim which the Committee did not accept as true, and yet the Committee was unwilling to properly reflect on the seriousness of this.
A false statement made under oath may constitute perjury, which is a criminal offence.
It is therefore deeply concerning that, having read the court papers, Action South Africa has no view on Mr Beesley’s alleged false affidavit.
I have taken the Committee’s findings on review for specific reasons:
– First, the Committee did not follow its own stipulated process as defined by the Code of Ethical Conduct.
– Second, Parliament has no right to police the speech of Members of Parliament outside of Parliament. That is not what the Code says. If Parliament were to do so, it would be in violation of section 16 of the Constitution and would constitute an abuse of power.
– Third, the Committee changed the charges midway through the process and introduced evidence without ever asking me to respond to it.
– Fourth, there was a minority view in the Committee which was never brought to my attention and did not reflect in the ATC, in violation of the National Assembly Rules.
– Fifth, the Committee refused to allow me to make oral representations to it, which is unlawful.
– Sixth, when I notified the Speaker of these deficiencies in the process, she should have referred the matter back to the Committee but chose not to. Alternatively, she should have notified the National Assembly of my objection, which she also chose not to do.
This means the National Assembly was not properly empowered to make a full and informed decision on the matter. ActionSA is therefore wrong to suggest that this review is an attempt to avoid accountability. It is not.
This review is about due process, the rule of law, and every person’s right to freedom of speech.
While this might not be to the liking of a party like ActionSA, they will one day be grateful that I stood up even for their rights.
It is clear that ActionSA and Mr Beesley, who claim to be champions of the Constitution, seek to use the Ethics Committee to violate that very same Constitution in pursuit of political agendas. That is their choice, but I do not have to accept it.
The courts will now determine whether the Committee and Parliament acted lawfully.
I am confident that the review will expose the serious procedural and constitutional defects in this matter.