The politician at the centre of the controversies playing out publicly and brutally in Parliament, President Jacob Zuma, maintained that he and his ministers adhered to the Constitution. His reply to DA leader Mmusi Maimane’s question in relation to the Constitutional Court judgment on Nkandla was pithy in comparison to the expansive responses to ANC questions.

“South Africa is a constitutional democracy. The Constitution places certain responsibilities on the president and the executive collectively. The steps required to be taken by the executive are clearly spelt out in the Constitution and applicable legislation,” said Zuma. “Members of the executive (the president, ministers and deputy ministers) do comply with their legal obligations as set out in the Constitution. They appear in Parliament to discharge their obligations as and when required, such as through attending parliamentary sittings, answering parliamentary questions, participate in debates, attending meetings of portfolio committees and various other activities.”

The EFF on Tuesday reiterated its starkly different view on constitutional compliance. In the run-up of being manhandled from the House, several of its MPs made the point that Zuma could not address MPs as he had violated the Constitution over the Nkandla saga.

After the eviction, and after the locked glass doors to the Poorthuis entrance were damaged by those wanting to get back in, Malema, on the stairs of the building housing opposition parties, said: “Zuma is not our president. The day he breached the Constitution is the day he kissed the office of the president goodbye”.

Parliament has not acted against the president; there had been no consequences. “Zuma is not a legitimate president of the Republic of South Africa. We cannot be led by a man who failed to uphold, defend and protect the Constitution. It will never happen, not on our watch, not in our name.”

Malema vowed that Zuma would “never find peace” in Parliament. “The Constitutional Court has been reduced in the same way the Office of the Public Protector has been reduced and therefore it is going to be rendered useless.”

Tuesday’s display in the House was “a continuation of our protest, which is against what’s happening in Parliament… where an individual has been put above the Constitution,” said Malema. “Let cowards be afraid to engage the regime. We are not scared, we are going to fight with everything we have.”

The ANC in Parliament, which has accused other political parties of re-interpreting the Constitution for political point scoring, fired back.

“The disgraceful actions of this party are not a laughing matter as they threaten the sanctity of our democracy and constitutional institutions,” said the office of ANC Chief Whip Jackson Mthembu. “We urge Parliament to immediately press criminal charges against the EFF MPs for the assault of the security staff of Parliament and malicious damage to property.”

Parliament’s communication services confirmed “a case of damage to property” was opened at Central Cape Town police station. “Parliament urges law enforcement agencies to identify the perpetrators of the violence and to deal swiftly with any offenders who come to Parliament to cause mayhem,” the statement said. “Parliament, along with most South Africans, strongly condemns acts of violence against Parliament’s security and destruction of public property…”

But verbal barrages and skirmishes aside, what unfolded in the House tells the story of a Parliament being turned into no man’s land. And Nkandla and the Guptas again featured.

“Lalela! (listen). You must keep quiet and listen, so I don’t have to repeat myself,” Zuma told Maimane who, followed by DA MP James Selfe, asked who had financed the Nkandla homestead, and how. The president said construction was funded by himself and the family through bonds (he said so in 2012), obtained against permission to occupy from the local traditional leader.

The buildings had been going up before he became president. “The ConCourt has not said I lied when I said the family build the house. The Public Protector has not said so,” said Zuma, adding that there were only five government-built security features identified in the Constitutional Court and Public Protector. “So I’m telling you (Maimane) and the people of SA, I never lied.”

Swatting away a follow-up question related to knowledge of possible irregularities in the Gupta family business dealing was quicker. “I know nothing about the business dealings of the Guptas or whoever. Why must I have a view?”

Sweetheart questions from the ANC dominated Tuesday’s presidential Q&A – questions on Operation Phakisa, the National Development Plan (NDP) and South Africa’s international standing were aimed at creating a platform for the president to recount his administration’s delivery.

It was the approach taken by ANC MP Chana Pilane-Majake in her follow-up turn. “Is it not true the president and members of the executive have always fulfilled their obligation to account to Parliament,” she asked after critiquing Maimane’s question on who paid for the Nkandla homestead as “cheap politicking”, “time wasting”, “full of innuendos” and an attempt “at misleading the public”.

Speaker Baleka Mbete, who is also ANC national chairwoman, disallowed a DA point of order on this, and Zuma answered: “Of course, I have partly answered the question earlier on…. They are complying with the dictates of the Constitution. So there is no problem about it.”

DA MP Glynnis Breytenbach’s follow-up question as to whether the president would stop publicly disparaging the judiciary – he earlier this year said people were convicted even if they told the truth – was met with a terse: “I don’t understand the question… I don’t know what it is I must apologise to the Chief Justice about.”

Such responses come in the wake of Zuma’s electioneering weekend in Gauteng, the Free State and North West where the president, according to various news reports, spoke of elections as an instrument of power, the need for big majorities to avoid potential challenges and the ANC as leader of a society whose policies and programmes could not be challenged.

Opposition parties, sticking to rules and protocol, have long complained about the poor quality of presidential answers, accused Mbete of bias and ANC of using their numbers under the guise of rules and protocol. They may well have collectively raised eyebrows when Zuma suggested he would be “happy” if political party leaders could agree to meetings.

“We as political leaders ought to identify national issues we do not politic about,” said Zuma. “All of us wish for a South Africa that is successful…”

But the state of Parliament still needed to be dealt with.

“This House needs to do something about itself,” urged Zuma in an echo of 12 days ago when he told Speaker Baleka Mbete, “I believe your House needs to do more to bring this House into order….”

At the time Mbete, in a moment that blurred the lines of the roles of presiding officer, president and party top officials, said the rules committee was dealing with such matters. That rules committee sat in the aftermath of Zuma’s Q&A – and one focus was security and the resuscitation of the dress code which, according to longstanding ANC proposals, should ban hard hats, overalls and the like.

Clearly the EFF is in the crosshairs, but it’s all done according to rules (alongside concerns over safety). If the ANC wants to, it can rely on its numbers to ensure a dress code will be part of the new rule book. In umpteen previous discussions the governing party has backed off these dress code proposals.

Tuesday’s turn of events at Parliament may just change that as rules are deployed as proxies in political skirmishes. But nothing would have been resolved to dig Parliament out of the hole. DM

Photo: Party leader Julius Malema and members of his Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) clash with Parliamentary security as they are evicted from the chamber in Cape Town, South Africa, May 17, 2016. REUTERS/Mike Hutchings