Parliament’s preferred narrative that it is a National Key Point is advanced by both the administration and its political bosses, National Assembly Speaker Baleka Mbete and ANC national chairperson and National Council of Provinces (NCOP) chair, Thandi Modise.

This attitude was reiterated in general comments to Daily Maverick’s request for comment, not only on Mgidlana’s bodyguards, but also a recent City Press report on luxury hotel accommodation and chauffeur-driven transport provided in late July 2016 to attend a meeting of the security cluster, the structure brings together the police, army and SSA.

In this post-truth, alternative-facts world it’s Parliament’s right to proffer this National Key Point explanation and a firm denial that Mgidlana attends security cluster meetings.

But the reality is that the signed-off travel authorisation dated July 25, 2016 on Parliament’s letterhead for both “Mr & Mrs Mgidlana”, seen by Daily Maverick, for the five-day trip at the end of July 2016 trip states the journey’s purpose as “security cluster meeting”.

And the reality is that Parliament as a whole is not a National Key Point. That’s straight from Police Minister Nkosinathi Nhleko, who is responsible for the administration of these sites. In January 2015 he released the list of National Key Points following a court application by the Right2Know Campaign (R2K).

This official National Key Point list includes the presidential parliamentary Tuynhuys offices, “Parliament House”, and the ministerial offices at 120 Plein Street. While a question may be raised as to what “Parliament House” exactly represents – is it the National Assembly, the NCOP or both? – clearly not included are other buildings in the parliamentary precinct such as Marks Building, 90 and 100 Plein Street and the Good Hope Chambers. These buildings are occupied by opposition MPs, their staff and parliamentary employees working in, for example, the committee section.

But never let the facts stand in the way of a preferred narrative. “As general or common knowledge, Parliament is a National Key Point, whose protection is the primary responsibility of, among others, the security forces of the country including the police and intelligence services,” says Parliament.

It is no surprise then that the parliamentary rumour mill is abuzz with claims that the national legislature has formally applied to have the whole precinct declared a National Key Point. If true, this will have significant implications not only on access to the People’s Parliament, enshrined by Section 59 of the Constitution to “conduct its business in an open manner”, but also the atmosphere in which lawmakers are conducting their business. Already security regarding access through the visitors’ centre has been upped to include photo ID and the logging of whether electronic items such as laptops are brought along.

In its four-page response, Parliament repeatedly maintained: “the Secretary to Parliament (STP) does not attend security cluster meetings, is not a member of such forums and is not an official of those structures.”

But it also says, “Parliament convenes meetings with the Security Cluster, when a needs [sic] arises, to deal with matters of material importance to Parliament.”

It remains unclear how this tallies with the July 2016 travel authorisation on Parliament’s letterhead to attend a “security cluster meeting”.

Instead, Parliament expressed concern over what it called “the apparent pre-occupation with activities of the Secretary to Parliament in carrying out his duties correctly, the [sic] find the logic wanting or motivation of concern”.

There was nothing wrong with engagements with the security cluster as these “are no different” from engagements with other departments:

“Parliament convenes meetings at various levels for the purpose of ensuring the appropriate levels of security at all times,” including the Speaker, NCOP chairperson, the Secretary to Parliament and relevant directors-general. “It is common course [sic] that some form of co-ordinating and collaboration between the Parliament and the national executive should be maintain in the interest of STATE [sic] security insofar as Parliament in [sic] concerned, as both are arms of the STATE are [sic] set up to protect and promote the Constitution and the common good of all people in South Africa.”

Historically, Parliament always supported its protection services taking the lead in securing the premises. Daily Maverick is reliably informed that the parliamentary protection services did not attend security cluster meetings as this would contravene the separation of powers between the legislature and executive. It’s not an uncomplicated past. In the late 1990s there was a restructuring that included formalisation of a liaison committee with the SAPS, which posts officers in particular for access control at the various gates. There have been been bunfights between heads of parliamentary protection services and the SAPS, particularly its VIP protection unit, but Parliament’s protection service has had the final say in what happens.

Today the parliamentary protection service is eviscerated, and in turmoil, effectively leaving the space for SSA and SAPS to step in. For the past 18 months the top posts of the parliamentary protection services have been vacant after its head Zelda Holtzman and her deputy Motlatsi Mokgatla were hauled before disciplinary proceedings in mid-2015. Mokgatla’s contract expired while he was on suspension at the end of that year. Daily Maverick this week had confirmation that the disciplinary matter involving Holtzman has yet to be finalised. City Press in May 2016 reported that she was found guilty on three of 14 counts, including failure to present a business plan, inadequate responses on Mgidlana’s use of blue lights transport, and staff divisions.

There are further twists. Parliament has now been served with documents in a Labour Court brought by members of the service dissatisfied over how former SAPS members were recruited at higher pay and better conditions of service into specially created positions. Daily Maverick last year reported how Parliament created special chamber support officers’ posts for the new recruits, dubbed bouncers, brought in following EFF disruptions in the House. Parliamentary insiders have pointed out that these “bouncers” have accompanied parliamentarians on oversight and other business visits, questioning why chamber support officers are used in the field.

These twists and turns also affect parliamentary staff, who are subject to the SSA security vetting introduced in Mgidlana’s term of office. Parliament’s largest union, the National Education, Health and Allied Workers’ Union (Nehawu), has opposed this SSA vetting since late 2015. Parliament has maintained that security vetting is part of the conditions of employment. To do so, SSA, like the SAPS, has been allocated an office on site, confirmed by Parliament, which added: “Further operational mattes of securing Parliament are not a subject of public dialogue as that could compromise the security of Parliament.”

A critical threshold in the securitisation of Parliament was breached in August 2014 when during an EFF “Pay back the money” fracas, for the first time, armed police in body armour arrived at the doors of the National Assembly. The threshold was crossed on November 13, 2014 when police were called in and at least six men dressed in body armour evicted an EFF MP who refused to leave the podium after calling President Jacob Zuma a “thief” and a “criminal” in a late evening debate.

By that time the National Joint Operational and Intelligence Structure (Natjoints), which brings together police, intelligence services and the defence force, had issued a national instruction to establish priority security committees for Parliament and the nine provincial legislatures. This “Instruction 35 of 2014: Procedure for dealing with persons creating disturbances in Parliament and provincial legislatures” was signed on August 26, 2014 by Lieutenant-General Elias Mawela, who represents the SAPS on Natjoints.

At the 2015 State of the Nation Address (SONA) a high-risk unit, including public order police or riot police, was deployed, as was a signal jammer. Mbete subsequently publicly acknowledged being briefed, without necessarily engaging on the details:

“We became aware there was a plan for certain equipment to be deployed without necessarily knowing details because it was an item dealing with what measures had to be taken for the protection, in particular, of the head of state and the deputy president.”

Parliament accepted State Security Minister David Mahlobo’s apology for the signal jammer for which a junior operative was blamed. By the 2016 SONA tough security measures were in place, including new rules on evicting MPs adopted in the last days of the 2015 parliamentary calendar. The bouncers have frequently been used to evict unruly MPs, usually from the EFF which has heckled President Jacob Zuma during his appearances in the House. It remains to be seen what will unfold as SONA 2017 formally kicks off the parliamentary year on February 9.

However, the role of spooks and cops at Parliament, often within its inner workings and seemingly at the national legislature’s invitation, is changing the character of the people’s Parliament, a cornerstone of South Africa’s constitutional democracy. DM

Photo: Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa replies to oral questions in the National Assembly, Parliament, Cape Town, 2 March 2016. (Photo: GCIS)