freedom of speech and debate. This freedom is considered to be the cornerstone of democracy because members must be free to discuss and say what they wish in the parliamentary chambers; they must be able to discuss contentious issues and to conduct investigations without interference. While freedom of speech is of utmost importance, it is nonetheless regulated by parliamentary Rules and practices. Thus, for example, we have Rules which prohibit the use of or unbecoming language” and which prohibit “offensive members from reflecting the competence or honour of a judge of a superior court, or of the holders of “upon an office (other than members of the Government) whose removal from such office is dependent upon decisions of this House”. The latter Rule aims to protect the integrity and independence of judges, and other non-political office bearers such as members of Institutions created in terms of the Constitution to support democracy. The purpose of the Rules regulating freedom of speech is to guide debate so that it happens in an orderly and respectful fashion. A member who breaches or abuses parliamentary privilege or who willfully disregards the and the Act, is in contempt of Parliament. Disrupting the proceedings of Parliament through frivolous points of order or speaking without being recognized by the presiding officer amounts to abuse of privilege. Refusing to obey the instruction or order of a presiding officer to withdraw from the House constitutes contempt. Other conduct that may amount to contempt include improperly interfering with the performance by a member of his or her functions; threatening or obstructing a member from attending a meeting; creating or taking part in any disturbance within the parliamentary precincts. In terms of the Act, our Parliament is authorized to inquire into and pronounce on conduct constituting contempt and to take disciplinary action against a member who is allegedly in contempt. It is the prerogative and responsibility of the House to punish members who breach parliamentary privilege or act in contempt of its authority. The House may impose any of or a combination of penalties provided for in the Act. (2) Court Judgments and implications for Parliament Unlike the first three democratic Parliaments, during the Fourth and Fifth Parliaments it appears many matters involving the internal functioning of Parliament have ended up in courts. Recently, for example, in Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and Others v The Speaker of the National Assembly and Other, the High Court interdicted the National Assembly from suspending its members despite the members being found guilty of contempt of the House in accordance with the Assembly Rules and the Act. Interestingly, the
freedom of speech and debate. This freedom is considered to be the cornerstone of democracy because members must be free to discuss and say what they wish in the parliamentary chambers; they must be able to discuss contentious issues and to conduct investigations without interference. While freedom of speech is of utmost importance, it is nonetheless regulated by parliamentary Rules and practices. Thus, for example, we have Rules which prohibit the use of “offensive or unbecoming language” and which prohibit members from reflecting “upon the competence or honour of a judge of a superior court, or of the holders of an office (other than members of the Government) whose removal from such office is dependent upon decisions of this House”. The latter Rule aims to protect the integrity and independence of judges, and other non-political office bearers such as members of Institutions created in terms of the Constitution to support democracy. The purpose of the Rules regulating freedom of speech is to guide debate so that it happens in an orderly and respectful fashion. A member who breaches or abuses parliamentary privilege or who willfully disregards the and the Act, is in contempt of Parliament. Disrupting the proceedings of Parliament through frivolous points of order or speaking without being recognized by the presiding officer amounts to abuse of privilege. Refusing to obey the instruction or order of a presiding officer to withdraw from the House constitutes contempt. Other conduct that may amount to contempt include improperly interfering with the performance by a member of his or her functions; threatening or obstructing a member from attending a meeting; creating or taking part in any disturbance within the parliamentary precincts. In terms of the Act, our Parliament is authorized to inquire into and pronounce on conduct constituting contempt and to take disciplinary action against a member who is allegedly in contempt. It is the prerogative and responsibility of the House to punish members who breach parliamentary privilege or act in contempt of its authority. The House may impose any of or a combination of penalties provided for in the Act. (2) Court Judgments and implications for Parliament Unlike the first three democratic Parliaments, during the Fourth and Fifth Parliaments it appears many matters involving the internal functioning of Parliament have ended up in courts. Recently, for example, in Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and Others v The Speaker of the National Assembly and Other, the High Court interdicted the National Assembly from suspending its members despite the members being found guilty of contempt of the House in accordance with the Assembly Rules and the Act. Interestingly, the
Mgidlana%2C%20South%20Africa_0.docx