Should Jacob Zuma have been shielded from difficult questions about his personal financial and business affairs in parliament under the sub judice rule?

MPs were divided on this yesterday.

The difference of opinion arose over the following question which Democratic Alliance MP Raenette Taljaard was to have put to the Deputy President yesterday:

1. Whether he will reconsider his reply (to a question in parliament) on 13 March 2003 regarding his meetings with Alain Thethard; if not, why not; if so (a) when did he meet with Alain Thethard and (b) what did he discuss with Thethard at these meetings.

2. Whether, in light of the KPMG report submitted at the Shabir Shaik trial, he will reconsider his claim to the parliamentary ethics committee in 2003 that the payments he received via Shabir Shaik were interest-bearing loans; if not, why not; if so, what are the correct details of these payments?

The question was not put to Zuma because Speaker Baleka Mbete decided to withdraw it.

She told Taljaard in a letter on Tuesday the "issues raised ... are 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".

The ANC agreed that in the light of the Shabir Shaik fraud trial arising from the controversial arms deal - in which the name of the Deputy President has been often heard - any questions associated with matters raised in the trial do indeed fall within this restricting rule.

The DA said it "respectfully disagrees" with the Speaker's ruling.

In a statement - and repeated yesterday as the substance of a point of order - DA Chief Whip Douglas Gibson argued: "The questions (Taljaard was to have asked in parliament) 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. In particular, there is no judicial decision pending about the Deputy President's reply to (the question put to him) on 13 March 2003. There is also no judicial decision pending concerning the parliamentary ethics committee hearing in 2003.

"The rule must now be interpreted in the light of the protection to freedom of expression in our constitution. This exactly was the subject of a Constitutional Court judgment in the State v Mamabolo where Judge Kriegler limited the rule to cases where 'the offending conduct, viewed contextually really was likely to damage the administration of justice'.

"Justice Sachs preferred a stricter test by requiring that it 'must be likely to have an impact of a sufficiently serious and substantial nature as to pose a real and direct threat to the administration of justice'.

"The ruling of the Speaker extends the application of the rule way beyond the scope of the rule as laid down by the Constitutional Court."

With acknowledgement to the Cape Argus.