National Assembly Speaker Baleka Mbete rejected a Democratic Alliance attempt on Wednesday to have a question to Deputy President Jacob Zuma reinstated on the question paper after she had ruled it out of order.

Mbete had earlier told DA MP Raenette Taljaard her question to Zuma regarding his meetings with French arms dealer Alain Thethard was out of order, because of the Schabir Shaik trial underway in Durban.

In a letter to Taljaard, Mbete said the issues raised in her question were the subject of a current judicial process.

"I wish to advise you therefore that the above question is out of order and cannot be proceeded with as it does not comply with the sub judice rule.

"(National Assembly) rule 67 states that no member shall refer to any matter on which a judicial decision is pending," Mbete wrote.

At the start of question time on Wednesday, DA Chief Whip Douglas Gibson said, on a point of order, the DA "respectfully disagrees" with her decision.

"The questions cannot be said to fall shy of the sub judice rule, since the deputy president is not an accused and he is not a witness in the trial of Mr Shaik," he said.

In particular, there was no judicial decision pending about Zuma's reply to Taljaard's earlier question of March 13, 2003, which was the basis of her new question to him on Wednesday.

By ruling the matter to be sub judice and the question to be out of order, the Speaker was also in fact denying Zuma the opportunity of clearing his name.

There was a constant complaint he was being subjected to a trial by media, and the question provided the perfect opportunity for him to tell the public the facts without in any way affecting the outcome of the Shaik trial to which he was not a party, Gibson said.

Mbete said her office had very carefully considered Taljaard's question, and she stood by her ruling.

"The basis of my letter to the Honourable Taljaard is rule 67 of the National Assembly, which is a self-imposed rule by this House... for this House to be able to work with the courts of this land on the basis of mutual respect, allowing the courts the space to do their work."

The question did not just generally refer to the Shaik trial, but mentioned a specific company and evidence arising from the trial.

And although Zuma was not on trial, the substance of what the question dealt with was something which was before the court, and for a pending decision.

"Therefore, I have, on that basis, ruled that question out of order, and that ruling stands," Mbete said.

With ackowledgement to Sapa.