On Thursday it was take two of the ugly scenes of parliamentary protection service members, not identifiable by uniform or nametags, clashing with the Economic Freedom Fighters MPs they were called in to remove. Both the ANC and DA said they have written to Speaker Baleka Mbete, who is also ANC national chairwoman, over the presence of a man dressed in a white shirt they were informed was one of Malema’s bodyguards.

The ANC bluntly stated, according to its (unidentified) sources, that one of Malema’s bodyguards “breached” the chamber. These “quite concerned” sources, according the ANC Chief Whip Jackson Mthembu, also brought it to the ANC’s attention that “certain EFF MPs’ bags were stuffed with heavy objects such as bricks to use as weapons against the security staff of Parliament”.

The DA trod a little softer, asking whether two of Malema’s bodyguards had pretended to be part of the parliamentary protection services.

“It is deeply disturbing that parliamentary protection services, which are meant to be highly-trained former SAPS members, can be infiltrated by anyone with a white shirt and gym membership,” said DA Chief Whip John Steenhuisen.

The EFF would have none of it. Defending itself from the parliamentary protection services was a matter of exercising “our constitutional right to self-defence” and protecting the dignity of the EFF Mps. “Now it is evident that the EFF is not only being attacked by protection services, the whole Parliament is against us, all in protection of a criminal called Jacob Zuma,” said EFF spokesman Mbuyiseni Ndlozi.

Amid calls for an investigation into the alleged presence of a personal bodyguard in the House, questions were also raised over the presidential protection services on the floor of the House. As EFF MPs were manhandled out, and retaliated with water bottles, hard hats and at least one handbag, armed bodyguards surrounded Zuma and his deputy, Cyril Ramaphosa.

However, according to Rule 53A, dealing with the removal of unruly MPs, expressly prohibits any weapons in the chamber by both the parliamentary protection staff and security services, which include the police, intelligence and defence force. Rule 53A(8)(b) states: “When entering the chamber on the instruction of the presiding officer… members of the security services may not be armed, except in extraordinary circumstances in terms of security policy.” The president, who is not an MP, is bound by parliamentary rules when in the House.

Mthembu, who earlier had raised the security requirements for Zuma and Ramaphosa, referred questions on a possible contravention of the rules over the presence of presidential bodyguards in the House to Parliament or the SAPS protection services. ANC Deputy Chief Whip Doris Dlakude added: “Sitting there as the majority party we don’t have a right to call anyone. The Speaker did not call anyone except parliamentary security. Maybe the VIP protection services must answer that. You can’t throw it at us. We are not part of that.”

Steenhuisen said the DA would raise the matter of the armed presidential bodyguards with Mbete.

“It’s completely problematic. It’s only a matter of time before one of them pulls out a gun and shoots.

“The closest thing resembling a weapon in the House should be the mace indicating the House is in session.”

Parliament was not immediately available to comment on this.

Also central to Thursday’s politicking is that parliamentary protection officers, dubbed “bouncers”, are simply unidentifiable: they wear no uniform, nor do they sport nametags. Though hired 10 months ago, it remains unclear why neither uniforms nor nametags have been provided. Daily Maverick has been reliably informed that Secretary to Parliament Gengezi Mgidlana on 19 August 2010 was tasked with acquiring identifying gear. This was a resolution of the Political Oversight Authority, the then in-house policy and decision-making structure which brings together political and administrative sides.

Steenhuisen said he had followed up on this repeatedly, without success.

“In this situation, strangers are allowed on the floor of the House.”

And in a rare show of agreement both the ANC and DA agreed that the parliamentary protection services must be identifiable as such.

“Where we agree with the DA is they (parliamentary protection officers) must be identifiable, even though we know them… we fully agree,” said Mthembu.

In the wake of Tuesday’s ugly scenes the ANC called for “enhanced” security. “We need to enhance the safeguards in Parliament. As to what that means, because we don’t have security expertise, we can’t go into the details,” said Mthembu.

Dlakude took a hardline approach: “If it means in the chamber, after doing a security assessment, there’s a need people are subjected to body searches – so be it”.

And the ANC wants everyone to adhere to the rules. It was unconstitutional to get the majority ANC to agree to the president to step down; the Constitutional Court judgment contained no such order. “The only party that has no respect for rules are the EFF. Don’t make us the victims of what is happening. We are the laughing stock not only in Africa, but internationally,” said Mthembu, adding later that if Parliament’s rules were not followed, it might as well “close shop”.

And then it was back to the usual party politicking. The ANC said it observed with “dismay” the DA’s “silly tactics” in their “futile attempts” to stop the budget. “This sort of destructive opposition, which only serves the privileged and does not care about the boor – the majority of whom are black. We condemn their misguided conduct (Wednesday) night with the contempt it deserves.”

The DA said rules were followed. Instead the ANC had used its numbers to block key proposals to shift R9.52-billion to the poor in the form of bigger social grants, more student financial aid and for 1.8-million expanded public works programme job opportunities in the current financial year.

DA MP David Maynier earlier this week brought these proposals in terms of parliamentary rules and the 2009 Money Bills Amendment Procedure and Related Matters Act, which allows Parliament to amend or even reject the budget or any other money bill. (Coincidentally, this week this law was referred for review to the standing committee on finance.)

In the pre-election supercharged atmosphere at Parliament – the past month of budget speeches were used as easy electioneering platforms – it may just be a case of do as I say, not as I do. DM

Photo: Members of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) in red fighting with parliament security personal prior to them being escorted from parliament, Cape Town, South Africa, 17 May 2016. EPA/STR