Parliament was not embarrassed, it embarrassed itself

Nco Dube is a political economist, businessman and social commentator What played out at theAd-hoc Committee on the Mkhwanazi Allegations on Thursday, February 26, was not some freak incident or an unfortunate clash of personalities. It was a public unmasking of a Parliament that no longer seems sure of its own authority, unsure of its procedures, and increasingly comfortable with political theatre at the expense of institutional seriousness. When Paul O’Sullivan stood up in the middle of proceedings, announced that he had had enough, said he was going to miss his flight, and walked out of a parliamentary committee, the shock was real.

It was brazen. It was unprecedented. No witness in democratic South Africa has ever so openly and publicly treated Parliament with such disregard.

But the uncomfortable truth is this: that moment did not come out of nowhere. It was the predictable outcome of a process that had already gone wrong long before O’Sullivan pushed back his chair. O’Sullivan’s conduct was arrogant, dismissive and deeply disrespectful.

[paywall]

Not just to Members of Parliament, but to the institution itself and, by extension, to the people of South Africa. Parliament is not a podcast studio or a public debate forum. It is the supreme legislative body of the Republic, constitutionally empowered to summon people, compel testimony and hold power to account.

Yet authority does not exist simply because the Constitution says so. It has to be exercised consistently, confidently and without apology. On that score, Parliament failed.

The warning signs were there from the start. O’Sullivan made it clear, publicly and repeatedly, that he was reluctant to appear. He insisted on appearing virtually.

He stated openly that he would not answer questions from members of the MK Party, ActionSA and the EFF. These were not private concerns raised behind closed doors. They were conditions announced in the public domain.

That should have been the end of the discussion. Parliament should have issued a subpoena and made it clear that this was not a negotiation. When the committee sought to use Parliament’s summoning powers and issue a subpoena, they were stopped by the Speaker of the National Assembly, Thoko Didiza.

Her reasoning was that there had not been sufficient procedure, meaningful engagement, or an overt refusal by O’Sullivan to appear. This interpretation of parliamentary power is deeply troubling. If the rules genuinely require a witness to first refuse to appear before Parliament can issue a subpoena, then those rules are not fit for purpose and need urgent revision.

An invitation carries no legal force. A witness who appears voluntarily is under no obligation to stay, to answer questions, or to respect the authority of the committee beyond their own goodwill.

[/paywall]