Cape Town - A brouhaha is brewing over Parliament’s decision to second policemen to the parliamentary protection services, a decision which emerged days after MPs revising rules decided the SAPS may enter the House only on an imminent threat to life.
The DA, Freedom Front Plus and IFP indicated on Sunday that they would oppose such a secondment because it violated the separation of powers. Police, who report to the national commissioner, are part of the executive, while Parliament is the legislative arm.
The matter could come to a head as early as Tuesday, when the rules committee meets to process its sub-committee’s decision that only parliamentary protection services may remove unruly MPs, and no police may enter the House unless there is a threat to life or damage to property.
However, police may be outside the House and from there may escort ejected MPs from the precinct, the committee decided amid across-party agreement that beefing up the parliamentary protection services was necessary. Police in unifom are stationed at the gates to Parliament and its building for access security.
Outrage erupted at February’s State of the Nation address when police, dressed as waiters in white shirts and black trousers, forcibly removed EFF MPs who, in an unprecedented move, raised points of order amid rising tensions before President Jacob Zuma took the podium. Several MPs were injured and it emerged that some of the police were attached to the public order policing unit, known as the riot police.
It was reported that Parliament already bought parliamentary protection services uniforms for the 22 seconded policemen, who are expected to start next month.
DA chief whip John Steenhuisen said the secondment of police “goes against the spirit of discussions over the past weeks”, defeated the purpose of having a parliamentary protection service, and went against a Western Cape High Court ruling that disallowed police in the House. “If this is the way the ANC and Parliament is going, it’s in bad faith. They have no interest in making Parliament work,” he added.
Freedom Front Plus chief whip Corné Mulder said: “It’s white shirts, part two. It’s unacceptable. They are getting it wrong again.”
Police, who report to the national commissioner and are part of the executive, should only be used in the chamber in serious situations such as a bomb threat or hostage situation, which, Mulder added, had never happened in 21 years.
IFP chief whip Narend Singh said political parties called for a beefing up of the parliamentary protection services, but not with police.
EFF spokesman Mbuyiseni Ndlozi said the key matter was that protection services were called in to remove MPs on the basis of an “opinion” by the presiding officer. “What are they going to use the parliamentary protection services for? That’s what we need to keep our eyes on,” he said.
Opposition parties confirmed that the secondment of police to the parliamentary protection services was not discussed in the Parliamentary Oversight Authority, effectively as an in-house policy and decision-making structure. In one of its last sittings at the end of last year, there were at least four versions of a policy on calling in police - one did not include the police at all - but no decisions were made in that structure.
Instead, although the revision of the national legislature’s rules dates back to the previous Parliament, it has focused on disruptive MPs, including the suspension of the House for a limited time, rather than an adjournment. This was triggered after the first “Pay back the money” fracas scuppered presidential question time, but no police entered the chamber last year on August 21.
Zuma is due to answer questions in the House next Thursday.
Cape Argus