Cape Town - A political row has erupted following National Assembly Speaker Baleka Mbete's decision to spare Deputy President Jacob Zuma from answering questions in Parliament related to the Schabir Shaik trial .

Late on Tuesday Mbete wrote to Democratic Alliance (DA) MP Raenette Taljaard informing her that her question regarding an alleged meeting between Zuma and arms deal contractor Alain Thetard was "out of order and cannot be proceeded with as it does not comply with the sub judice rule".

On the question paper Taljaard had asked Zuma if he wanted to "reconsider his reply to an earlier question about a meeting with Thetard" and if he did, when did they meet and what had they discussed?

Thetard is local director of Thales , formerly known as Thomsons CSF, which allegedly offered Zuma a "retainer" for protection from arms deal investigations.

When questions to Zuma began in Parliament, DA chief whip Douglas Gibson effectively asked Mbete to reverse her decision because "it was wrong".

"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," Gibson said. He said that there was also no judicial decision pending on a reply that Zuma had made to a similar question that had been asked, again by Taljaard, more than a year ago.

Mbete said that the issue had been "very carefully considered" by her office and she would not like to have an argument with Gibson on the matter.

"The basis of my letter is the rule 67 of the National Assembly that is self-imposed and enables this house to work with the courts of this land on a basis of mutual respect, and allowing the courts the space to do their work. Although the deputy president is not the person being tried, however, the information is something that is before the courts and therefore I have ruled the question out of order and that ruling stands."

This led to acrimonious exchanges between the DA and African National Congress (ANC) benches as DA MPs tried to get questions on the Shaik trial into the assembly under the guise of a discussion on the moral regeneration movement.

Mbete declared all such attempts out of order and appealed to MPs to respect a decision of the presiding officer on the matter.

Gibson concluded that: "From a practical point of view, by ruling the matter to be sub judice and the question to be out of order, the speaker is in fact denying the deputy president the opportunity of clearing his name.

"There is a constant complaint that he is being subjected to a trial by media. Today provides 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 is not a party."

With acknowledgements to Wyndham Hartley and the Business Day.