African Renaissance Podcast

Episode 27 - Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula: Phala Phala, Zimbabwe Trip & Betrayal

• Thabo Mbeki Foundation • Season 1 • Episode 27

Share episode

Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.

0:00 | 1:34:53

In conversation with Nosivwe Mapisa-Nqakula on Phala Phala, That Zimbabwe Trip and more.

Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula is a South African politician of the African National Congress (ANC). She was a cabinet minister from 2004 to 2021 and the Speaker of the National Assembly from 2021 to 2024. She was an elected member of the ANC National Executive Committee between 2002 and 2022. In December 2001, she was appointed Chief Whip of the Majority Party, and merely six months later she became Deputy Minister of Home Affairs under Minister Mangosuthu Buthelezi. She served as deputy minister until the April 2004 general election, after which she joined cabinet as minister in the same portfolio. Concurrently, she was the president of the ANC Women's League from August 2003 to July 2008.

SPEAKER_01

Thank you very much, Ma. What what do you what would you like me to call you in this interview?

SPEAKER_00

Speaker?

SPEAKER_01

No, call me so right, Mama. Okay, Mama.

SPEAKER_00

Mama. All right. I think my eldest son is what uh how old is he? 1980. The second one over 82, over 82.

SPEAKER_01

I see. So you can imagine. Sim 46, somewhere there. Yes. They're certainly older than me. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, Ma. I I I I you and I were in parliament together. I don't think we fought any battles. Not at all. Yeah, we were we were just doing the people's work. There is a big controversy around you, which if you allow me, I want to start there. Okay. The constitutional court has just ruled that the process you presided over uh has just been uh declared, let's say, unconstitutional. Specifically the rule that uh was written about impeachment. I said in the in the sub-rules committee, you were the chairperson of the rules committee. Um the constitutional court says we shouldn't parliament shouldn't have subjected the results or the recommendation of the independent report uh to a vote. You were the speaker. So I want to ask you for your reflection, and I will take it step by step, this matter of uh we'll call it pala. You you you when you heard the outcome of the constitutional court, firstly about we shouldn't have voted. I mean, it basically said the vote was unconstitutional and is set aside. Absolutely. What do you make of that?

SPEAKER_00

Okay, thank you very much, uh Doctor Engl. Thank you, Dose. You know what? When I heard that a constitutional court would be pronouncing yesterday in the morning at ten, I decided not to go out and I was in bed. Literally watched it from bed, from my bed and and uh I listened to every word, single word, which Judge uh Justice Meyer said. And uh at some point got confused. I wasn't sure which direction this thing was taking. But finally, as it turned out, it for me is a very bad reflection of the parliament that uh there are certain things we could we did not do in a manner expected by South Africans. And I also do want to say that uh it also brings very sad memories to me of um you know party line. I listened to Persani saying that yesterday. Party line, party line, that sometimes as a as politicians we need to think beyond party line. That we need to sit, analyze, look at how the outcome of a particular matter is likely to put us, how it is going to and make reflections. I think that uh yesterday was that moment for me. The whole day, actually, I was sitting in my bedroom and I was saying, what is it that could I could have done better? But I also know that it it has nothing to do with me as a person, no civil speaker at the time. But at times in PND know it probably had to do with that because I had done very well. When the letter was received by my office about this matter of Pala Pala, immediately I brought together legal minds in my office, in parliament, and even outside of parliament, by the way. We had a meeting and I said, what exactly does this mean? What are the implications of this letter which I've received? And the advice was that you have no choice but to put together a panel of three, as it is said in the rules, and allow for that panel to be the one that deals with the matter. Indeed, I approached all political parties, requested them to make submissions, nominate people who would sit in that panel, and then I would have a pool of those names and pick who we want. So we did. We did that. I received this pool of 14 names actually. And I hate to say this one, but I will say it nonetheless. Unfortunately, some of the people who were part of that pool, some of whom may have been nominated by our own comrades, right? All of them declined to be part of that panel. So I then looked at the rest of the list. And in the list, for me, there was a former Chief Justice, Justice Nabo. And I immediately said, well, it's a clear cut matter. He will then become the chair of the panel. And then we put Judge Masipa, who was another judge, a lady, and then the third person was um Professor, I think, or Dr. Khalat from the Western, from the UCT, from UCT, yes. I said, this is the third person, okay? Immediately parties objected, opposition parties in particular objected to his name and said, This is somebody who, in a sense, is a praised singer of the head of state. Without any doubt, I then consulted, removed the name of the man, and then we had to find a third person. But there was a third person on the list, and the third person was uh Advocate Silla. So I put her name there. So we ended up with a good panel of three people, people who, for me, have a very positive track record, uh, who have a sound legal background, and we put those three there. And of course, they started doing the work. Now, one thing you need to understand, they do the work away from you. Even first, even the liaison is done by the secretary of the National Assembly on your behalf. So even as I was nominated, as I was appointing them, wrote a letter of appointments, but all of those things were done via the Secretary of the National Assembly. So they went and did their work, and of course, then the report came out. There was a media briefing where they handed over the report to me, after which I then wanted to know what are the contents of the report, what is the outcome. And I recalled Judge Ngubu this, Justice Nguble saying, uh, speaker, just look at the last page. And when I looked at the last page, it had four recommendations or findings. And um, I read them and I knew we had a problem. But immediately as I was leaving that media briefing, I called the office of the president and I said, I would like to see the president. We went with a commit Masondo was chair of the NCOP then, had a chat with him, and I said, Here's your copy. Look at the last page. I've not read the report in its fullness, but the last page, these are the findings. President looked at the findings and immediately said, Thank you very much. I recall very well that as we were leaving, the office picked up his bag and followed us and was going to his car. At that point, he was going home. Now, beyond that, I didn't want to know what was happening behind closed doors, but what I knew was that I had done everything according to the rules. The next uh time we went to a caucus, and uh people were informed what the outcome of the report is that we're going to have a debate on the report and that we would have to vote. So the Secretary of General We, to our Secretary General of the organization, my comrade Malula, then came to Caucus and said, Well, today is the day. It's the day we are going to discuss the report and we are going to vote. But I want to say to the Caucus of the ANC, none of you will vote for this report in favor of this report. It's a report of the speaker. That for me was a red flag immediately, because it can't be a report of a speaker. It's the report, an outcome of a process, a process which is outlined by the rules of parliament, a process. I was not even there by the way, when you guys wrote that rule. I wasn't there because I was still a minister. Well, then it said, okay, fine. So it says that report belongs to the speaker, so you will debate the report and you will reject the report. That for me was a red flag to say you reject an ANC, Caucus, should reject a report commissioned by a speaker, a speaker of the ANC, as though the speaker was never in touch with the movement about the processes of parliament. Speaker was constantly in touch with the African National Congress. It's my organization. So I needed to consult it every step of the way. But of course, then we went to the House, church, and presided, and people rejected the report. I cannot say it was a reflection on me. I cannot. I think I would be I would be silly to do that. But I was set because I realized immediately what the possible consequences are going to be after the rejection of the report. Because parties were very clear, some of them, that they are going to the constitutional court. And of course, sitting there, I just said, now, what will the constitutional court, what ruling are they going to make on this matter? So over some time, as people were continued, because people continued debating the matter of Pala Pala, I've always been anxious about what the constitutional court, what ruling they will make. So when they said yesterday process was flawed and that it should go back to parliament, I was pained by that. Because now it's going back to parliament and the environment is completely different. We are in a GNU. Not only are we in a GNU, we do not have a majority in parliament. We do not necessarily engage with black parties in parliament. I was said because of that. Because I'm the kind of person who's never seen the ANC losing. We've always maintained that the ANC must keep its majority, whatever the circumstances, whatever problems we may be having in the organization, but the ANC should always ensure that it protects its majority, not abuse its majority. But also the ANC must always maintain its integrity as an organization. If Dalton Lose we had gone the route we were supposed to go that time, I don't think we would have had the kinds of problems we are likely to have now. We still had a majority. And she said when she was asked about this, she says, look, the ANC should have allowed the process. And for all you care to know, in spite of the majority, despite the majority, we the outcome would have been probably an outcome that favors the commander-in-chief, the president. Because that process was meant for him to ventilate, to take people through everything which happened. It was not a process which was meant to put him on trial, but a process which was meant to say, okay, please explain to this committee how did it happen that we ended up with this situation. And I'm sure he would have expressed himself. My fear now, now, is that there's no clear thinking. I think there's a lot of, I'm listening to comments, there's a lot of panic. And the panic will not take us anywhere. If anything, it's likely to reverse the gains we have made as an organization. And I'm saying we could have allowed that process to go through and put people we want in the committee like we do in all other committees, and show to everybody that we had nothing to fear. That we are a democratic country, we have a constitution, we are not constitutional rules. That parliament has its own rules in line with the constitution of the republic. We could have done that. And in doing so, I am certain sitting here, whatever the outcome would have been, it's likely that the outcome would not cause the kind of panic this decision of the constitutional court is causing right now. I respect the law, we all do. I respect the ruling by the constitutional court. I I last night I had to think through and go through the rules, look at the constitution and said, but they are correct, right? So all of us are saying, let us accept the ruling of the constitutional court, but we could have avoided it. And I hope that as Parliament will be dealing with this matter now, that people, there won't be a stampede of pointing fingers at one another, but that people will think through things that, in fact, even the organization, my organization, the ANC, that I hope that the ANC will reflect even before the speaker deals with the matter in parliament on Monday. I'm assuming that the ANC will have a moment of reflection and decide what it is because you can't avoid this process now, right? And I would say after that, I hope the ANC will take the best decision for the ANC and for the people of South Africa. I don't I do not want to see a situation personally as a and I want to say senior member of the ANC. I've served in the executive for a long time. I would not want to see a situation where the ANC will come out humiliated out of so people must just do us a favor. Look ourselves in the mirror, take a decision which will be in the interest, not of Nosivive or Nose, it should be in the interest of the African National Congress.

SPEAKER_01

You say, Speaker, the the question of ANC majority at the time was important. And the ANC always had to act in the interest of protecting its majority and not abusing it. Of course. Do you think that vote that they was ANC abusing its majority?

SPEAKER_00

I think we did. I and I and I I hate to say this. I we did. And I'm saying this with all with all sincerity and honesty, that it was not necessary to walk into a caucus and say you will do what I want you to do. It was not necessary. We could have been more matured in the manner. Our democracy is maturing. That's what the constitutional court showed me yesterday. That yeah, the democracy is maturing. Decisions which are likely to impact on you as a majority of party, as a former liberation movement, are now biting. And therefore, for me, that anger, frustration, which was demonstrated by the Secretary General of my organization was not necessary. And I want to say to you, Dr. Anglo, you know, the unfortunate thing sometimes which we tend to do as human beings is not to look at issues, but to look at the individual. And I think in the case of Palapana and how Parliament dealt with it, and how at the end the organization dealt with it, had everything to do with Mbalula, who did not see me as a speaker, and by the way, a senior member of the organization at that, but who looked at me and saw this woman who had just been moved from cabinet into parliament as speaker to wait for the next election. And this woman who's full of vengeance, probably when people looked at what was happening, people thought that I was hitting back at the president because I had been removed from cabinet. But let me tell you something. That's not me. I'm the kind of person, and and the president comits knows me very well, who will walk up to you and tell you that I don't think this one is right, this is correct, but this one, if I'm not agreeing with it, I'll tell you that I don't agree with it. Let's talk about it. So for me, there was no vendetta, it was the rules of parliament. And in addition to the rules which people had drafted in parliament, then a Secretary General. Without even understanding, because he was not there, the actual rules and how they should be implemented, walks in and gives a directive to people that this is the route to go. We're not going that route. Forgetting that, in fact, there are other parties who are part of the programming committee, who are part of the whipari, who discussed in their caucuses too, their approaches to the issues which we are which we are dealing with. So for me, I don't want to blame the ANC, my organization. I want to put it squarely on Balula's doorstep. That which we listened to yesterday should never have happened. This could have been properly managed and would have come out better and cleaner. It we came out in the manner in which we did, because Balula could not pause and reflect and get advice from those who know and then take a decision. He simply just came in and said, This is what you are going to do. That's a speaker's report, this and that. You don't do that when you're a leader. I think for me, this exercise yesterday calls on us to be matured, to appreciate that we're not governing a country which is not democratic. We have a constitution, and here on the 30th anniversary of that constitution which we drafted, such a ruling comes out. On the day it's like the constitutional court had sort of understood that if this ruling comes out on the significance of the day itself, you know, it was such that for me it was yeah, this could have been avoided.

SPEAKER_01

Let's probe this this vendetta a little bit, if you will allow me. I don't know, speaker, mama. You remind me the reasons for your reshuffle from the cabinet. But my question relates to was it in relation to the helicopter scandal? And were you in any way angry such that when Pala Pala came to your hands, as some you say accuse you, uh, you told yourself that this time I want to show these people uh by appointing a person that you say they didn't want as a panel chair per se to lead the panel for the inquiry of whether there is a permaphase case. So if you could walk us a little bit, if I recall, you will correct me, was it the helicopter and Zimbabwe question? What happened there?

SPEAKER_00

Oh, you know, he one look, to be appointed to the to cabinet is a president's prerogative. And if a president doesn't need you, simple. President fires you or calls you and says, I think that we can't work together. Maybe it's about time you leave cabinet. Which I would have done. But actually, you are giving me an opportunity, Dr. Ndose, of explaining myself on the Zimbabwe, because the Zimbabwe, I there's there was no vendetta for me. I'm not that kind of person. But I must say that it was hurting, not the reshuffle, president has a right to move you anywhere or even drop you. In fact, I was I even said when I was moved to become a speaker, I said, well, I'm honored because I'm going to head another leg of the state, which is another institution, which is parliament. But in fact, talking about Zimbabwe, there are very few people who know what happened during that time. You know why? Because I've never talked about it publicly. I protected my movement. Because that's how I was trained, that's what I was taught to always protect the African National Congress. And I did that successfully. And of course, at times you do that at your own expense. Because now you will know from me, I did not go on a jolly ride on an aircraft to Zimbabwe. It was at the level five, at the height of COVID. And the ANC needed to go and consult with the comrades in Zimbabwe, the party in Zimbabwe. But also as a person who was in the African National Congress, who was a member, to also, as a mini former Minister of Defense, then to go and discuss with the minister, my counterpart, about the challenges we're beginning to have because COVID exposed us to a lot of challenges which probably we're not aware of, amongst others being the whole issue of migration and in particular illegal immigration to South Africa. So I then said, okay, fine. There's that trip, people are going. And I was not in the NWC of the ANC, by the way, at the time. I was in the NEC. So President sends a person I respect very much, my own comrade, to come and talk to me about considering going to Zimbabwe and join the delegation which they had nominated to go and engage with the party in Zimbabwe. So at that point, I said, oh, okay, this is level five. And not just level five, by the way. I'm positive I have COVID at that time. Myself and just had COVID, okay, but I wasn't sick. So I then looked at the whole thing and then they explained there had been envoys who had gone to Zimbabwe. And unfortunately, the envoys at that point, they were then rejected. They were turned back to South Africa. And they could, without conveying the issues, they had gone to discuss.

SPEAKER_01

The convoys of the president. Envoys of the president. Yes.

SPEAKER_00

So when this was explained to me, I said, oh, okay, let me think about it. Okay, fine. Now I'm not a person who says no to the organization. So I said, okay, I'll go. And immediately, and I was told that there are six other people who will come with me to Zimbabwe. At the time, because it was level five, there were no flights in the country. The only flights which were there were for emergencies. It was the presidents, it was the GPUT presidents, it was the aircraft which I was using as the minister. So I said, okay, how do we get to Zimbabwe? Borders are closed? Okay. Zimbabwe was expecting the delegation. And in fact, the Zimbabweans had proposed that the meeting should be held at the Kruger National Park. And the president, at his insistence, said no, actually, it would be best if the delegation went to Zimbabwe. So I then said, okay, I'll go to Zimbabwe. Now, immediately, obviously, going to Zimbabwe, it meant I was going to use the defense aircraft. And of course, I was part of a delegation. And the delegation was led by the SG, and the delegation belonged to the MWC of the ANC, was nominated by the NWC of the ANC. So I said, okay, if I'm flying out in an aircraft of the Defense Force, everybody can come into the aircraft. I wasn't going to fly alone and leave the rest of the delegation behind. So I flew out to Zimbabwe, organized a meeting with the Minister of Defense to raise exactly the same issues which were being raised, which we were going to raise with the party in Zimbabwe about the challenges we're beginning to have. Minister agreed by two o'clock in the morning, we're sending emails to one another, got an email saying, yes, please, you're welcome. We're waiting for you. Immediately reported to the president, Mr. President, I'm okay in the morning. We're leaving in the afternoon. And the only thing if you could do for us is to assist us to clear the aircraft. Because we had not received a clearance for the aircraft to land in Zimbabwe. And maybe if you could talk to your counterpart and say, I'll be flying. So President indeed, you know, succeeded in getting President Munangwaga to push his people to give us clearance. So we left around three the following day for Zimbabwe. Came back, I think on a Thursday, we slept for a night, one night in Zimbabwe, and we came back. And when I come back, when I land, it's in the evening. Everybody is talking about a minister of defense who has gone rogue, who has gone to Zimbabwe on an aircraft belonging to the Defense Force, ferrying people from the ANC. How? How is it possible? So I went to sleep and I thought, no man, there must be an exaggeration here. You know how the media is. So the following day, I see that in fact this is based on a statement coming from the presidency. President has issued a statement giving me 48 hours to explain myself why I had gone to Zimbabwe. To do what in Zimbabwe, why I used the aircraft. And I got a shock. So when I realized that, immediately picked up the phone, spoke to the president and the chief of the defense force, and I said, I've just seen this article. It would seem there is a statement which came out, and by the way, there's also a letter now written to me, copy of what the contents of the statement. I'm being given 48 hours to answer and explain to the country why I went to Zimbabwe in an aircraft belonging to the SANTF. I said, Mr. President, I don't know if you're aware of the statement. And Mr. President said yes, he had issued a statement. I said, Yeah, but I don't know if you remember the contents of your statement. And it says, uh, yeah, what about Sisi? And I say, Look, look at the statement. I I have my copy on the other side, and let's go through the statement. So then he says, Oh, okay, you mean this particular paragraph? Then he reads the paragraph and I say, Yes. I didn't go to Zimbabwe on a journey right. If anything, I was sick, and I also had a sick husband. In fact, there were six of us in the house who were positive. And I say, I don't understand how the presidency can issue a letter and a statement which is questioning where I was, why I went there, and so because I had no reasons to want to go to Zimbabwe. So the president says, you know, Sissy, I understand, but um sometimes advisors can be overzealous. What do you mean? And the president says, I mean this particular paragraph, did he this? It's not an instruction from you, but you've signed the letter. You've signed my letter. So whatever the contents of the statement, they have your signature. The media statement as well, which has gone out, it's gone out in your name. And I can't be the one to, and you know, for me, now people around me are annoyed. The members of the generals I work with now, they are saying now, but what is this now? You know? My family, this side, my children are annoyed, and because they also didn't want me to go. When I reported that, look, I'm leaving for Zimbabwe in the morning, they said, but really? You are positive? You are leaving for Zimbabwe? What is this? I mean, what is it? And I said, No, I have to go, right? So we were saying, but really, mom? Now for me, everything that comes from the ANC to me, it's law. That's how I have always looked at issues. So I'm being directed. If I had to help my organization, then that's what I did. Later did I realize that it would have consequences for me. Because then later on, public protector wrote a letter to both the president and myself to say she's investigating the matter. Well, she investigated the matter, eventually found, of course, against me. And I'm sure now you know the rest is history. You never had once this person in my name calling a media briefing and explaining herself about what had happened. I didn't. My family wanted me to do it because they felt that I was being portrayed as a you know rogue kind of person. And I was saying, just imagine me. President has issued a statement, put questions in that statement, is expect expected me to respond to those questions, which he would then make public. Okay. And then me calling a media briefing and saying, by the way, I was sent by him. What are the implications of that? And I said, I don't want to cause a constitutional crisis for the African National Congress. Because basically, what would have happened is that people would have said, How? You guys can be so dishonest. And I didn't want that. But eventually I got my time because throughout, if you recall that period, we were meeting on virtual platforms. So in December before the conference on the in 2022, the conference of the ANC, we had for the first time in a long time a physical meeting. And I could not resist the temptation of explaining myself in that meeting because I requested an opportunity to take through the members of the National Executive Committee, give them the details of what had happened. And of course, at that point, I felt so betrayed. But I felt, and I did say, those who were in the National Executive Committee, when they hit listened to this, they will tell you that she did say, Figile included, who came to me immediately after I had given my side of the story and said we did not know. And I was surprised that they did not know. Because, amongst others, the letter which came from the presidency then said, make sure that the ANC pay for this, the expenses for this aircraft. And so we the ANC had to do some counting. It was Paul, Treasurer at the same time, and say, okay, minus one. So the one person, the cost per person to and from here to Zimbabwe, including the meals and so on, and the ANC, and I had to go to the ANC treasurer to say, could you please pay? Because here is a letter and it says I must make sure the ANC pays. Indeed, Comil Paul, who was the treasurer at the time, paid the defense force because we had to ask the defense force to do some calculations. And I think they paid about 140,000, I don't remember. But the point I'm raising is this. None of that had to do with me. It had everything to do with the African National Congress. I recall the last words I said on that day at that meeting, the final meeting before conference. I looked at them as they were sitting there, the officials, and I said, Comrades, you've betrayed me. I felt so betrayed. I felt so used by my organization, knowing very well that I'm the kind of cader who will not say no. I'll only say no when I believe indeed that it is wrong. But if it is the correct thing to do, I will do it if it is for the ANC. And that's what I did. So unfortunately, as I was moving to become the Speaker of Parliament, clearly I had that kind already, I had that blemish of having gone on a jolly ride to Zimbabwe with members of the ANC. I don't even want us to go into the issue, the other matter which became a public matter, where uh during the July riots, you'll recall that during the July riots, the police were out there. But at some point, a decision had to be taken after consultation by between the president and other political parties to release the defense force to go. And guess what? On day one of the deployment of the defense force, everything just came to a standstill. So I then went to KZN because that's where it was, together with the Minister of State Security, Ayanda Dolo, at the time. And of course, things were bad. I mean, what we saw, we witnessed, there was bad. But I'm telling you, by the time we landed, the defense force was already on the ground. And of course, the riot stopped, and it's something which we need to acknowledge. And therefore, for me, unfortunately, when I said unfortunately conducting the president, this had to do with pockets of counter-revolution in the country. I meant it and I still mean it. Because once you say it's an insurrection, you are saying the people of South Africa are up in arms and the armed forces have joined them, they are up in arms against a democratic government led by the African National Congress. So I said, no, it's not true. It can't be. This is counter-revolution, it is isolated for now, it is here in KZN, and in KZN, it's not everybody. There are some pockets. So I then said, uh, I believe it's pockets of counter revolution rather than saying it's an insurrection. Because for me, an insurrection would have meant one investors were going to leave South Africa. And everything that we are Been working hard for this country. People would have simply withdrawn because they would have said, well, it's a Panana Republic. They are fighting. Government is no more a government of the people. It is a government. They would have said it's not the it's not a people's government when we believe that it's a democratically elected government of the people of South Africa. And that's the only reason. So for me, we say it had nothing to do with questioning or undermining the authority. If anything, I believed that by putting that slight correction in our formulation, I was doing good for the African National Congress-led government. Well, people were all over. How can he contracted a head of state? But the head of state, my president, mine president, knew. We had talked about it, and I said, you can't call it this. You can't call it this, not now. We can only say, particularly because even what was happening in KZN at the time, you could tell that there were people who were taking advantage of the poverty of the socio-economic conditions of our people. Right? You had a small group of people who had sat quietly, planned, and decided that we are going to have this kind of program. A program which seeks to undermine the authority and of the state and the laws of the country. It was not the whole of South Africa being up in arms against a democratic government of the Republic of South Africa. So that for me was the issue.

SPEAKER_01

Well, you are in parliament now.

SPEAKER_00

I'm in parliament. And unfortunately now, out there in parliament, as I learned in parliament, there are people who believe who you see now that rogue minister has been brought here to parliament. You see?

SPEAKER_01

Yes.

SPEAKER_00

Yes. Now, if you unpack the whole thing and you look back, you now say, okay. So people in parliament, those who are here of the caucus, believe this one was challenging authority in the cabinet. So he's been thrown. She's come here to basically undermine, and there isn't once, but I undermined the authority of a head of state and a commander-in-chief. If anything, I worked hard in parliament. I fought you guys every day. And it was not a personal matter for me, but I asserted the authority of parliament as you guys were really creating problems for all of us. And out there in the world, people are watching and they are saying what's happening. The parliament of South Africa has become a circus. I tried. I think I protected the head of state. I think that even at a time when you guys jumped onto the podium.

SPEAKER_01

You were the speaker.

SPEAKER_00

I was there. And uh having the kind of background I have, it's not done. It was for that reason that at that point I had to call on the security forces to come in. Because I was saying, what is this now? What are they doing?

SPEAKER_01

Protest.

SPEAKER_00

What up? It it for to me it was not protest. To me, it was the red overalls or any other person jumping onto the podium, and the head of state is standing at the podium and is addressing parliament. And I said, No, I don't know what is going to happen. And of course, I acted immediately. So for me, I recall when we were leaving, and the president says, turned around and says, Speaker. And I looked at him and he said, and I could see he was terrified. And he says, You protected me. You are a lioness. Actually, you are a soldier, it's true. And I said, Yes, President, I am a soldier. And for me, it doesn't matter who was at the podium at that time. I wouldn't have allowed a protest inside parliament, on the podium. I wouldn't have allowed it. So it's not about actually you. To me, it's about a commander-in-chief of the armed forces being undermined by people in parliament. It is about a president of the Republic of South Africa. And most of all, my comrade, a member of the African National Congress, president of the African National Congress. So I wasn't going to allow it. It doesn't matter who would have been there. If it is a president and a commander-in-chief of the republic, I would have done the same. So, and I think, and I said this, I said, I believe anyone who would have been there at that time would have done exactly that. So, this issue of vengeance, which people insinuated when there was this pala panel of three, it is actually not true. And also to question the credentials, and you know what? Unfortunately, you know, when you are a leader, it's important that you surround yourself with strong people. You surround yourself with thinkers. Surround yourself with people who are not afraid of you, who can say, no, comrade knows you are wrong. No, you can't do it this way. But if you surround yourself with people who, when you think you have some particular narrative in your mind, and then they say yes, you are right, even if you are wrong, you end up in this kind of situation we find ourselves in. And for me, unfortunately, my views are known because I've I've taught I've confronted some of the people about it. Because they've said, you're misleading the organization, you're misleading the organization. Don't do this, don't do it. Well, it's done now. Constitutional court has ruled, I hang my head in shame because we could have done better. We had followed every step, we had done everything perfectly by the book. We had legal gurus around us, and then we missed just one step. One step because somebody decided in his mind that if I allow these people to go the root of this of the constitution, they are going to mess us up. What we did not realize in the process was that we were actually one not aligning ourselves with the constitution. Because now, Justice Meyer reads and everything. As I said to you, I was so confused. At some point, I said, What is it saying? What is this? But when finally then it was said the entire process, it was not the entire process. And by the way, I want to say this. The people who were in that panel were people of high standards, people with integrity. I salute them. Even at this point, even at this point, we should continue to salute them because I did not look at them as people who support so-and-so against so-and-so. Because Justice Noble was a justice, chief justice in his own right, appointed by the then head of state, done a perfect job, was very good at what he was doing. And the rest, the same applies to the supply applies to the panel now. I mean, look at the Madlanga Commission. Look at the perfect, at the performance of a Sillo there as an evidence leader. You see integrity in her, in the manner in which he leads the witnesses, she leads the witnesses. So for me, the composition of the panel of that section 838 panel was just the right combination of people. So it has nothing to do with that. It has everything to do with subsequent decisions which we took afterwards.

SPEAKER_01

If you were still the sitting speaker and now you have these instructions from the constitutional court, what were you going to do from Monday? From I mean, we are erring it will be Monday, but what were you going to do? Constitutional Court judgment Friday? What were you gonna do from Monday?

SPEAKER_00

Well, one of the things which I did when I was in Parliament was to make sure that on a regular basis I consult with the leaders of political parties in parliament.

SPEAKER_01

That's true.

SPEAKER_00

Never mind that at times they would assume that what you discussed at that forum, which is very informal, is law. You see? I have in mind sitting here, for instance, the briefings I had with them about the employment of the Secretary to Parliament. I did not do it on my own. I found a process underway, but people were too reluctant to complete the process. And I went in and I completed the process. And of course, in the course of that, I had meetings with heads of parties. But then, as you interact with them, you're interacting with them because you don't want them to be taken by surprise and say, oh my, at what point now are we, why are we here? So I took them through, they understood too the challenges we were having, okay, with regards to that particular process. That here's a process you find at the tail end. People have invited a person to apply, and they decide to interview the person. They know what the package of the person is. And now, when it gets to the package, I haven't done everything. Now people are stuck, there's no movement, and there is no secretary to parliament. So I'm just saying I wasn't the kind of presiding officer who will not consult. I consulted, I listened, and of course, going into an informal kind of engagement does not mean that that consultation should bind you and not do what you think needs to be done in parliament. And that's what we did with Masondo. So I'm just saying I would on Monday, I would call that. By now, I would have instructed a parliament to invite heads of political parties who are in parliament. Not necessarily those who are in the GNU, because the GNU is a new thing. But I would have invited all political parties and say, you've all heard, you've seen, here is the ruling. What do we do? Thereafter, you sit with your legal gurus, your team, you listen to them, they advise you about how to go about doing things. And then parties will go and brief, the heads of parties will go and brief their caucuses, and then you get the process rolling. The one thing which Justice Meyer did not say raise, I thought she would have given us time frames. She didn't give us time, they didn't give us time frames, unless I'm wrong.

SPEAKER_01

No, there isn't indeed.

SPEAKER_00

I thought at the end I said, well, they should have had time frames. So that, you know, when you don't have time frames on a matter such as this one, it can be very tricky and it can be very difficult. It's going to be very difficult for the speaker who is leading the process, who has a responsibility to ensure that we abide and we implement the recommendations of the Constitutional Court. Because others will tell you that, well, we're not in a hurry. No, no, no. Why are you hurrying? Why are you doing this? Because people will look at faces of who are the people who are doing it and who is at the center of the controversy and not look at the fact that a constitutional court has taken a decision and has given a ruling that we should go this particular way. For me, I would say, I would have said, okay, let's do it and get done with it. What happens in the organization, the party, is another matter. Because I think that, oh, yeah, it's going to be difficult for those who are in the NWC of the ANC or in the NEC, because the ANC can't avoid discussing what has come out. And maybe as the former speaker, I'll be at the center of that controversy. But guess what? I'm at peace. I'm at peace because everything and everything I did was according to the prescripts, according to the rules of parliament, according to what the constitution requires of me to do. So people need to sit, and as they do that, they must start correcting. The rules committee, caucuses should sit, go into the rules committee, put in place, correct that which hasn't been identified by the Constitutional Court and develop that rule which we have been directed to.

SPEAKER_01

Yeah. No, you are right because you found the rule there.

SPEAKER_00

I found the rule there.

SPEAKER_01

Let me let me let me push uh towards the direction of uh the sitting president now. When you were explaining the Zimbabwe question and uh something we are hearing for the first time, you're saying the president is the one who had initiated and instructed uh the Zimbabwe tree. Yeah, it makes me think about uh Senzom Kunu. But Senzom Kunu keeps saying to us, no, the president uh was consulted on the PKTT's disbandment, and I kept him oppressed all the time. Is is is it is it for you something that you you think Senzo might actually be right based on this experience? Because the president has already said he didn't say such a thing.

SPEAKER_00

President says he didn't know.

SPEAKER_01

Yeah, he wrote to the ad hoc committee, says Senzo never briefed him about the picking. And Senzo says Senzo says he did.

SPEAKER_00

Well, there it is. I I I don't know. I don't know, but my experience, personal experience, at least of this uh particular time when I had to go to Zimbabwe and find myself in a situation. By the way, you know that most uh three months' salary was stocked. Yes, yeah. And uh Tito, I I forever treasured Tito because he fought very hard that the deductions should not be uh affect my growth, but rather net. So a third of my salary was stocked for three months. But I did not ask to go to Zimbabwe. I had no business of going to Zimbabwe. I was asked by my organization to go to Zimbabwe and do what I believed was right. It was correct at that point that we should consult as a country, as a party with the authorities in Zimbabwe because of the problems we're encountering in South Africa. But then, at the end of it all, you are on your own. But guess what? As I said earlier, I'm not a person who's I'm not vindictive as a person. I I'm not. I'm not this I know, and people who are close to me will tell you that look, you'll fight with her today, tomorrow, it's over. I'm not vindictive by nature, but also the training for me by the ANC itself, it teaches you that your comrades will never be your enemy. Don't look at human beings. I used to say this to Julius. I used to think, hey, these young people probably think that Lomamalo is just unnecessarily being difficult, and yet they know themselves they are violating rules. I have nothing personal. But if Julius is honest when when you would have your when you would interact with him, he would have told you that one time in the NEC, quite early, after the 2007 conference in Pulugwana. This is 2008.

SPEAKER_01

Yes. Yes, he would have been he would have joined after the 2008 Youth League Conference.

SPEAKER_00

Yes, yes. And uh and one time, I mean, I had been watching this for some time and uh and how he would rattle people in the NEC. And I said, hey, I think it's about time you realize that we are not all equals here. You have senior members, you have elder people. From a point of view of how we're brought up as human beings, there are things you can't do or say to people who are more senior than you. And I said, if you do that and appreciate that, even though you may think that you have powers, but understand that up, there are also those who are more senior than you in terms of age and in terms of the organization itself, once you do that, you will not be wrong. You will not you will you'll be okay, you'll be a better person. Um and I thought uh well he understood that he's leading now. It's okay, and uh maybe you too, if you you should have remained there because uh there's many challenges.

SPEAKER_01

Remained where speaker.

SPEAKER_00

Well, you know, you need uh you know, sometimes an organization stands for the right things. Yes, yes, yes, but how people do things uh and how they conduct themselves in the public, you know, they then lose um the support and interest of people. For instance, after my term with you guys in 2024, you lost a few seats. And and I think the manner in which you are behaving now, the way you are conducting yourselves and behaving in a session of parliament talks to the fact that, and I'm happy about it, that you have learned from your mistakes. Because people were saying, why are they doing this in parliament? Why are they? And after the the 2024 elections, you lost a few seats, and I'm sure when you were doing your assessment, you too realized that uh-uh, we lost a bit of support of a particular group of people, and it's probably because of our own conduct that we've and so I think it's a good, it's a good one for you. And and for me, it's it shows that our democracy is maturing every day.

SPEAKER_01

But do you think, speak? I mean, I I don't want to enter into I thought you were saying I must remain in the ANC post-year didn't, but I I see what you are what you are saying now. You had this Zimbabwe problem, and then they took three months of your salary. Am I sensing a different order when it came to to Senzo? Is this in where you are sitting? Should the country accept that President Ramaposa's response to allegations against Senzo Mkun, which he has now confirmed. I mean, if he has already said Senzo is not correct that he consulted me about the disbandment of the PKTT, yet he has still kept him under suspension on full pay, full benefits. Next month it will be a year. Is this in keeping with good executive practice on the part of a head of state? I mean, those are so because taxes.

SPEAKER_00

You know what? I think it would be it wouldn't be I would not want to handle to to deal with a the individual of the president. No um but one thing when you lead and you lead people one of the things you always have to exercise is and demonstrate an appreciation of the fact that you all belong here, right? Create a sense of belonging to everybody around you, and and and even to an extent of of making them feel a sense of importance because these are the people who are doing the actual work for you. You should never ever be seen as someone who will deal with individuals in a particular way or differentiate. You must set standards, man, for yourself. Set standards for yourself. Um people should know you as someone who will not hesitate to act against because happens to be close to me. You treat people equally. If you're leading people, that's what you do. In the executive committee, when you look at them, you know that Uno Severe is equal to Mtunu, is equal to Mandasha, is equal to whoever. This is a collective I have, which I depend on to do the work on the ground. That's what you do. So for me, I don't want to be judgmental because I have listened to Comrade Senzo. I've also listened to the president. President says Senzo never briefed him. Comrade Senzo says I kept him informed. So sometimes I look back and say, are we dealing with Zimbabwe here or what? So I'm unable to judge Senzo. I'm also unable to judge the president, but it sounds very familiar to me that at times you'll be given an instruction and the ANC will distance itself from you afterwards. Because at the time when I was down, Comrade Lose, and out during the Zimbabwe episode, there is not one official of the ANC who took ownership of the trip. If anything, others said no, it's because it was led, delegation was led by the SG. So it's a faction. What have I to do with a faction? I didn't have I was not, you know, people, I was not part of factions. I'm not part of factions. So that now people will distance themselves from their instruction because the delegation was led by a particular person. It has nothing to do with me, it had everything to do with the NWC. So I'm just saying, I don't know, but I'm sitting here and I'm watching, and then at times I say it sounds familiar.

SPEAKER_01

You you you would have seen uh this uh past week as well, had a drama over a member of parliament who got arrested and was transported from Cape Town to Debian at the back of a van, apparently. The police say he was treated differently. I don't know, but there is a dispute in society over uh you know equal. Are we equal in front of the law? One, but secondly, there are those who say uh he was not treated well being you know a member of parliament. You speak got arrested and you had been a chairperson of the security cluster for very long, so the people that raided your home, arrested you, and all of those things uh would have been people who know that you know the system. Of course. Um my question is, and the similarity here is that the gentleman was asked to present himself. You were also asked to present yourself. When you compare the situations, uh, could we say that he was treated badly?

SPEAKER_00

I think he was treated badly, depending on how he responded to. See, in my case, for instance, I could tell that uh when the people came to raid my house, there's a man called Belushin, who's with IDAC. I could tell throughout, from the day he he actually searched my house, that Belushin was expecting some kind of resistance. And I did not give him that. You see? When I was finally, when I went uh finally to be processed, which was two or three weeks later, in the manner in which he would deal with me, uh, you could tell that the team were not getting back what they expected to find. Because throughout I told myself that you know what? I've been chairing the JSCP committee cluster. I've chaired it for years. I will not, for once, even if I think they are wrong, I will not resist. I will not resist if they say, I mean, they said, remove your jewelry. Because people in the grills are going to, they are likely to uh to to take them. Uh give us your shawl because maybe we don't know what your state of mind is. You may harm yourself in the cells with it. And I said, What is this now? But I maintained my dignity and and I said, I will not defy, I will not resist. The only time when I put up a hostile, I know, defense was when I thought a Bellushin believes that he also stood a chance they could have been. He says, uh, I was talking to the protectors and I was saying, I'm okay, you don't have to stand here. I'm being busy with the people who are processing me inside. And he says, Oh, you they are standing there and you are telling them to go away. What can they do after all? There could be there could be shit here anytime. And I said, Oh, I dare you. I'm now here, right? I've come to hand myself over. Right? You've processed, you've taken fingerprints, everything. I'm going to court. But if that's what you say, I dare you. I fought for this democracy, and I know every bit, every law which is in your Criminal Procedures Act. So you dare, you dare not. So I'm just saying, in this case of this, look, if it is true that he was at the back of a van from the Western Cape to KZ, and remember, it's been very cold this week. And I recall that when he was leaving his house, he was just carrying a jacket. That would be inhumane. But can't judge. On the other hand, I'm aware that he had been given a notice to go and report to the police station and was told where. And I believe that if he had done that, if he had done that, um, he wouldn't be in this kind of situation now. Because all he needed to do is to take the summons on the day uh walk up to the police station and say, I'm so-and-so. Then they would have received him and processed him. But to just send your team of lawyers, I also had lawyers, but they couldn't say, Oh, go. I'm supposed to report to Little Teen on a particular day, you go on my behalf, you can't. Because they'll issue a warrant of arrest against you. And I think in this case, what I'm hearing is that he did not do that. He decided to send his team, and he was not part of the team. The police are not going to process the team. The protect, the, the, the, the lawyers are just there for your protection.

SPEAKER_01

Yes.

SPEAKER_00

They want you. So you have to, you can't say I'm a member of parliament. I can't go when they say I should report. You report. And then your lawyers will be there to engage with them. But from what I'm hearing, then that's not what happened. And I think that was unfortunate because he then put himself in the kind of situation which we saw.

SPEAKER_01

To conclude the interview, many South Africans don't know what is next after the judgments of the constitutional courts. Uh, we wonder what is going to be the reaction of President Ronal Posa. Will he go through the impeachment process or will he resign? Many have called for a resignation. I saw a lot of members of the ANC on social media, on X, Facebook, in WhatsApp statuses saying the best thing to do is to retreat. Some have argued that you know it's equal to being charged. I know that you have explained that.

SPEAKER_00

It's not equal to being charged because, as I say, if last time, now because of the the environment as it is, and the people's perceptions about what had happened, I think it would be very difficult for anyone. But if at that time, when one we had that majority, we did not use that majority in the manner in which we did, of bulldozing people. That's the other thing which perhaps we say I should always caution leaders about. You don't bulldoze people. When you are a leader, you lead. You lead and you earn the respect of the people by leading. And also by how you communicate with them. But if you think that conference gave you the right to bulldoze people, conference did not give anyone a right to bulldoze or bully. You don't bully people, particularly members of the ANC, because members of the ANC know their rights. By the way, we we drafted the constitution, which was 30 years last night. We drafted, so everybody knows what is contained in the Bill of Rights. You know when you join the ANC and why you are joining the ANC. You do not join the ANC because you want to go into leadership. And then when you are in leadership, then you bully people. And I believe the situation the president finds himself in is a situation created by people who at the time would not allow him to go through the process as it was required of him. People just came in. This thing of just defending, you know, blindly and be unable to say, look, this may create a problem for us down the way, along the way, and say, look, maybe let's look at the following options. If they had done that, I'm sure we would be talking a different story now. That we allowed a situation where you guys, those in the EFF, went to court in ATM, and now today we find you in a situation where the constitutional court actually impresses upon us that we should do it. You have no choice. We have no choice. We had the time, we had the opportunity to plan, which was given to us by our same law, the same constitution, and the same rules. We had the opportunity to unpack them and say what would be the implications if we use our majority vote to do away with it, to nullify a process of a panel which consisted of three judges, two judges and the senior advocate. That's why we are here. And I'm saying even now, and I pray that comrades should not be reckless in the manner in which they deal with the matter. Comrades should not look at the face of the person who they are dealing with. By the way, Mbalula is very quick to talk in circumstances where people find themselves in a similar situation. They will scream all over the place about you to a point of instructing people that even those who are close to you, if they are members of the ANCH, they should not come to court because they'll be fired. You don't do that. A leader doesn't do that. You have your rules, and your rules are set for everybody. We're all equal. I pray that in dealing with the matter now, we will exercise a lot of responsibility, maturity, so that we do not put our head of state in a situation as the one he finds himself in. Somebody else will say, but the onus is on him. Well, now the onus is on him. At the time, he believed the people were telling him not to do it, that they were correct. And somebody had somebody on TV saying, Comrade the president was ready to resign at that time. That's my impression, too. At that time, you could tell that there was a lot of heat. And then we ourselves, leadership, we convinced him to stay. And now the ball is in his court. If I were in his situation, I wouldn't listen to anyone. I would simply sit with my family and explain to my family what I'm going through and what I'm likely to be confronted with. And we discuss and agree what the right or even people, you have we all have mentors. We have mentors. You go to your mentor in the ANC. For instance, there are people I respect in the ANC. I hold with high regard. I am 7-0 this year. And I am quite a number of years in the ANC as well. But still, I know that in the ANC there are people I can run to and say, please help me, please advise me because of the respect I have for them, but also because of the experience they have, rather than listening to people. Case, I would not hesitate, for instance, to approach a person like Tenju Mtinzo, who is very senior to me in the ANC, who is slightly older than I am, I would not hesitate, even to listen to Charles, because sometimes we differ most of the time. And we don't flatter each other. If he's wrong, he's wrong. If if Nami I'm wrong, I'm wrong. And he tells me that you are wrong. And sometimes in garnism, they've caught up with me and he'll say, you see, if you had listened to me that time, this wouldn't have happened. So I would go to my mentors. I would I would go to my mentors, people who are more senior, who have integrity, and say, I'm dealing with this, and perhaps even confide in them. Because I I wanna m to mono confide away if you are a human being. And say, look, I have the following problems. My fears are the following with regards to this. So please advise. Am I right? Am I seeing it correctly if I go there? Or what should I do?

SPEAKER_01

But speak of politically, ma, what would be the right thing for President Ronaposa to do? No. I'm scared to say. Okay.

SPEAKER_00

I'm scared to say, I'm not scared because I don't want to. Remember, you are a lioness. Lioness doesn't. No, it's just that I don't like people saying, ah, she's being vengeful. No. But definitely I would have I would have jumped yesterday. I would have jumped because I know what we had. Well, maybe if I use myself. When I was charged after the ruling by the court, that court which said I that court where I had applied for this to be said to be nullified had no jurisdiction over that kind of case. And when we read that, I said, oh, okay, fine. I must prepare myself for the court. I would, I would, I would do something similar to that. I would I would go to my family, call in my family, and say, what do we do in the circumstances? And I think I should move the following direction. The problem about social media, the people who are talking in the social media will not go to the president and advise him. And you may find that, in fact, some of the people who have those kinds of comments are people close to him. But will not go to him and say, forward to maybe this is the route to go. This is our palapa and it ends there. Not everybody reads some of those things. I'm not into social media. You know, they weak social media because in fact I was told by my late son when he was fourteen. I said, I was crying because there was a demonstration against me when I was in home affairs, when I passed the civil union bill, which allows for people of the same sex to marry. So there was a demonstration by Muslims in court led by some lawyer called Omar. I don't know if he's still alive. So I was watching this in the news and I was crying because the things which were written, you know, F you, this, that, that, don't don't. And I said, So this is how it is to be in government. This is what I'm going to be subjected to. And I cried. So my son walked in and said, listen, everybody, I think we should not allow mommy to watch TV and me, mommy. So the others said, but what is it? He says, I found my mother crying in front of the TV because people are holding black cats. We should not allow her to. And you know what? I listened to that because then later on in life they kept on saying, join social media. But don't join social media when because if you join social media, we are only like every time it was our call. And indeed, and I'm not on the only platform I have is TikTok.

SPEAKER_01

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00

Now you sometimes back in the foon bony funny to you. Like yesterday, there was something. I said, what can I? You know? And I said, I don't want to see this. So I would say at the end of it, it's your conscience. It's what is in here, not what other people tell you. And at the end of the day, the person who knows the truth about your personal circumstances now, it's you. That's what I would say.

SPEAKER_01

Yeah, thank you so much, uh Ma. Thank you. Maybe in the next two weeks, uh, you and I uh might know whether a conscience uh of the president spoke the same way your conscience spoke, or koba. Oh, I waka was pulling a swimming pool as a fire pool. Thank you so much for your time.

SPEAKER_00

Don't talk about a swimming pool which was a fire pool, because I was part of that class which presented into it, received the report and presented to the public that it was a fire pool. But thank you very much uh for the honor. Uh I really appreciate it. Uh we could have discussed more, but we had to be you confined me to these specific issues, and I wasn't going to refuse to to respond to them.

SPEAKER_01

Thank you.

SPEAKER_00

And and I just think that when uh when uh we seen ute as for the the Zimbabwe story for once that people at least will know the truth about what happened. Yes, thank you.

SPEAKER_01

All right.