Issued by: Gauteng Legislature
SUBMITTED BY HON. P S G LEON ON 25 SEPTEMBER 1996
Honourable P S G Leon submitted a matter to be considered as being of Urgent Public Importance in terms of Rule 28 to be discussed at the sitting of the House on 26 September, 1996.
I. Criteria for Consideration in terms of Rule 27 & 28
In order to rule on this matter, it is necessary to reiterate the criteria for consideration, namely whether the matter is URGENT or it is of PUBLIC IMPORTANCE.
(A) Public Importance
Rule 27 and 28 seen in the context of the Standing Rules, as a whole, forego the normal administrative criteria in consideration of the matter by the House. These criteria include:
a. the requirement of a notice of motion to be submitted for placing the matter on the Order Paper in accordance with Rule 32;
b. the requirement of a delay of 2 days between the day of submission of the notice and consideration by the House;
c. the prioritisation of the matter in the context of all the business of the legislature by the Proceedings Committee and the Leader of the House in accordance with Rule 26;
d. the precedence of motions of privilege in accordance with Rule 35; and
e. the precedence of the content of subsequent matters on the Order Paper to avoid repeating the same discussion in accordance with the Rule of Anticipation, Rule 78.
It is evident from the above that the normal criteria for consideration by the House that the test for "public importance" must be sufficiently high to warrant special consideration by the Speaker. The hurdle to "warrant special consideration" must be such that it is relatively unassailable that the matter is important to the PUBLIC, i.e. relatively speaking, the matter should not be open to dispute as to its importance and urgency.
1. Matters of Importance to the PUBLIC based on precedent and practice include:
a) matters which have a direct impact on individuals, or group(s) of individuals, particularly if the impact is negative;
b) matters which are of national or provincial interest or concern such as peace, security, nation-building, or democracy.
2. The other category which is implicit in Rules 27(3) and 28(4) is the accountability of the executive to the legislature. However, this matter must be weighed against the opportunity given to members under Chapter IV, Interpellations and Questions which have criteria of notice, minimum time for the notices, format and selection. Matters considered in this category based on precedent and practice include:
a. matters under 1 (a) and (b) above;
b. matters which, with good reason, question the conduct or practices of members of the executive in relation to their responsibilities.
B. Urgency
Urgency must be seen in the context of Rule 27 and the Standing Rules as a whole. It is evident from (A) above that "Matters of Public Importance", namely Rules 27, contains an element of urgency because it dispenses with the normal criteria for placement on t he Order Paper. Rule 28 also requires a minimum amount of time for submission of the request for discussion to the Speaker before the commencement of the debate, namely two hours and fifteen minutes. It is, therefore, evident that the criteria must be limited to matters where time is of the essence, that is that the matter cannot be held over to the next sitting.
II. Analysis of Matter submitted by P S G Leon
The matter submitted by P S G Leon alleges that the "Unsubstantiated media allegations" should be investigated because of the "extent and source" of the allegations and "their damaging effect on the Premier's image".
1. "Extent and Source" of Allegations
The reference of the "extent and source" of the allegations implies that these allegations have a certain amount of legitimacy. However, as Honourable P S G Leon, himself, states these allegations are "unsubstantiated". Therefore, the "extent and source" of the allegations can impact no legitimacy unless the source is prepared to accuse the Premier (without insinuation) or at a minimum pass the "smoking gun" test. In my opinion, the newspapers are only reporting and not corroborating the allegations against the Premier. Secondly, the "source" himself has not once made, according to my information, any direct allegations on this matter. Instead, he has only pointed out that all that he wants is to ask questions in relation to this matter, amongst others.
2. "Their Damaging Effect on the Premier's Image"
The reference to the "damaging effect on the Premier image" when read in the context of Rule 28(4) implies that the reply to the debate by the Premier which would include the appointment of a "judicial commission" will repair the damage to the Premier's image. It is my submission that since the allegations are `unsubstantiated' the Premier's reply to the debate will not assist or take the debate any further.
It should also be noted that recent court decisions have ruled that public representatives should expect that they are subject to greater level of scrutiny than the ordinary citizen.
3. Purpose of Rule 27 and 28
The purpose of Rule of 27 and 28 is to place a Matter of Public Importance before the House for DISCUSSION. It is not a matter that is adopted by the House giving it the force of a decision. It is discussion that attempts to place a concern or bring facts before the public through a public debate. THEREFORE, THE MATTER BROUGHT BY P S G LEON IS A REQUEST AND CANNOT BIND THE PREMIER TO ESTABLISH A JUDICIAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY. The result, therefore, would be a debate on unsubstantiated allegations.
4. Urgency
If the conclusion of 1 to 3 above is that the matter is of public importance, a case could be made that the matter is urgent because the sitting on 26 September, 1996 is the last before the recess. The next sitting would in fact delay consideration of the matter for a few weeks. However, urgency also relates to some effect that would result from inaction for a few weeks.
III. Conclusion
After careful consideration of the Standing Rules and the submission by Honourable Leon, as Speaker, I rule that this does not meet the test of "Public Importance" nor "Urgency" for the following reasons:
1. The matter is based entirely on reports of unsubstantiated allegations by certain "sources" and is not corroboratd b any investigative journalism or other investigations.
2. Consequential to (1) above, the matter does not impact individuals or group(s) of individuals nor is it of provincial concern or interest which would affect security of the province nor does it relate to the accountability of the Premier to the Legislature or the people of Gauteng.
3. The courts have ruled that public representatives should expect such scrutiny, and the submission is also unclear as to how a "damaged image" will affect the Premier's execution of his responsibilities. It is implied that a reduction in the "standing" of the Premier would presumably reduce the confidence of the public. However, the submission requires the "Commission" to "report back to the Government" yet the call for the "Commission" is made in the legislature before the public.
Furthermore, it is my opinion that a debate on unsubstantiated allegations would be irresponsible and would not achieve the stated goal but in fact would fuel rumours and have the opposite effect. This debate, as framed, is not about accountability because the Premier cannot reply to the allegations since they are unsubstantiated.
26 September 1996