Cape Town - ANC MPLs rallied around their chief whip in the Western Cape legislature, Pierre Uys, who is facing a disciplinary hearing more than a year after the disruption of Premier Helen Zille’s State of the Province Address (Sopa).
Uys is being charged with being in contempt of the Western Cape provincial parliament, in that he “wilfully failed or refused to obey a rule, order or resolution of the House”.
He has already served a two-day suspension after the failed Sopa address, which was handed down on the same day. But now, a year later, the committee is taking disciplinary action for his refusal to leave the house upon Speaker Sharna Fernandez’s request.
According to the charge sheet, on February 20 last year, Uys was named in terms of standing rule 45 (1) and a motion for his suspension from the service of the House in terms of standing rule 45 (2).
However, he refused to abide and leave the chamber.
By raising a volley of points of order, the ANC delayed Sopa.
The MPLs also demanded that Fernandez deal with a ruling made during the last provincial sitting in December 2014 regarding provincial ANC chairman Marius Fransman’s refusal to withdraw a statement he made about employment equity, which the DA claimed contained racial undertones.
Leading evidence for the legislature, advocate Susan Van Zyl submitted as evidence a DVD and Hansard copy of proceedings. Only two witnesses were called to testify on Tuesday, the Speaker and Serjeant-at-Arms Wayne Naidoo.
Uys’s legal counsel, Brandell Turner, was persistent in his line of questioning, wanting clarity about the Speaker’s actions on the day, the validity of her ruling to name Uys and if, indeed, Uys was the disorderly member in the house.
“My impression is that you (the Speaker) were fed up with constant interjections… and at that point when you named Mr Uys, it could have been anybody really, you did not do it because you seriously thought he was disorderly, but you were fed up with everyone and Mr Uys was the man on the spot and on his feet at the time.”
Fernandez disagreed, saying it was not a case of “willy-nilly naming someone”, but rather the sequence of events on the part of Uys which lead to him being named.
She said Uys raised “frivolous points of order”, leaving her no other option but to invoke rule 44, which led to him being named in terms of standing rule 45.
Fernandez said her recollection of the day was that “it became untenable”. However, she conceded that according to the Hansard transcripts, Uys remained silent throughout several of the pages, with the record showing other members raising objections and interjecting.
“For several pages in the Hansard, it is clear that Mr Uys was silent,” Turner said.
Fernandez urged Turner to view the DVD, as she stressed that the “emotions in the House on that day led to various decisions being made”.
“Sadly, the piece of paper does not capture the emotions and energy in the House.”
Naidoo explained that he acted on the instructions of the Speaker, who ruled that the ANC MPL be escorted out of the House. He said when he asked Uys to move, he was told: “Wayne, dit gaan nie gebeur nie (Wayne, it is not going to happen).”
Under cross examination, Naidoo said since taking up the post in 2011, he had only dealt with three requests from the Speaker to escort a member out of the House.
He said his role was to maintain order and assist the Speaker, but he declined to give his view on whether or not Uys was disruptive on the day.
The disciplinary committee hearing resumed at 9am on Wednesday with Fernandez continuing to give evidence.
Cape Argus
* Use IOL’s Facebook and Twitter pages to comment on our stories. See links below.