Impeachment Committee debates evidence leader

[00:01:03]progress.

[00:01:15]Uh good morning honorable members uh support staff. Uh my watch says it's 10:00.

[00:01:26]Uh and our meeting is scheduled to start at 10:00.

[00:01:32]Uh welcome uh to the meeting of the impeachment committee for the section 89 uh inquiry. Uh just wanting to check with uh the committee secretary uh Tigosi uh if we do have a a quorum of members in attendance.

[00:01:57]>> Good morning uh chairperson and good morning to the honorable members. Yes, chairperson we do have uh the quorum for the meeting. You may proceed. Thank you so much.

[00:02:06]Thank thank you very much uh Tigosi uh just to indicate uh honorable members uh that this is the ordinary meeting of the impeachment committee. We have two key items uh that we are going to be looking at and I hope you are also enjoying your constituency period. Uh it's uh the second last week of the constituency period. Uh but ourselves as the impeachment committee we continue our work uh and we have always said that uh we focus on the things that we can control uh and leave the other things in the hands of uh those that deal with those other matters. As you would know honorable members that there was the interdict hearing uh that was last week at the Western Cape High Court. uh we have been informed uh that judgment will be uh will be delivered uh on Friday at 10:00 in the morning. So as soon as uh we have the the judgment uh uh or the ruling of the court uh we will share it uh with uh with yourselves. Uh Timos, if you could just fly the the agenda for for us.

[00:03:31]Thank thank you Timosi. Uh so this honorable members uh this is our agenda uh for the day. uh you you will see that uh uh the the there's a slight swap of items uh from the one that was circulated earlier uh which uh had as item number four the the consideration of of the of the of the terms of reference. Uh so we just uh brought uh the item on the evidence leaders uh before that because the one on the evidence leaders is not long. Uh it's a short item and we can uh deal with that uh matter uh as quickly as we possibly can and then uh we will then that will then be followed by the uh consideration of inputs on draft terms of reference.

[00:04:21]So that's it's just the change of orders. So did not change uh the the items uh to be discussed today. Um I see the end of uh honorable SW.

[00:04:37]>> Good morning chair and morning colleagues. Um, chair, we forgot to pray, but that's we we can do that another time. But I just wondered whether we would go beyond the time today given that the draft terms of reference are uh the matrix is more than 114 pages. If so, I might need to tender an apology if we go beyond 1:00. Thank you, chair. Uh thank thanks very much uh honorable s and thanks for always reminding me to uh to stay uh true to what we had resolved in terms of the the need to start our meeting with a moment of silence. Uh that's uh something that I will uh I have to ensure that it happens. I I see you honorable Lynchfield if I can just ask uh honorable members as we we have been diplomatically reminded that we're supposed to have started the meeting with a moment of silent prayer or meditation as we had resolved in the last meeting. If we can just observe a moment of silent prayer and meditation then we'll proceed with the meeting.

[00:05:57]Thank you very much.

[00:06:00]Uh, honorable Lynchfield.

[00:06:04]>> Thank you, chair. I think like honorable if we go beyond the time, I will ask to be excused. I have a joint sitting at two at the Panaffrican Parliament. I actually have one even this morning which I'm missing. Thank you chair.

[00:06:18]>> All right. Thank you very much. So yourselves an honorable SW has moved ahead. I wanted to come to item number two uh which is apologies. Ask Timosi uh if we have received some apologies uh but noting the apologies of honorable Lichfield and also the apology of honorable swat in case we uh we don't finish by uh uh 1:00. Toss if you could just uh go through the apologies. I see the hand of honorable Daniels. I'll come to you honorable Daniels. If we can just get the apologies uh first unless if this is a a point before apologies.

[00:07:00]Honorable Daniels.

[00:07:02]>> Uh good morning chairperson. Good morning colleagues. No chair. I will wait until you give me the opportunity.

[00:07:06]Thank you.

[00:07:07]>> Thank you very much. Uh Tosy apologies received.

[00:07:12]>> Morning once again chair. Uh no apologies to except that uh Miss Bane is still trying to join the meeting and I'm assisting her. That's all. No other apologies. Thank you.

[00:07:24]>> Thank you very much.

[00:07:26]>> I'm in the meeting chair. Thank you.

[00:07:30]>> All right. Thank you honorable uh honorable Daniels.

[00:07:38]>> Yes. Good morning chairperson and thank you. Um I also just want to tend to an apology should the meeting exceed which I expect is going to happen beyond 1:00.

[00:07:46]Thank you Jefferson.

[00:07:48]>> Thank thank you very much uh honorable Daniels. If we uh if we all uh you know like be considerate with the time we'll finish at 1:00 but if we give long speeches uh will go beyond 1:00. those uh uh three uh departures in case that we we we don't finish the agenda by 1:00 uh will be uh will be noted. Uh so uh let's note those uh those apologies uh honorable members and then move to item three [clears throat] uh the temp the tableling of correspondents uh since our last meeting. Uh Tossi if I could just ask you to table uh the correspondence that uh we have received. Uh uh thank you very much uh chairperson uh chair. The correspondence is from uh our last uh meeting which would have been taken which would have taken place on the 24th. So on the 25th the first correspondence to come in would have came from the MK party. It was a formal nomination of an evidence leader.

[00:09:01]However, on the 30th, we received another correspondence from the MK party wherein they withdrew the nomination of uh the evidence leader and replaced it with another senior council as per what is on the screen. H and then Cherson on the 1st of July uh we received a a a letter in the form of a notice of motion uh from the MK party uh calling on the committee to subpoena the speaker and obtain the >> just honor I mean honorable Lfield is that the new hand or is the leg I I think it is a legacy hand because when you when you asked me to do correspondence, it was up already. Uh but we'll wait for the confirmation.

[00:09:59]>> All right. there's no confirmation and and once we deal with this uh I'll just go back honorable members uh slide back to ask that we adopt the agenda before we get to the meat of the uh of the h the the agenda thanks thanks continue to go >> all all right thank you I will I will lower the hand of Dr. then cherson h yes ch to proceed then I was indicating that the motion was calling on the committee to subpoena the speaker and obtain the full unredacted legal opinions and documents relating to the president's review application to ensure transparency and enable the committee to properly carry out its h constitutional mandate h the chairperson responded to the MK party's letter on the same day and advised that the committee's mandate was limited to investigating the section 89 charges against the president uh sorry against the president and that concerns regarding the speaker's conduct should be addressed through the appropriate uh NA processes and uh on 2nd of July uh we received another communication from the MK party where it contend that uh the motion was wrongly characterized and arguing that it seeks access to a legal opinion relevant to the committee mandate rather than an investigation into the speaker and that the president's court challenge directly affects the committee's ability to perform its work. The MP the MK party was therefore calling for the motion to be tabled, debated and voted on by the committee. H chair responded on the same day and maintained the position that was set out in the previous letter also reiterating that the MK party's request should be pursued through the appropriate national assembly processes and then chair on the 10th of July as uh members would also be aware it was uh the closing date uh for the nomination of uh evidence uh leaders as well as the inputs h on the terms of reference. So the following correspondence mainly relates to that chair would have been the DA's formal nomination of evidence leader where in the nom names of advocate Kate Hoff mayor SC and advocate co came up and then ch it was the ATM's nomination of advocate goldbeck senior council and then it was the IFP's nomination of advocate Morana senior council action essays advocate of uh nomination of advocate of mayor senior council ANC's nomination of advocate Zenil Mate and just an omission that there it will be reflected on the document that is to be presented by legal services on the matter. There is a a second name of advocate at last don't want to say mima yesterday but it will reflect on the document that will be presented by legal services and then chair we also received a nomination from the EFF also of advocate Moran senior council and also a nomination from national colored congress of advocate Jeremy senior council and chapen the next correspondence would have been on the 14th of July it relates to the same matter that was raised by the by the MK party and the response of the chairperson was uh same chap sent the letter that would have been sent on the 3rd of July to maintain the ch the position of the chairperson and then on the 17th of July we received a letter from action essay h it was a request for the section 89 to consider subdisciplinary findings and related evidence in the palapala inquiry and of course uh the chairperson responded on the 20th of uh July and indicated that the correspondence will be deposited as part of the evidentiary record for consideration by the committee in the course of its work together with any other relevant evidence placed before it. Also the chairperson indicated that he intends to engage with the chairpersons of other portfolio committees that would have previously considered matters relating to the pala pala matter with a view to obtaining any information that may assist the committee in the discharge of its mandate chess that is the correspondence it was shared these letters were all shared with the members uh via email uh there were too many sometimes when there's this number of documents I don't normally put them on WhatsApp so I would have shared via email if members want to have a sight of them. Thank you very much. That is the correspondence before the committee.

[00:14:44]>> Thank you very much, Tomosi. Before there are questions on the correspondence, uh I will just ask for the uh retrospective acceptance of the agenda. Uh if someone could just move uh retrospectively uh for us to accept the agenda uh as it is.

[00:15:07]Uh, honorable, are you moving?

[00:15:11]>> Yes, chair, I move. Thank you.

[00:15:13]>> Thank you very much. Uh, honorable Ka, is that you seconding the agenda?

[00:15:18]>> I'm seconding, chair.

[00:15:20]>> Thank Thank you very much. Thank you very much, honorable and honorable for uh moving for adoption and seconding. Uh honorable members, those are the correspondence that uh have been received uh by the committee and myself as the chairperson. Uh I'll now uh ask if there's anyone that has got a question in terms of the uh the responses that will have given to uh been given to those that have written to the committee.

[00:15:58]Honorable Dagma, >> thanks very much chairperson, greetings to all on the platform. Now just to say that um in terms of the correspondence where you have responded to the letter um of MKP concerning the speaker, I think that in my view is a correct response and I think all of us are also aware of the fact that there has been other correspondence directed to the speaker and the deputy speaker about proposed motions of no confidence etc. But I think it's correct that we as you've indicated in your letter um stick to the mandate of the committee. So thank you chair.

[00:16:40]>> Thank you very much honorable DMO and and that's uh the position uh that uh we uh also I articulated even when we we met uh in June that uh we need to stick to the mandate of the committee you know like this is a committee with a specific function. Our mandate is not uh is not broad. We are established to deal with effectively uh the motion that the honorable Sungula tabled. uh so we have to deal with matters relating to the charges uh that are contained in the in the original motion and that's how narrow our scope is and I always want to say that let's not try to uh broaden our mandate beyond that which is contained uh in the original motion uh but also what's contained in the independent panel report and like I said and I want to repeat it [clears throat] uh if there are any unhappiness with uh the conduct the actions taken by the speaker uh let's use the national assembly uh and as if it relates to the use of uh uh finances and and so forth uh there's a committee in parliament that looks at the financial management of uh parliament let's use those channels uh and let's not uh broaden the scope uh of this uh of this committee and make it a general uh committee it's it's established to deal with the matters as contained in the original motion that was submitted by honorable Zungula uh uh in terms of section 89 of the constitution. Thanks very much honorable members. We'll now move to the next item uh which is uh to deal with the uh with the nominations uh of uh the evidence leaders uh the evidence leader uh and then I'll ask uh uh Suen from from legal uh to just present uh the report uh we did circulate yesterday uh the list of those that were nominated uh and also indicate uh their availability or nonavailability.

[00:18:57]Uh Suen, could you please take us through uh the the names of the uh evidence leaders that were nominated by political parties? Uh so there's one name that was not nominated by the political parties. Uh it was from myself uh who then asked legal uh to cast the net a little wider uh and see if they could find uh someone outside of those that were nominated by the political parties just in case someone says there's a name that was not uh listed in the in the in the correspondence. How did it it make an entry there? It was my request to uh to legal to just cut cast the net a bit wider. Thank you very much honorable members. I'll now ask Suen Isaac from legal to present uh on on that uh agenda item.

[00:19:53]>> Uh good morning chair and members. I'm just going to share my screen that has the list of um the evidence leaders.

[00:20:02]Uh chair that we were requested to check the availability of the various um legal practitioners nominated by the political parties to the committee that are serving in the committee. Uh the process we used was to to call the people and ask them whether they met the criteria that the committee had resolved against.

[00:20:24]Um the first person we on the list is advocate Zinc Mabete SC. He indicated that he is available and interested in serving as evidence leader but he does have a very packed diary until November.

[00:20:39]The next person was advocate Madima Essie he indicated he's not available.

[00:20:46]Advocate the third person is advocate Kate Hoffme mayor Essie she is available. Uh advocate Cohen we contacted him however he does not have um enough experience. He is a junior advocate at present. So he does not have the required 15 years experience uh that the committee requires the evidence leader to have. So we have indicated he's not available. He would be available if he would be considered for the junior. Uh next person is advocate Ilgawana. uh chairperson he indicated he is available as per the requirements as set by the committee which is one of them being um that the evidence leader must not have a real or perceived conflict of interest in respect of the matter. Uh in our due diligence we became aware of a case that he had as an acting judge he made a ruling and did refer to the matters related that were discussed in the independent panel report. We did put that to him a person and asked him whether he felt that this issue would give rise to even a real or perceived conflict of interest. Uh he did respond to us in writing and his view was that he is not conflicted in relation to the to serving as evidence leader. He states that he's governed by clause 58 of the legal practitioners code. um these public utterances in the judgment of Muhai and others versus the city of Swani Metropolan municipality were criticisms of the legislature and not the president and he also feels that he was vindicated by the constitutional court. Um he says that um in any event his views expressed on the parlor parlor issue are irrelevant. He points out the fact that the evidence leader is not required to find the guilt or innocence of the president. the evidence leader will be required to lead evidence and he also refers to the case of NDPP versus Zuma which the court said the motive of a prosecutor is not relevant to the lawfulness or unlawfulness of a prosecution. So in summary he's of the view that although he's made public comments about the independent panel report and um matters related to Paula Paula he is not conflicted. The next person we contacted was advocate Morani.

[00:23:04]he's not available. Advocate uh Doran Gold as well, he indicated he's not available. Uh advocate Ismile Jamie is available and advocate Plea available is available as well. Uh with regard to those council who have who are indicated they are available um as you would be aware um the we would want council to comment in August and most council already have predetermined dates but the ones who are available can commence work uh in August while they still consider continue with matters they have already committed themselves to so they will be able to start work in August. uh chair person those are the list of the nominated evidence leaders and the availability is indicated there.

[00:23:51]Thank you >> very much Suen. Uh honorable members uh that's the report uh based on the nominations that you had submitted and I present the report yourself. Uh and you can then ask questions or make recommendations in terms of how we we move forward. As you will know that when we met last time we we had indicated that we'll bring the the the full list to the committee the ones that are available and then we will then make a recommendation uh to uh to parliament as you know that we we are not the appointing authority. We make the recommendations or reflections and then parliament will then deal with the issues of supply chain but at all times we we committed that we'll be transparent with each other but also with the people of South Africa. I see the hand of honorable M.

[00:24:58][clears throat] Uh thank you very much uh chairperson and greetings to you and uh greetings to honorable members.

[00:25:07]Let me start by welcoming the uh list of uh evidence leaders and I think uh in our respective political party work we have done well in uh trying to uh scale it down to a reasonable number which will make it uh easy for us to make a determination.

[00:25:36]I just have a concern with uh the issues emanating from the due diligence that were was done by the parliamentary legal around the name of uh advocate Vaning Galwana SC.

[00:25:56]Um he may have um a view that is not conflicted and that would speak to real uh because we have real and perceived uh conflict of interest uh and and and uh a person must satisfy the two.

[00:26:20]um if he feels that he is not conflicted in real terms and we come to a a conclusion that uh we perceive him to be conflicted.

[00:26:38]I think that satisfies the view that may come to say he doesn't satisfy the issue of real or perceived conflict of interest. And my view is that uh for us to enter into a clean process, we we we need to look at um the perceived conflict of interest that is around his name and uh rid ourselves from uh uh entering into a a for a lack of a better word dirty relationship with uh perceived conflicted uh people in on the matter. So I would propose that uh uh if if if if it's supported we we we eliminate the name um and uh be left with names that uh will not create problems for us when we move forward and that will that would say we are left with advocate Kate Hoff mayor advocate is Jeremy and advocate Blea Now we are meeting these names for the first time and when I say for the first time I mean formally uh we may not know uh who is Jami is advocate and advocate B because we did not nominate them ourselves. They were nominated by some uh political parties and we we we don't want to disadvantage these people because we have never seen them in a commission of inquiry uh like uh advocate Kate of Mayor. uh and we we want to suggest that maybe let's uh allow uh political parties to also do due diligence on the advocates uh maybe extend it with a 48 hour which is 2 days and it will be a Friday to satisfy ourselves that we know so that when we engage with political parties uh we don't engage uh from a disadvantaged point of view and that will assist us chair because you you mentioned that the judgment of the Western Cape uh high court will be released on Friday. Maybe this exercise may be as uh futile uh depending on the judgment and uh if the judgment says we proceed we proceed with determination.

[00:29:29]So that's my uh proposal uh that uh let's extend with uh uh 48 hours and also allow other parties who may want to nominate uh uh others uh because we didn't know some are not available and so forth to do so uh uh and move forward there there are two proposals extension and the elimination of advocate gala.

[00:29:57]Thank you very much.

[00:30:03]>> Thank you very much honorable Mash.

[00:30:05]Honorable Daniels.

[00:30:10]Thank you honorable chairperson.

[00:30:13]Honorable chairperson. I'll be very quick.

[00:30:17]I just want to um put on record um our our our descent that we are appointing we're not appointing authority we not the appointing authority that parliament has that uh competency like you have said earlier on chap and you're quite correct um but it doesn't take away the reality of some political parties um nomin nominating senior council. Uh those nominations will be procured eventually which may have the prospects of bordering or being synonymous to a political appointment disguised as having been through the parliamentary procurement processes. There's no ways that it can exclude that close proximity of the party who's nominated to the one who's eventually going to be procured through the processes. Uh I just wanted to express our descent on that and that we shall not partake on uh nominating any or not nominating on um deliberating on this particular item other than expressing our descent to that. Thank you Jefferson.

[00:31:31]>> Thank you very much honorable Daniel noted. Honorable advocate Benbot.

[00:31:39]>> Uh thank you chair. Good morning to everybody. Um I'm persuaded by the argument put forward by uh Mr. the honorable Mlulla uh we would support a a short postponement in order to round up on the on the due diligence and perhaps we can have you know discussions between the parties and and reach consensus on on a candidate. Uh it would be I think worth the time to try and and to to try and reach that consensus. So so I support that proposal. Thank you, chair.

[00:32:12]>> Sorry, chairperson. I've raised my hand.

[00:32:16]>> Uh, chair, >> honorable, I you I'll note you. I'll note you. You'll come. You'll come.

[00:32:25]Honorable shop. Uh, I'll add you on my list cuz I don't see the end up here.

[00:32:30]Uh, I will I will add you to the list.

[00:32:35]Uh, honorable.

[00:32:39]Um thank you chairperson given that and good morning to to all of the colleagues. Um look we are not opposed to the 48hour proposal uh that there should be further deliberations uh for members to be able to do all you know their due diligence.

[00:32:57]However, um the idea of a further nomination or further nominations uh for us is not something that um you know we would entertain particularly because uh members or political parties were not um limited to the number of nominations that they would have and if we are to do further nominations then we are also going to ask for a further 48 hours for us to do to make our due diligence. We agreed as a committee that we were going to nominate by a particular date which all political parties um submitted to and then we've come to this point and now that we have to deliberate on this matter. We are asking for a further 48 hour uh and that is fine in this particular at this particular juncture but we would not support that there should be any further nominations. We've got four names to work with. There's a there's a a suggestion that one be taken away. that's perhaps what we should be discussing um and then go forward from there but there's no there's no point in in making any uh further nominations and I would leave it there for now. Uh thank you very much chairperson.

[00:34:08]>> Thanks very much honorable vessels.

[00:34:12]>> Thank you very much chairperson and good morning to yourself and to the colleagues on the platform. Uh chair, I also agree with the uh proposal that uh we uh we give ourselves 48 hours to uh do due diligence, but I also agree with the proposal that we should be left with three names u to choose from. Um and that uh we should eliminate uh the one as uh as alluded to um and that we should uh deliberate further and do our due diligence on uh advocate halfmeer, advocate Jamie and advocate sele um and uh that there also should no should not be any further nominations. I I don't think that would be proper. Thank you chair.

[00:35:04]Thanks very much uh honorable Zongula.

[00:35:11]Uh good morning um chair colleagues and everyone that has joined in on the platform. Chair I want to perhaps start with the question of the conflict of interest. Um the the committee did discuss and agree what is defined as a conflict of interest. Um that any senior council or advocate that has taken part in litigation on this issue um would be viewed um as a person that has a conflict of interest. in the event that perhaps um advocate um so and so has done litigation for party A, party B, for the president against the president that should not be viewed as a conflict of interest. So I think ch let's just stick to what previously we had agreed on on what is characterized as a conflict of interest because because that discussion amongst ourselves dealt with both real and perceived conflict of interest. The second issue I want to raise is that once there is over 55% of the people that are nominated that are not available, it raises um some concerns whether are we having a pool that is enough to choose from. [snorts] Particularly because political parties when they nominate because they do not have any form of relationships um with the people that they nominate they would not have known whether they are available or not available which then um needs the committee to understand that having 55% of the people not available um it's something that we we need to agree um on the proposal by the ANC for an extension for Friday for new names.

[00:37:05]Um we can do it very easy chair. We can agree that Friday uh must be the new names um between s um between Friday and um Monday morning. The the legal team um from parliament is able to assertain availability and all of those um um administrative um issues. and then we get the even if you don't need to call a meeting you can just um send us the names of the people that would then be available um on Monday then when we meet let's say next Wednesday we come for a decision um especially in light of firstly 55% of the people nominated are not avail um are not available the second issue is that there is a name of a person that is available and that person um the senior council is a person that um according to the definition of a conflict of interest, there's no conflict of interest. However, the discussion today is to say he must be um disregarded as um someone we can choose from. So in light of those realities um we are supportive um of the um of the proposal to move the the the extension to Friday with new nominations. By Monday morning we get the finalist and on and between Monday and Wednesday as a committee as parties we speak to one another. We agree on the final on who we can nominate. we do our due diligence and then next Wednesday we take a decision. Thank you.

[00:38:50]>> Thanks very much uh honorable Sat.

[00:38:55]>> Thank you chairperson. um firstly to deal with the um perceived actual perceived conflict of interest.

[00:39:07]The advocate um refers to section 58 of the legal practice where he is of the view that there is no conflict of interest. But I think given the importance of this matter and the fact that every step of the way we will be under legal scrutiny and public scrutiny, I think that whilst he might pass a legal test, I think the perceived conflict of interest referred to by our colleague earlier should possibly hold sway and I think that possibly that that in the draft directives refers to real or perceived conflict of interest And I think that that is something we need to consider very seriously. Secondly, uh just um when it comes to availability there was I think the criteria should be from August obviously understanding when it comes to senior councils they would have matters um and I do understand the concerns that 55% of the nominated members or senior council are not available. So I would support an extension for new names given the fact of the importance of this matter in the public domain the fact that 55% are not available. I would support that. I also support the fact that we can then consider by next week due d uh diligence by parties as well as finalizing the list by next week. Thank you chairperson.

[00:40:48]>> Very much honorable.

[00:40:54]>> Um thank you very much honorable chairperson. Greetings to you and uh greetings to um honorable colleagues. Um um honorable chairperson, I also want to um um express the IFP's support um to the argument put forward by um honorable Masaw. Um I do not want to um uh further unpack um the proposal that he made um um except to say that uh um I'm um rising to um support um um his u um proposals.

[00:41:37]Thank you very much.

[00:41:40]>> Thank you very much honorable stopp.

[00:41:45]Thank you chairperson. Can you hear me?

[00:41:49]loud and clear.

[00:41:51]>> Thank you, chairperson. Good morning to you and to honorable members. Just two quick points. The first relates to uh the proposal that has been made by honorable of the ANC makes eminent sense. The pool needs to be broadened and the only way to do that is to give ourselves a little bit more time where you may find that there are other advocates that are readily available that will not be perceived one way or the other to be in favor of this or the other side. So I support wholeheartedly the idea of an extension by a further 48 hours.

[00:42:33]Secondly, on the issue of real or perceived conflict of interest, we should be careful not to push it too far, we can say the same thing with respect about some of these names.

[00:42:48]Paid advocate Kate Hoffme SC has appeared for President Ramaposa to the best of my knowledge on more than one occasion. So it is sensible to argue that she is perceived out there as being a Ramaposa advocate. That is not a far-fetched uh proposition. So we should be careful not to push this argument too far. I'm inclined to agree 100% with honorable Zongula that we should stick to the criteria that have already been laid down that has been agreed upon and perhaps the best way around that is to broaden the pool and the only way you broaden the pool is to give ourselves an extension.

[00:43:39]I must also record on behalf of MKP that we sent a document relating to the guidelines way back on the 10th of July.

[00:43:50]It does not form part of the batch that was circulated among members which touched we touched upon the guidelines as well as the evidence leader. The document was not circulated. I put it again in the group today. Right? I'm not suggesting any bad faith on the part of Tempingosi but it makes sense for the document to be circulated so that our input can be shared as well. So in a nutshell, I support the idea that we must give ourselves an extension of time. Friday is it makes sense to me.

[00:44:28]Further names are going to be submitted.

[00:44:30]I have no doubt and that will also give us an opportunity as political parties to scrutinize these names. Just one final point on the availability of senior council.

[00:44:44]We obviously don't want any advocate who has no work at all because you ask yourself if a senior council has no work at all, nobody has confidence in him or her. But at the same time, I would caution against the following. We cannot have a situation whereby we are driven by the evidence leader. The moment the advocate has been accepted or appointed as an evidence leader, there is a duty on him or her to forego other work, return the briefs. We can't have a situation whereby we're told by an advocate, as you know, I'm not available for a week. I've got to argue a matter in the Supreme Court of Appeal or in the Conal Court or in the Western Cape High Court. Once an advocate has been appointed, honors is on that advocate to make appropriate arrangements so that the file can be returned. We all know that senior advocates will always have junior advocates accompanying them.

[00:45:48]So it's easy to replace them in certain matters. I know this from my years as a judge. It happens, right? So we don't want a situation whereby we are held at ransom by an advocate who claims not to be available who wants to come on his or her terms to the impeachment committee.

[00:46:08]Priority must be given to the impeachment committee. Once an advocate says I'm available being available means exactly that that not subject to certain days.

[00:46:22]I submit. Thank you so much chairperson.

[00:46:25]Thank you very much honorable shop. Uh I just want to check that the honorable Mati uh are you covered with by the previous speakers or your tech technological uh challenges before I go to honorable M.

[00:46:46]No, thank you very much uh chairperson.

[00:46:50]Uh I have just two point but fully agree with previous speakers. Moreover, the first speaker, honorable Maul, that uh the propos I I concur with the proposal of an extension and also allowing political parties to submit other names but I don't agree with him on the issue of advocating Galwani but I will accept it uh based on what he he has indicated but uh on the proposal of extens ion also give us an opportunity to put new names cuz we don't have relations with these advocates. We went through their work and we were impressed by their work. So allow us to add add names.

[00:47:42]Thank you so much chairperson.

[00:47:46]>> Uh thank you very much honorable masi honorable m.

[00:47:52]>> Thank you chair. Greetings to yourself.

[00:47:54]Greetings to the colleagues and everybody on the platform chair. We want to support the proposal of an extension and expansion um to go look for more senior councils.

[00:48:10]Um chair, we are only we only received the list from your office yesterday and the submissions were last week. So had you known prior we would have realized that we have a challenge which you have realized and that's why you then requested the legal team to expand the search and look for more senior councils and that's basically what we are also asking for and I understand that you did not want to share us those names so that they don't find themselves in the media space and before we deliberate on them. So for that we fully understand the reasons why you kept the names within the office and not share them with us. Perhaps when we submit now on Friday we can agree that we then share the names so that you allow political parties to then um engage one another lobby each other so that next week we already have a meeting next week that we've called. So next week when you come to the meeting then it becomes an easy exercise of a name that has already been um canvased among political parties and you don't have to spend so much time deliberating on um the name. So in short we support the the extension and we also support the fact that let's go and get more people because we have a we have an issue here.

[00:49:30]I mean if more people um are not available it's a fact it is there it doesn't really help to be left with few people which uh are now as a committee confining ourselves to when we can just expand on the names thank you chair that is our submission thank you >> thank you very much honorable Lichfield Dr. Litfield Savalala. Thank you, Chair.

[00:49:56]>> Dr. Lfield Savalala.

[00:49:59]>> Thank you, Chair. Chair H.

[00:50:04]I I don't want to sound aggressive, but in all fairness, I just feel that we are being musled here. If the legal department had issues with the MKP submission, they should have written to us prior and warned us because then we would have gone back and said, "Oh, we have another candidate." But for us to come here and we are told, oh, this one is falling off and this one is falling off. We are not even in agreement.

[00:50:28]Actually, by the way, we are just being informed. It's not a democratic decision. I just feel that we are being soluted against and it does not aug well. I'm not saying that that's what's happening. Please listen to my English.

[00:50:42]I say we feel and immediately there's a feeling it can grow into a reality in our heads and then the process is compromised. They truly should have informed us not come here and tell us your candidate is disqualified and the process is closed. We are moving forward with the names that are given on the screen. So all the the the the the honorable members that spoke um have covered me except for honorable KB I propose an extension beyond Friday. I think I propose a 7-day one. So I think we should agree there are two proposals on the table. Some are saying by Friday and some are saying 7 days. I think that's what we should vote on. But yeah, I agree what we are doing right now is a process called settling. We are settling for the names that are here because some are not available. We are not sure if that's the best of the crop. We are just settling. So yeah, I think I want to propose that chair and I don't know for me Friday is neither here nor there. I'm not sure this is the platform to discuss it but it's neither here nor there.

[00:51:50]There is no lower court that can revoke the decisions of a higher court. It will go into the Guinness book of records. So however we look at this this committee is going to continue. Thank you chair.

[00:52:04]>> Thank thank you honorable lifield. Just just to say uh that the presentation that was made uh by legal uh indicated that the honorable Galwana was uh available is available.

[00:52:20]uh they raised the point. Remember what we had asked was amongst the uh the criteria uh there was the issue around the conflict of interest uh it would have been unfair uh on their part uh having discovered something not to raise it with a committee. So legal has not made the point to disqualify anyone.

[00:52:45]That's why from a legal side and also from myself h is on the list listed as available and we we present the list to the members with the issues that will have picked up uh during the due diligence. uh uh so just in the spirit of transparency and not uh tomorrow you wake up and then someone has picked up an an issue and we say but why did we not share this with a with a committee so uh the the issue on uh his uh disqualification it's not that it hasn't been decided on uh I haven't put any of the of the of the uh recommendation or proposals uh to to the vote uh I will put all of them to the vote and it will be the committee that ultimately have to decide on the proposals that have been submitted. Honorable Guanga, >> thank you. Thank you very much chess and well I want to align myself with the submission made by Dr. Litfield Chabala that perhaps on just on procedural grounds chair to help the process to fast track the process when there's a meeting which has been set up or called that if a political party proposes a specific uh um person as an evidence leader if there are any challenges it the the the legal services of parliament must alert the relevant political party about those issues before we come to the meeting so But by the time we come to the meeting, no one is taken by surprise. Most of the matters have have been dealt with. Two, I agree there's no it's not a train smash. It's not a it's not earthshattering for us to to propose that we need to extend the deadline to Monday as our colleagues have said to say we submit the final names by Monday and then we can meet on Wednesday to decide on who's going to be our evidence leader. So I want to support that proposal on behalf of the UT. Thank you chair.

[00:54:51]>> Thank you very much. Honor honor uh I see iPad. Who's iPad?

[00:54:59]>> It's honorable MMA.

[00:55:01]>> Uh I I'll note you honorable MMA. If uh Tamos if you could please rename uh the iPad of Honorable MMA and then uh we we can then proceed. you'll come after honorable second bite quick one honorable >> um thank you sh it is going to be a very quick bite I just want to deal with uh just a matter of principle to say um the the the idea of nominations and people being unavailable I think as political parties and as people concerned here we may or may not have our nominations available or not available I think when we want to say we don't want these processes to be delayed. Let us also not be the ones who delay uh our own processes. I think that we should be clear in this meeting that perhaps political parties now going forward um shall the meeting agree that we we proceed with extending and also extending further nominations. H can political parties perhaps submit more than one um uh individual so that when the due diligence is done and all of you know the five names that I will have submitted for example say they're unavailable can we not reotate once again because we know that we want to we want each and every one of our own selections uh to finally become the evidence leader but as a matter of principle let us agree that when we go forward now after this moment we don't come back to this moment once again because we know that if people are really really good cuz that's who we want. We want people who are really really good to lead evidence in this regard they may not find themselves being available. And so for me it is that and I just wanted to assert to assert that and also to remind the med that there was never a limit on how many names could be submitted. I just wanted to make that assertion and that point.

[00:56:56]Thank you chair. Thanks very much uh honorable MMA.

[00:57:01]>> No, thanks very much and good morning. I just want to touch on two points which were made here. One is that you asked the staff members to make a nomination to look for a nomination and make a nomination or something like that. That is not the decision of the meeting. You come from a political party and if you want to make a nomination, go to a political party and make a nomination and let's deal with that because you are not going to have more advantageous things than all of us where the staff members do things that were we were told to do as political parties. I think because you when you are there you are for all of us and therefore whatever resource you use there you're using it on on behalf of all of us at this thing that the chairperson is going to look for what noise we didn't say chairperson because once we say chairperson it means it's us so it was wrong what you did it must not be repeated if a resolution says political parties let it be political parties if a resolution says the chairperson of the committee together with political parties shall look for a evidence leader then let it be done like that. I I think we must not have a confusion when it comes to that.

[00:58:22]The second thing there was another illiterate input which was made here that when a person is nominated by political party that person will be aligned with that political party uh throughout this engagement that's so illiterate. I mean if you know how legal practices work you you should be ashamed to even suggest that because let's take for instance advocate to he has been representing EFF he has been representing NC has been he has been representing different kind of people today when you appear before the conal court are you going to say this person once represented eff F NCC therefore they will always be aligned.

[00:59:08]It's so uneducated and and therefore it doesn't mean anything and not worth even being said on a a prestigious platform like this one ch but otherwise I agree with almost everything that comrades have suggested especially uh that we we submit the names Monday and and I will suggest that when names are being suggested let them be pushed to other political parties. If you say I nominate so and so obvious I'll send to you and your staff members chair and then your staff members do not have to wait for Monday. They just have to send to all political parties. Please find or you can drop it in the group.

[00:59:50]Please find the EFF nomination for evidence leader so that we don't uh see those things for the first time. we when we come we all had an opportunity to make a preliminary investigation on these individuals. Thanks.

[01:00:08]>> Thank thank you very much honorable members and thanks for the for the inputs. Uh so we'll uh the there are a number of proposals. Uh one that uh uh seems to be finding a lot of favor is that there's an there's a an extension in so far as allowing political parties uh to submit further names. But there's a disagreement or varying takes in terms of what the deadline should be with those that the original proposal was 48 hours. uh which means it's uh by end of business on Friday which allows uh the the legal team to check availability and also due diligence and to have that report uh both in terms of availability and the uh and any matters of due diligence uh to to serve uh to be submitted to members by Monday. uh so that by the time we meet on Wednesday at least members have had uh sight in terms of who's available who's not available uh but at least 48 hours uh before the meeting. Uh so that's that's the first proposal. The second one is that uh the the the nomination be uh closes on Monday uh uh as I hear you correctly uh honorable MMA that it closes on Monday uh as the second one and there was one uh which was uh asking for 7 days. So uh having accepted that the majority of members uh are agreeing on the extension which deadline uh would you uh then propose uh to be uh the one having gone through this together with legal. I will say that the 48 hour allows enough time for legal to uh reach out to uh the the the evidence leaders nominated uh and and get back uh to the members by Monday. If we push it to Monday, uh we might get here on Wednesday and and ask for further time uh so that there's internal lobbying uh of uh within uh political parties. And I will I would maybe um suggest that we take the 48 hour until Friday. But I'm I'm open uh for those ones that feel that it should be Monday uh to indicate as such unless we we happy with 8 hours until Friday uh 400 p.m. and give legal uh the weekend and Monday morning to check availability. At times uh it's not as quickly as uh the uh making a call because the uh the the senior councils that will have been nominated also need to check their diaries to ensure that they give the right uh information and might not be possible over the weekend. That will be my uh my submission but allow honorable Malma if I think it was yourself and honorable Guangqua that uh suggested Monday. Is it fine if we put it for Friday 4 p.m. as the closing date for further nominations?

[01:03:36]Honorable Guanga, will that be fine? And honorable >> objection I have no objection to that chair as long as there's an extension to the deadline. Thank you.

[01:03:46]>> Honorable MMA are you happy with Friday 4 p.m. and then allow legal to use the weekend to get the availability and due diligence I will honorable Lfield.

[01:04:07]Thank you chair h seeing that they are going to use the weekend anyway for us that wanted Monday could we say h by Friday 1 1800 not four I mean what are they going to do between 4 and 6 anyway you can just give it till 6:00 that evening >> all right uh 6:00 p.m. on on Friday uh but let them come as quickly as possible uh between today and Friday 6:00 so that uh if there's a nomination that comes today uh that check of availability and uh due diligence can uh begin honorable >> we support Friday's deadline thank you chair >> all right thank you very much uh so Friday deadline uh 1800 hours is uh is supported Can it be noted as such? Uh and then the second issue as it relates to uh the perceived conflict of uh advocating Alwana SC uh it was raised by honorable Ml and it was supported. I would like to place that uh on the uh for us to >> [clears throat] >> uh to vote on that cuz there has been deliberations. I won't call for further deliberations on that. Uh so we can either uh keep him he's available uh and that uh that matter be decided upon on on Wednesday next week or we decide today that uh we take him as not available uh uh in line with the perceived conflict of interest. Uh honorable is that a vote or is further submission that >> very briefly very briefly honorable MMA and um Dr. Schlope mentioned that we need to be very careful when we deal with the issues relating to senior council and perceived conflicts of interest bearing in mind section 58 of the legal practice council um raise other issues that were raised.

[01:06:17]I think we should hold this matter over because again allegations can be made about perceived and I I would suggest that we keep the name of that senior council. We don't want to narrow it down and we can again consider this issue in the light of the submissions particularly by Dr. Schlopra that has got who's had wide experience in the matter of senior counsel and objectivity of senior council when they appear in matters. Thank you chair.

[01:06:48]>> Thank you very much. Honorable Lfield Chavala, a different thought from honorable s or you are swayed by him.

[01:06:55]>> No, no, it's not different. He actually took the words out of my mouth. But then me and him do think alike from time to time. I think I agree with him and I would actually say if we are putting him on the vote because of that, we might as well do that for Hoff mayor too. I mean I'm sitting here as it was raised by judge Lope saying okay he's a serial person so he's already subjective so I would fully agree what with what honorable has said if we are going to go on that line then we will tear all of them apart and I'm not sure that's what we want because if I hire someone to represent me in court that doesn't mean that those people are for me anything I do those people favor me So yeah, I think I'll leave it at that and support honorable.

[01:07:45]>> All right. Thanks very much. Honorable M. I say that for now advocating Galwana as remains in the pool of considerations until uh we decide next week Wednesday.

[01:07:59]>> Yes chair because it's not personal.

[01:08:01]It's a it's a it's moving through a path of caution. It's not personal. So um we we are fine with that.

[01:08:11]>> All right. Uh thank you very much honorable members. Uh so as uh things stands uh we extend uh the time for new nominations uh to Friday 1800 hours. Uh but I want to appeal to uh honorable members and political parties. If you have a name today, h please submit it today so that the the team at legal can check availability and do any further uh due diligence. It's it's my uh uh commitment that by Monday you'll have the list of only available ones. We'll no longer go back to the ones that are not available. uh will give the list uh of those that are available so that you have enough time to uh to lobby one another in preparation of our meeting on the 29th of uh of of July uh 2026 and that we keep uh the four names that are available it's advocate of mayor advocate advocate Jimmy and advocate galwana h in the pool and that we are adding to this poll so these for are accepted as available. Uh and we are adding to the pool uh that the new pool will then uh of those that are available will be circulated to members uh on um uh on on Monday uh in preparation for the meeting uh of Wednesday.

[01:09:40]Agreed to.

[01:09:47]>> Yes. Yes.

[01:09:49]Thank you very much honorable members.

[01:09:52]Uh we now move to the uh next item which are the terms of reference. uh just to say that we did thanks very much honorable members and uh for the extensive uh inputs that have been given to the terms of reference uh that were both in terms of uh uh uh the general reflection but also uh specific proposals and and amendments to the terms of reference. So how we are going to deal with this uh today honorable members is that uh there's going to be presentation as you all know that there was that document 114 page document that was shared uh we're going to deal with it uh the content advisor will take us through in terms of the uh the comments that we have received but it will not be to read word for word. uh will also allow uh after after this meeting after we've uh uh gone through the presentation by the content advisor uh general reflections uh but then uh also subject uh the terms of reference to the same 48 hours for political parties uh to then uh be able to lobby one another where there are vast differences. There are areas where the there's not the massive differences, it could just be the wedding, but where there's a a vast differences that the political parties use the 48 hour window uh to consult with one another uh and move towards um uh let's call it closer to consensus so that by next week Wednesday we've got uh at least a document uh that a much thinner document uh that we can uh work with for next week. uh is that in all the honorable members we allow content advisor to take us through the metrics and then uh we uh then uh give uh some some reflections and then the political parties will then where you you find that there's a uh an input that you had made that another political party had a different input then you can be able to persuade one another and then you then submit uh that uh uh proposal uh to be considered for the new draft. Honorable Sh.

[01:12:19]>> Thank you. I I did notice going through the document that there's a lot of overlapping and there is already a large degree well not maybe not a large degree but a degree of consensus and I'm not sure if it would help the process once we've gone through the presentation to note where there are there is already an alignment between certain parties I think that might help us as well chair thank you >> thanks very much honorable that's the uh the idea that where there's emerging consensus we need to move towards that but where there's a divergence then we try to move towards uh the center honorable did you unmute you wanted to say something I'm so I'm so sorry chairperson my technology I'm challenged here I didn't want to say anything I will uh speak in due course. Thank you sir. Thank you.

[01:13:22]>> All right. Thanks very much. Is the is the advantage of uh uh old I nearly said old age but it's much honorable DMA.

[01:13:35]>> Um no chair thanks very much. I just think I hear your proposal around anticipating another 48 hours but I would suggest that we we do as you've suggested chair where we hear the um content advisor we have broad reflections we might feel that we need another day or two we might feel Friday is fine so I'm just appealing that we reserve that decision about how much time we might need until >> [snorts] >> um after we've we've had the reflections thanks >> thanks very Honorable Dagmo now invite advocate Nell to just take us through the metrics and just to say that you don't have to read word by word advocate Nell just indicate those areas uh that members need uh need to note. Thanks very much. Over to you Advocate Nell.

[01:14:30]>> Thank you chairperson and members. I am sharing uh the full screen. So on the left hand side members will see the terms of reference that was sent um and on the right hand side is the matrix. I do apologize that we did not um have the MK party submission on the terms of reference. I worked on the documents that was sent to me um and that was the those eight submissions listed there.

[01:15:04]Ch I see there's >> just honorable I mean just old advocate uh honorable travel >> chair thank you I think I was waiting for you um to say something the MKP input is not included in this terms of reference how are we going to deal with it although there's proof when it was sent so when we proceed with what's here how is it going to be encapsulated how will we deal with it I'm just asking And also I'm not even asking why it wasn't included. I'm not even there. Although it does beg an answer.

[01:15:39]>> Yeah, we we we we will uh we will circulate the the input of uh MK that will be considered as part of uh further developments of the terms of reference and like to apologize in terms of uh them not featuring here. Then if I could just check with TMOSI in in so far as the input of MK MKP TMOS thank you thank you Terson good morning on second still morning good morning once again and good morning to honorable members uh train uh I think uh I need to be maybe I'm I have not received an NK party input uh on the on the draft uh to I have received an input on the on the evidence leaders which we I read as part of the record and uh yeah that is uh in relation to this one ch that is the eight as it is going to be presented by advocate n that I have received. Thank you very much.

[01:16:57]>> All right. Can we we just double check together with the MKP uh see where the line could have broken but we'll circulate as soon as uh that line it's unblocked to honorable members and it will form part of the next uh uh the next round of uh the inputs and like to apologize if the error is on our side.

[01:17:19]Uh we'll we'll correct it. Uh is that is that fine? Can we proceed with this uh uh letter as we investigate where the document could have been sent? Cuz it's possible that the document that you're referring to might be the one that was deposited uh this uh this uh this morning on the group. Just just need to be sure where it it got missed in the process. But we will include it uh in the terms of reference. We'll definitely not uh exclude it as we develop the terms of reference. Thanks very much. Advocate N please proceed.

[01:17:56]>> Thank you chair. Um then >> following the discussions last week chair >> honorable Lfield.

[01:18:07]>> Thank you chair. The toss are in the same document that he says received. If he had read it to the end he would have seen them. But yeah it's water under the bridge. I think as you said you will circulate them. We can proceed.

[01:18:21]Thank you. Thank you very much. Advocate man, proceed.

[01:18:26]>> Thank you, chair. Yes, members will see in the old uh document where it said detailed rules that will be um changed because of the agreement that the committee had on the 24th to change that reference to terms of reference. And um that was uh very well captured in in the full uh the lengthy submission. um from the EFF uh where they made those corrections in their document. So that was a a a standard that was already agreed to on the 24th and then chair um a [clears throat] number of the submissions uh requested the replacement in the document of the acronym parah for paragraph um with the full word paragraph to be used. that does make uh for better reading and then chair there were different views expressed um especially regarding the time allocations I will get to those when we get to um that uh paragraph 16 or chapter 16 as I indicated it in the matrix [clears throat] that's different proposals uh on the time frames for evidence leaders presentations as well as members questions chair that first section as we indicate it's just the general comments. Um there was additional proposals uh which we will um consider last once we've gotten through the content but I just captured them first in the matrix so that we have them all there in the the um up front some additions proposed by the ANC and then also um by the EFF So chair that first section we're just going through that the title I've already indicated that's where the change coast terms of reference and that is also supported by the IFP submission and the consequential changes that need to happen chair then getting to the uh definitions uh the First proposal in the definitions or for the definitions is a request to add um a definition for sufficient evidence and primopaki evidence.

[01:20:57]So that was the first proposal we had.

[01:21:01]um in terms of the ATM's proposal uh that a deflection should be amended.

[01:21:20]>> Um there is no such definition captured in the terms of reference. So that would be a a new proposed uh definition to be added there.

[01:21:38]And then also um a definition for impeachment motion to be added um in terms of that uh definition proposal.

[01:21:57]Then in terms of the EFF um the submission on the definitions is to add a definition for assistant evidence leader.

[01:22:11]Let me just move up here quickly.

[01:22:16]So um they would just need that assistant evidence leader to be amended um to add that full description. that's about the the abbreviation of paragraph and then just to link it to the terms of reference uh in terms of the definition for assembly rules there's that proposal by the EFF the proposal for change to the chairperson and chief evidence leader as well as the committee Secretary >> the definition for day chair I think it's the capitalization of the word day uh because in the terms of reference it's a small letter and then um the changes there for the evidence leaders.

[01:23:16]So those are all um also following the consequential amendments and she also some changes proposed to general section 89 rules definition [gasps] uh that is um more linked to that footnote as well.

[01:23:45]Then some changes there to hearsay evidence. Again, that's capitalization as well.

[01:23:53]Um proposed changes to impeachment committee, the panel report.

[01:24:02]Um >> definition of present president.

[01:24:24]Uh thanks Advocate N. We we can no longer hear you.

[01:24:32]Thank you.

[01:24:36]>> Yes, Chief. Um, after the president's representatives definition, um, there's the section 89 inquiry definition where there's a change proposed as well as the section 89 terms of reference.

[01:24:54]I'm just trying to line the two documents up. and then a change to witness uh or an addition for a definition of witness instead of just the definition that we have of witness statement. So the additions here um chair members is for witness uh forensic investigator and the customs control expert. These two definitions also link with the additional clause that the EFF proposed on these two appointments which currently the terms of reference doesn't um specifically make provision for chair and then just um further definition amendments um is uh from the IFP that um policy holiday >> days where that was a spelling error that needs to be corrected to public holidays and from the NCC um a definition on what would constitute sufficient evidence.

[01:26:00]So chie um I'm just going to pause here for consideration of the proposals um regarding the definitions uh before going to number two the legal framework.

[01:26:15]uh advocate n you can uh you can proceed and then we'll we'll take the reflections uh later on.

[01:26:24]We'll do thank you chair.

[01:26:28]Then for the um second chapter or paragraph of the document chair is the legal framework. Um on this one uh chair there's a lot of references to um legislation as well as uh the rules of the house. So um we must just be cautious when we are proposing amendments here um that these um amendments do not seek to amend legislation that is currently in place or the house rules because we cannot amend those house rules. Um but the first ones that we had is from the ACDP. These are additions to the full set of the legal framework.

[01:27:20]current ones only 2.1 to 2.6. So they propose a new 2.7, 2.8 and 2.9.

[01:27:29]So the first one is on interpretation um as well as the nature in terms of the inquisitorial nature of the committee and then um the interpretation applied in a manner that facilitates effective discharge of the NA's constitutional responsibilities.

[01:27:55]So those are proposed additions to the legal framework.

[01:28:00]Uh in terms of the ANC submission, they supported it as it is.

[01:28:07]In terms of um the ATM members would have seen in some of the general comments, some of those aspects highlighted in general will flow possibly flow through over to um this section as well, but it wasn't specifically linked to a clause or a a paragraph in this section. But the first is to expand on what are the powers of the committee. um that could be an aspect that one would add as well as um as indicated earlier in the general comments and the objective of the committee which is not specifically outlined um in the terms of reference.

[01:28:49]So the nature and purpose of the proceedings that's a proposed addition that would fit best within the legal framework section >> and then what would happen if there's an abuse of the proceedings.

[01:29:12]the um constitutional threshold um consideration would also be an addition to this portion. Um if members feel that the references to the constitution in the terms of reference as is in um 2.1 and 2.2 and 2.3 and 2.4 for one to four. If those do not sufficiently cover uh what is proposed in this proposal by the ATM, this is what we need to make sure that um they align, that we're not adding additional powers, but that the powers are reflected or sufficiently captured.

[01:30:00]So that this next one was serious misconduct and that is what would be defined as serious misconduct for consideration um given the reference of it in the constitution for possible grounds for impeachment.

[01:30:16]The submissions from the EFF were um indicated as track changes.

[01:30:22]Um >> so terms of this one members will see the blue line there uh between 56 and evidence based on the EFF submission that's a spacing that has to be corrected. Um in terms of uh 2.2 again it's a spacing that has to be corrected and for 2.3 it was also uh and 2.4 4 it was spacing corrections that were proposed there. Um cuz it's a double space between the number and the first um letter there in terms of 2.5 as we'll see this is taken as the definitions from the rules. Um this is where um legal has also indicated that um we need to just be cautious if we are proposing um additions to these sections. For example, this highlighted section here for a section 89 inquiry because it will change the definition of this um as set by the rules committee. Um and I think legal can and better cover those aspects but um it's just to keep in mind that we must be cautious trying to amend the rules committee's definitions.

[01:31:55]Um and then chair they also proposed an addition of the footnote number four to be added there uh to refer to that um case law.

[01:32:08]Then chair the proposal under um the sections dealing with rules one >> advocate.

[01:32:17]>> Yes chair >> if you could just pass through. So this 2.5 is the rules adopted by the national assembly. Uh so this will be replaced by the actual rules that were adopted by or amendments that were adopted by the national assembly. as a committee we we cannot h amend the rules that were amended that were accepted by the assembly. So if you could just pass to the next section uh in this regard so this section will just take the rule as was uh accepted by the national assembly. Thanks.

[01:32:54]>> Well do. Thank you, chair.

[01:32:56]Chair, um the IFP's addition there um on the legal framework aspect. Um it's just that they they don't believe we need to um restate the terms of reference um because or the that because it's already operational in law. So there's differing views. Some parties want more information, more citations where other parties say since it's already there, we can just refer to uh for example the constitution or the rules, we don't need to list all of it in the document. Um in terms of the submissions by the patriotic alliance, [clears throat] it's again uh linking up to the rules. Um but this one is more uh in terms of what the committee needs to confine themselves with.

[01:33:54]Uh so that could link up with the proposed additions of the objective of the committee.

[01:34:00]Um then presentation of the case. This is uh the sequence of how evidence will be presented.

[01:34:11]Um so this could be an addition or this can go to section um 16 or paragraph 16 where we speak to the evidence matters.

[01:34:25]The inquisitorial approach is just to make sure what um that that definition rolls through and um what does it mean to follow a inquisitorial approach. So sh that was section two.

[01:34:40]Uh section three is on the composition of the committee and the appointments of members.

[01:34:52]Um in terms of the ANC again because this is provided for on the rules they uh indicate that it's not necessary to have it in the terms of reference.

[01:35:03]uh the EFF indicated the um amendments to 3.1 and then they subdivided it uh with reference to the rules. So in terms of the EFF submission, it's to add um those references to the rules uh that are applicable for the composition of the committee. So 3.1 will then expand according to the uh presentation with 3.1 2 4 and five. Then um the term of office for the committee uh they are providing a longer um provision um for that 3.2.

[01:35:53]So that is number three. Looking at the meetings and quorum, the ANC again has indicated that it's provided for in the rules not necessary to expand here. Um the ATM um may have some of the general comments um that were indicated above under general comments uh in terms of how the meeting um meetings will be ran and the flow of the meetings that can be considered either here or under number 16 in terms of the EFs EFF's proposal is to change 4.2 two to read um as follows regarding rule 60 60 sub 1 and then to amend 4.3 by adding um 4.3.1 a subsection uh dealing specifically with the meetings and then also they proposed the additions of 4.4 four regarding the quorum and that links it back to the rules.

[01:37:08]Those are those proposals for number four. Under number five, again it's linked back to the rules by the um ANC submission listed under general from the ATM may impact um here in terms of the decision making in terms of the EFF submission they proposed the change to 5.1 one.

[01:37:40]Um it's in terms of the wording used there, the way the impeachment committee takes it instead of the manner in which and then they add 5.1 reference to rule 129 in uh and rule 1582D and then they propose the amendment of 5.2 two uh to say that the voting must be openly done must occur openly. Terms of number six for the chairperson the ACDP proposes a new clause to be added. Uh so that would be the addition of 6.4 at the end uh to say that the chairperson's ruling shall be final unless overturned by a majority. In terms of the ANC's proposal, um they again are suggesting that it's already captured in terms of the rules.

[01:38:43]So it's not needed to be added here. Um terms of the uh election of the chairperson as well and the powers of the chairperson.

[01:38:54]Um in terms of the EFF submission they propose amendments to 6.2.

[01:39:14]It's mostly again regarding paragraph and terms of reference being added there. uh amendments to 632.

[01:39:26]Um >> so they have incorporated uh 63 221 and um 21 and 22 so that it makes it a little bit uh in well they give greater explanation in 632 um and expands in there. uh 4 63.

[01:39:54]Uh they make proposals for 631 and three sub one and three again that is the terms of reference in terms instead of saying inquiry rules and 634 is a paragraph amendment.

[01:40:18]Then for the committee secretary again from the ANC it's overtaken by events. Um in terms of the EFF it's just the replacement of rules with terms of reference. And then in 7251 um it's that addition of or that replacement take taking out so as to and just making it possible to facilitate then under the chief evidence leader uh the ACDP proposed insertions in 8.1 discussions >> that the committee had on the 24th and then also uh for 8.7 um Seven year after office to add um on good cause shown about the removal.

[01:41:47]Then for 895 it's the investigators um this is the um proposal to add those additional uh capacities.

[01:42:02]the the approach was slightly different by the parties. EFF proposed uh entire new additions uh in terms of clauses that would specifically cover it and the ACDP just um proposed the addition of it under the evidence leaders section and then 896 to ensure that um they conduct the inquiry independently, fairly and objectively and present all material matters and an additional Insertion 2897.

[01:42:46]that's on participation uh by persons in the committee. Witnesses being questioned, evidence being submitted and um if evidence is regarded as having been concealed, what would happen terms of the ANC's proposal?

[01:43:08]Um they've indicated that some of it might be uh too prescriptive as the evidence leaders may need to or seek to adopt their own approaches. Uh they indicated a partial agreement on the assertion of paragraphs 8.6 7 and 9.

[01:43:30]um 89 to 811 regarded as operational and um 8.12 is supported.

[01:43:43]>> They do indicate that since the inquiry is inquisitorial in nature that the evidence leader not act as a prosecutor.

[01:43:51]So it's just that there needs to be full clarity on uh the role of the evidence leaders and then that they work in consultation with the committee and that they do not limit the right of the members to put questions.

[01:44:10]In terms of the ATM's proposal, again, um there's tenants that needs to be filled by the evidence leaders in terms of their work that they need to assist the committee lead evidence um as outlined there in those bullet points.

[01:44:31]And um in terms of what the committee will determine um >> the appointment of the evidence leaders [clears throat] we are currently doing that process um but they do indicate um those aspects appointed by parliament.

[01:44:58]The independence of the evidence leader also links back to the ACDP's proposal on um how they hold themselves to make sure that the wording is strong enough in the terms of reference.

[01:45:14]>> Additional proposals for disqualifying criteria for the appointment of the evidence leaders and then on their declarations of interest and a duty of disclosure.

[01:45:30]Further aspects proposed for the consideration in um the section that deals with the removal of the evidence leader and the con constitutional role of the evidence leader >> terms of the if submission um there are quite a few uh numbering and content changes proposed closed uh and those occur from 8.2.

[01:46:04]So 8.2 will be a new insertion a new clause proposed there and then a the old 8.2 becomes 8.3 and they also propose an amendment there.

[01:46:19]They propose an expansion to uh the old 8.3 uh to be a new 8.4 four to give a bit more information on u the chief evidence leader's requirements and then also for the assistant evidence leader what is required for that appointment to be done just on 8.6 is a change to 8.5.

[01:46:56]8.7 U is also a change to the old 8.6.

[01:47:07]The 8.8 also speaks to the old 8.5. So it's quite a few additions made there or proposals made there by the EFF uh to expand on this particular clause.

[01:47:22]8.9 uh would be the old 8.6. [sighs] I'm just going down cuz that's again in terms of reference change and 8.10 10.

[01:47:42]The uh functions can be expanded by the committee um from time to time and then upon the appointment the old 8.9 uh is reflected under the FFS 8.12.

[01:48:02][cough and clears throat] So there's an addition there of 812 as well which is the old >> 892.

[01:48:27]um they proposed the additions of uh number three and four as well and then sub splitting uh 8.12.4 into three separate extensions. So the EFF's proposal expands um the evidence leaders uh clause significantly.

[01:48:56]>> Then the old 895 is 8125 for the EFF submission six is same.

[01:49:09]It's just the terms of reference and paragraphs def um expansion there 8.13 8.13 speaks to the old 8.11 It's all giving a bit more um details to the uh um the affidavits and the information as would be submitted by witnesses and the numbering and labeling of um exhibit and annexes which was also there in the terms of reference.

[01:50:10]The old 8.12 is now 814.

[01:50:23]See there's um some slight changes. It's not major changes in that wording. Um it's just an expansion with those other proposals on the the rules and the terms of reference changes and the paragraph changes.

[01:50:58]So that goes up until uh 8:142 the NCC's additions.

[01:51:19]This is more regarding the appointment of the forensic investigators.

[01:51:23]So if we agree to have a uh separate clause on it as proposed by the EFF then these uh proposals will have to be worked into that clause in terms of the appointment for the forensic investigators.

[01:51:51]Our next section is the president's representative.

[01:52:03]So there is uh again where there's references to the rules. There's a proposal that it's not needed. Uh it's already in the rules.

[01:52:14]Um correspondence to be dealt with administratively.

[01:52:26]the participation by the legal practitioner representing the president and then the request that there needs to be um further research done regarding the best global practices uh regarding um impeachments and some of the parameters that are proposed terms of the EFF's proposal.

[01:52:50]Um, it's to amend 9.3.

[01:53:06]It's just that there's some references to the inquiry rules in uh 953 and 96.

[01:53:18]Uh that's just consequential amendments um due to the changes of inquiries terms of um inquiry to terms of preference general and documents.

[01:53:43]Uh one proposal to remove this um because the evidence leaders and the committee identify the witnesses uh and the experts to be called and the um general call can be dealt with accordance with section 59 of the constitution.

[01:54:08]In terms of the EFS proposal, it's again just the references to paragraph and rules to be changed.

[01:54:15]So for number 10, it's um not too many changes proposed there. 11 applications to the impeachment committee.

[01:54:28]There's a recommended insertion from the ANC that the committee should be in a position to request declassification of reports and um when witnesses are providing um evidence that are linked to classified information what should be done in that instance terms of the EFFs changes there again it's terms of reference and paragraph amendments and they proposed the addition um of a new 11.3.

[01:55:03]So it will change this 11.3 um that it will be done after consultation and approval by the majority of the committee.

[01:55:18]terms of meetings of the impeachment committee.

[01:55:27]The action essay has proposed that uh 12.2 to be removed and um terms of the ANC's proposal consultation with the committee and not accord the chairperson unilateral decision-making rights um [clears throat] and then amendment of 12.2 two, removing on their own accord um to make sure that that's um done with the consent of the committee and consultation with the evidence leaders.

[01:56:07]They also propose the removal of paragraph 12.3 as the NA rules cover that uh provision and they would support 1245 629.

[01:56:22]Then in terms of um the EFF submission, there's a third subsection to 121 in 1211 um of the consultation with the president's representative uh so that the focus is just on determination by the chairperson and the committee as well as the evidence leaders.

[01:57:00]Then uh for 1212 again um that it would be held held in the public and [clears throat] the specific allocation of the venue is proposed to be the good hope chamber and then the addition of number three uh is regarding possible virtual um hearings of evidence.

[01:57:28]Then for 122 they also propose an addition uh or at least a change for 122 and 123.

[01:57:41]There's changes proposed.

[01:57:44][snorts] This is to deal with additional members that may attend um and how if they can participate if they are there as an alternate if there is exclusion of the media um or the public or what would be considered under a new 123 Then terms of 124 they just refer to the rules that would apply to the committee and 125 also um refer back to 123 and the assembly rules in terms of the input further from the CC um [snorts] limited sessions being in camera continue with openness and transparency terms of media coverage. Number 13, [snorts] ANC supports 13.1 uh proposes removal of the remaining provisions.

[01:59:11]Um and rule 167 covers the hearings of the committees.

[01:59:20]Terms of the EFF's provisions, there's a few changes.

[01:59:26]Uh so it's to quote section 21 of the powers and privileges act as well as 272 not just refer to them and then um 13.2 obviously consequential amendments to the numberings.

[01:59:45]Um and then removal of if available for that purpose just that it must be broadcasted YouTube channel um again available for the purpose there has been removed in their proposal and then for the um social media aspect 1323 three, they add the additional um highlighted portion there and the NCC's one is also that uh limited in camera proceedings >> conducting or in relation to the proceedings.

[02:00:45]ANC's view is that the rules cover this sufficiently.

[02:00:50]Um again um members would see some of the ATM's issues could fall under several um sections and were captured under the general aspect.

[02:01:05]So the EFF submission, it's the addition of the and the president's representative and any other person.

[02:01:26]And they um proposed [clears throat] the changes to 4 point um 1441 and 1442.

[02:01:46]So it's uh on um the address of the members.

[02:01:53]Opening remarks.

[02:01:55]There's a proposed amendment from the ACDP to 15.2 two in terms of the ANC's uh submission.

[02:02:15]There's uh questioning sequence times.

[02:02:20]Um but that was an aspect that was indicated on the 24th that the committee needs to decide on uh in terms of the time allocations.

[02:02:32]Then um 15 five I think um members in terms of the submission this might have been referring to 16 instead of 15 um because that's uh where the questioning aspects are raised.

[02:03:02]The overall proposal is that the members be provided equal time in terms of their questions.

[02:03:10]Terms of the EFF's proposal, the proposal is to remove uh 512 [snorts] and then to amend 51.

[02:03:25]uh as indicated and to expand on 512.

[02:03:34]This is where the proposal comes in where it changes from 1 hour to 30 minutes.

[02:03:40]And then um there are just some aspects here. This numbering will have to be a consequential numbering that has to change.

[02:03:55]And again the 1 hour um that was allocated there be changed to 30 minutes for witnesses.

[02:04:11]Chapter 16, paragraph 16. It's quite extensive amendments proposed [clears throat] from the ACDP um in paragraphs 61 10 and 11 um especially linked to that provision on the president's testimony. Okay.

[02:04:54]>> So >> there were quite a few submissions on um the view the committee had the view that the president has too. There's no if. So um those um indications will have to flow through in this section [snorts] and that's also the indication from the members. President must present himself uh and because of that decision the terms of reference will have to change wherever that type of reference is.

[02:05:34]Time allocation proposed again 30 minutes for questioning and and specifically for uh paragraphs uh 1672 83 84 and 92. The proposal is 30 minutes um for the first three members of each party thereafter 15 minutes for each succeeding member. So that's a differentiation um on that aspect. [snorts] action essay um again amends this fourth bullet point regarding the president's testimony um and consequential to that uh then 16 would have to be removed >> m to must [snorts] leaving that time period there to uh 5 hours. You just get to 611 the 5 hours there but changing in 11 to the 5 hours to 6 hours.

[02:07:02]So this is an extension of the time there.

[02:07:08]And then 113 changing the um made to wool.

[02:07:19]So that's that portion over there.

[02:07:29]The agency submission is to remove all a decision by the president not to testify based on the discussions.

[02:07:44]uh and then the uh the adverse inference um indication there why the ANC that that needs to be removed in terms of 163 to add um section three of the law of evidence amendment act in the interest of justice test and then a request therefore legal advice on um the decision by the president not to testify and they support 167.

[02:08:20]Terms of the ATM's proposal, there's amendments proposed to 1610 and 11.

[02:08:27]Again, that's on the president's um appearance before the committee.

[02:08:46]And they propose uh those following amendments to 610 [snorts] up to 616.

[02:08:58]terms of summoning witnesses.

[02:09:02]Uh again, um that the committee holds the power.

[02:09:09]They expand on the duties of witnesses and legal representation uh for affected persons and how those legal representatives should conduct themselves.

[02:09:24]They expand on the rights of the president and propose that amendment there on the protection of witnesses.

[02:09:35]Um they propose the addition uh to exclude intimidation and threats and false evidence or contempt. Again, that would be linked to witness testimony and they propose that addition there as well.

[02:09:58]Okay, on the EFF submission, um there's a few additions again that changes numbering and bullet points.

[02:10:17]So they propose amendments to 6.1 1 and 12.

[02:10:24]Uh the second second uh in terms of their proposal will then obviously have to be third, fourth and fifth.

[02:10:38]Um Insertion of 165 regarding uh witnesses refusing to provide documents or material required.

[02:11:05]and then amendments to 166 which would then become uh a new number according to the FF's document 167 to the old 167 So here especially in 1671 2 hours is proposed to change to one hour number four for um cross examination and re-examination.

[02:12:03]Then amendments to 168.

[02:12:18]>> So the time um A2 changes from 2 to 1 hour.

[02:12:25]The rest of the timing stays the same.

[02:12:38]then changes to 1693.

[02:12:51]Further changes to 610.

[02:13:05]>> The president elects to testify. Um that was not changed in the submission.

[02:13:14]There is a change there from 5 hours to two hours in terms of uh that questioning.

[02:13:24]But this change not being reflected here um would be affected by the changes proposed um earlier that it would have to um be consequential amendments that he has to appear before the committee.

[02:13:39][clears throat] changes to 1611.

[02:13:46]Uh here's a time change from 5 hours to 2.2 two.

[02:13:57]Change this to 1614.

[02:14:12]again that's terms of reference paragraph um amendments [clears throat] 165 So that's um section uh subsequent changes cross referencing of sections that were corrected.

[02:14:54]There's a new insertion proposed um on the examination of witnesses based on section 15 of the powers and privileges act. This was proposed to come after 1617.

[02:15:15]members will see 1617 just outlines that there has to be um cognizance of uh sections 15 16 and 17 when persons appear before the committee and the proposal is to um outline and add those sections uh the wording of those sections in the terms of reference.

[02:15:46]old 1619 [snorts] again in terms of reference changes there, paragraph changes.

[02:16:02][clears throat] There's also changes to the wording here. um does not refer to concurrence with the speaker.

[02:16:19]Uh the issuing um of warrants for persons to be brought before the committee and just refers back up to the powers and privileges changes to 1620.

[02:16:37]There's again paragraphs in terms of reference changes.

[02:16:47]Then changes to 1622 legal privilege.

[02:16:57]In terms of reference changes in addition to wording upon receiving written advice, not just the written advice. Yes.

[02:17:32]And then an addition of 16224.

[02:17:44]and five would then add to 1622. So these are new ones proposed.

[02:17:53]Uh additional uh requirements for the committee secretary to communicate granting of applications.

[02:18:00]What happens if there's an application refused?

[02:18:06]Terms of protection of vulnerable witnesses. There's a proposal from the IFP that that needs to be strengthened in the terms of reference terms of the president's participation input made there and constitutional accountability.

[02:18:37]And then also that there needs to be consistency with the terms of reference.

[02:18:52]terms of the NCC submission, the declassification concerns of reports on uh the addition of objections that may be raised to questions or documents and that the chairperson then rule on continuation of those questions and who gets to ask questions and how.

[02:19:30]So that's in terms of the sequence of the questioning and they propose a sequence of questioning to be added.

[02:19:49]terms of number 17 evidence that will be presented.

[02:19:54]There's a proposed amendment to 176 on the adverse inferences and that's linked back to the president's um giving evidence or not.

[02:20:13][snorts] and that uh 176 uh should be deleted.

[02:20:24]Uh if the view is kept that the president cannot be compelled to testify then the following can be inserted with the footnotes added there.

[02:20:41]Uh action essay proposes the removal of 176 terms of the ANC they supported 17 and then um just the question on 173 whether we have the capacity to produce transcriptions in a timely manner.

[02:20:59]uh ATM proposed additions on the rules of evidence and uh what would be considered as documentary and electronic evidence and how that evidence is assessed. So this could fall under this section, but it can also fall under the um committee's report.

[02:21:28]Terms of the amendments proposed by the EFF, [sighs and gasps] there's amendments to 173.

[02:21:46]So it's to add um admissibility that would have been admissible in a court of law [snorts] amendments to 175.

[02:22:10]So that combines uh 51 and 52.

[02:22:14]They propose also propose the deletion of 176 and amendments uh to 177 regarding a number change and the removing of the word must here because it's already captured over there. So that's a grammat editorial correction.

[02:22:40]In terms of the proposals uh from the NCC it's again what constitutes sufficient evidence [snorts] terms of the PA submission um versions that may be put to the president and when those um came in prevent unsupported rumors being um put out. How hearsay evidence and media material will be treated and how documents will be controlled.

[02:23:34]18 the ANC indicated support of the clause terms of the EFF there's some amendments uh proposed there some editorial changes so you'll see some commas being added uh and semicolons uh 8.3 is changed. Um those timelines are taken out. So it's uh made available within 4 days. the transcriptions [clears throat] then written and oral submissions supported by the ANC and that 19.4 4 is very valuable and must be kept.

[02:24:40]Uh in terms of the EFF submission, there's some paragraph changes uh which would be consequential changes that need to come in.

[02:24:58]Then also [clears throat] the addition here [clears throat] for rule 129 M2 to be added.

[02:25:15]There's an insertion of a comma and semicolons.

[02:25:20]So that's editorial corrections.

[02:25:23]Uh, amendments to 196 and 7.

[02:25:43]So that is about um taking into account period used to answer the questions. So that's again on the time allocations [snorts] and the amendments in 197 are mainly um grammatical corrections that were made there and editorial changes.

[02:26:15]for 20 committee deliberations and decisions.

[02:26:21]Again, a lot of the submissions where there's um on how evidence is dealt and assessed um and what has to go into the weight of the evidence applied that can also fall under the deliberations and the decisions. The ACDP proposes changes to uh item 20.1 because there needs to be standards um clarified and they recommend that 20.1 be changed to read as indicated.

[02:27:06]old and then also an insertion of a new 20.3 in terms of the acceptance of evidence supported the section [snorts] ATM submissions. This is the standard of decision making. Just to uh expand on that, the EFF's amendments uh is an amendment to 20.1.1.

[02:27:51]So, they've shortened it.

[02:27:56]Uh in 20.5 there's an insertion of a the proposed the removal of 20.6 6 and an amendment to 20.7 proposal by the IFP is on the burden of proof required.

[02:28:38]of the consequences of the decision.

[02:28:48]Then on the committee report number 21, [clears throat] the ACDP indicating uh amendments to either 21.2 2 or 21.1 wherever it will be best suited.

[02:29:13]So that would be the guide for the report based on these clauses.

[02:29:24]Also um indicating all findings on material issues an amendment to 21.3 or a new 21.3 regarding the material issues considered terms of the ANC submission that there should be a change after uh subordination to affirm subordination of the terms of reference to the rules and then uh reasons for findings need to be added there based on the uh ATM proposal just to expand on how we do those reasons committee's report to the national assembly uh with the minimum contents that would be required in the report.

[02:30:28]Recommendations that may arise from the inquiry.

[02:30:36]Uh referral of possible criminal conduct, the implementation of the committee's recommendations and the minority reports.

[02:30:57]terms of the EFF submission there were some amendments to 2124 and five that's changing this whether or not to weather and then the PA submission is to propose that that section be added.

[02:31:28]Then in terms of number 22, general aspects.

[02:31:49]So again, it's the paragraph reference that changes, terms of reference that changes.

[02:31:55][clears throat] There's an addition or a removal of the end here.

[02:32:34]So members will see some of these um have been highlighted. That's how we pulled it from the EFF submission. There wasn't any um detail on why the sections were highlighted, but we've added it in here.

[02:32:55]And then there's changes again to paragraph and terms of reference >> end to 22.8 there. Um there's a removal of the should here should the chairperson deem necessary uh and change it to consultation with the impeachment committee.

[02:33:32]Uh they've also removed the consultation with the president's representative in terms of that um paragraph.

[02:33:39]Then for 23 commencement publication and citation it's mainly these proposals by the EFF.

[02:33:58]Uh say that it's the committee that determines not the assembly that determines.

[02:34:05]Um and then the where the rules are in there to change it to terms of reference.

[02:34:15]So chair that is the full matrix u and the submissions that were received not reading and word for word um by general outlines for the members to consider.

[02:34:30]uh chair it was a bit um difficult to capture all the proposals because some um were done as as track changes on a document that showed old track changes.

[02:34:44]Um some were general comments expressed by the parties without specific reference to the the paragraphs that they would like to see changed. Um but those are all the proposed amendments um that we have received.

[02:35:02]Uh once we get that one um once Cory sends me the one from the MK I will include it in the matrix as well and if members uh are going to send additional comments uh we can do a final matrix document then as well. Chair, thank you chair.

[02:35:21]>> Thanks very much Advocate Nell.

[02:35:23]Honorable [clears throat] members, uh that's the presentation and thanks very much for doing justice uh to the comments that we received. Obviously, we didn't have a standard or a template that we asked members to submit their their comments in, but you have done a a great uh job in collecting and and classifying the uh the inputs that came from the political parties. And I want to thank the political parties uh for submission. Uh we will include as I said earlier uh the MKP uh submissions and ensure that they form part of the metrics. Honorable members uh that's the document uh thoughts um and uh also a proposal in terms of uh how we move forward with this. I had made an earlier proposal uh that we give a general reflection and that we then move to the next level where in the political parties where there's a a violent disagreement with one another and they try to find one uh each other and that will have a much cleaner vision uh by next week that we can uh consider. I put the document to yourself members.

[02:36:40]Honorable chairperson, I'm raising my hand. I don't think you can see it.

[02:36:50]Honorable, I can't see your hand and I can't see you, but I can hear you. I'll take it that you want to make a submission. I I will recognize you then.

[02:37:00]Honorable and honorable Dagmo.

[02:37:04]>> Thank you very much, chairperson.

[02:37:07]Thank you so much, Advocate Nell, for a good presentation. It shows you started your legal career in the high court.

[02:37:14]That's where you got your training from.

[02:37:17]But on a serious note, I just want to reiterate what we said earlier on. We did submit a document relating to both the evidence leader as well as our comments regarding these guidelines.

[02:37:33]that document I resubmitted it in the morning. Uh one of the things that we touched upon no doubt relates to what we firmly believe i.e. the president cannot give evidence through a legal representative or an intermediary.

[02:37:53]Giving evidence through an intermediary is normally done in criminal cases where a minor is involved. Say a minor has raped a 7-year-old child or a 12 year old or whatever and is scared of facing the perpetrator. We're not dealing with such cases here. We're dealing with an adult and the information is peculiarly within the knowledge of the president. So he doesn't have a choice with respect and I'm glad there seems to be consensus that evidence must be given by the president himself and not through inter an intermediary or a representative.

[02:38:34]Secondly obviously if the president chooses not to give evidence the law will apply its cause. The law cannot be redefined by us in this committee. The law is clear. If there is a case to answer and you choose not to answer or to lead any evidence to rebart that, that case which you have to answer will stand because there is nothing to gain. Say it. That's what we mean in another way of putting it. That's what we mean. Adverse influence will be drawn. That case will stand because there is nothing to gain. Say it. So we cannot rewrite the law with respect for purposes of this impeachment committee.

[02:39:21]In short, where there is a case to answer and the president chooses not to give evidence, that evidence will stand against him and an adverse inference can be drawn against him in the same way as would happen in any other matters. We cannot rewrite the law for purposes of this impeachment inquiring.

[02:39:46]The other important point that I wish to make it is for the pres the president must give evidence first. I want us to avoid a situation whereby there is going to be ongoing debate about when the president should give evidence. The president must give the evidence first so that we know that is going to define the scope of this inquiry. That is going to tell us what it is that we're dealing with, what has been admitted or what remains in dispute. It doesn't help for us to call several witnesses to come and testify or to give evidence in respect of which that is not in dispute at all. So the moment the president has given evidence, we will all have to reflect and say what it is that still has to be covered here, is there a case for the president to answer and then the sequence of witnesses will flow from there? For example, we might want somebody uh to come and corroborate the version of the president because it's clear that that is the evidence of the president. If there is no need for any cooperation or evidence to dispute or gain say that which has been said by the president and we're all happy that he has given a satisfactory account.

[02:41:09]That's the end of the inquiry.

[02:41:11]So my view is simple. We will have this is the view of the MK party. We are stair we are firm in our submission that the president cannot give evidence through an intermediary or a representative.

[02:41:27]Secondly, he must give evidence first because that's going to define the scope of the inquiry so that we know what it is that we're dealing with. If he chooses not to give evidence and there are witnesses who have been called by the commission to give evidence and he likes not to give evidence. Surely the law will take its course. We cannot rewrite the law. Just a little bit about the standard of proof. We're obviously not dealing with a criminal case where proof is beyond any reasonable doubt.

[02:42:03]This is akin to civil proceedings where proof is on a preponderance of probabilities.

[02:42:11]I so submit. Thank you very much chairperson. Thank you.

[02:42:16]>> Thank you very much honorable honorable chairperson. Thank you. I found the exercise very helpful uh with the metrics and to learn the other parties proposals and there is a large degree of convergence on a number of issues.

[02:42:33]There's a lot of detail which I think we can um probably agree. I want to support your proposal to allow an additional I think you spoke about 48 hours for parties to make um to find each other possibly. I think uh Dr. Schlopper has raised the critical issue and that is the wording as presently formulated that the president can elect to give evidence and should he firstly the issue of through an intermediary which we would not support in according to our document. Secondly, the issue of whether he gives evidence at all and should he not give evidence whether an adverse inference can be drawn from that and the present clause says no adverse inference can be drawn and I think that is incorrect as a matter of law um a negative inference could possibly be drawn from a lack of giving evidence or on the other hand as Dr. LE um indicates that when one then balances all the evidence at the end of the day and the president chooses not to elect then that becomes a a factor possible negative factor when one balances in on the balance of probabilities. chairp person I think this we need to appreciate and that's why I made the introductory comments in my note that this is a unique constitutional process whilst we draw from criminal law and civil law and we are guided by that um this is a constitutional accountability mechanism where we apply an inquisitorial nature as to determine on an objective legal basis whether we are dealing with a delinquent president or not. At the end of the day, I will give serious consideration to Dr. Schlope's suggestion about the president giving evidence first, should he elect to do so. Um, but we would seriously argue that there should be a compulsion for the president to give um evidence or at the very least should he elect not to give evidence that a negative inference can be drawn. But at this stage, chair, I just want to indicate that uh we we support your proposal for additional time. Thank you, chairperson.

[02:44:53]>> Thanks very much. Uh honorable Doug Mo.

[02:44:58]>> Thanks, chair. Um chair, as you said, just a few broad reflections. I think it's important that you know when we say that we embrace the ruling of the constitutional court that we should also give particular attention to the paragraphs 139 140 and 141 which is also why um we as the ANC have motivated very strongly for a two this two-stage process. We know that certain reports have already been compiled and it only makes sense that that's actually where we start and I think we need to be broadly consistent as a committee um given that the work that we're doing is informed directly by the judgment um of the uh constitutional court and also chair I think what was useful in regard to your um response earlier um in the meeting you know we we should be very clear that what we're talking about here is a narrow inquiry specifically into the resolution uh sorry the motion and the charges that were contained in that motion moved um at that stage by honorable Zungula it's not about anything else that is the motion that went to parliament the subject of a a panel report investigation and it's very important that we maintain the focus um and the mandate of of this particular impeachment committee. Thank you.

[02:46:33]>> Thanks very much. Uh honorable go.

[02:46:39]>> Um thank you. Thank you chairperson. Um I think I just want to make maybe two or three points. The first is that I think we are all very much aligned with regards to um the president appearing um and that you know we're hoping that that will be absolutely unanimous. Uh we don't believe that he should be able to give evidence in absentia. Uh we also um agree with the negative inference um suggestion that has been made previously. We absolutely agree with that. Um and then we also want just to say that um the entities that are suggested to be able to give um or or to be able to inform our process uh we shouldn't be limited to those. Wherever we can find um evidence we should be able to to do that as a committee. And so in the end I think what we want to really just respond to is the idea and I think it was honorable Doug Moore just now who spoke to um the question of um you know being as narrow as limited to um the the motion that has been that is before us. However, um narrow should not mean uh that the scope of it is is only limited that it doesn't encapsulate um what we want to find because ultimately what we want is to be able to assist the committee to discover the truth around what absolutely happened um at Pala Pala and that should be expressly what we hope to do in this particular um committee. I also want to say um um the suggested entities. I think we spoke to this earlier on um should just inform uh our work and not necessarily limit to those particular entities that have been referred to in the terms of reference and I think that we should absolutely broaden those. Um and then finally I want to say that um I think we'll agree with the additional time um that you know perhaps be in line with the 48 hour submission that we are making with regards to uh the evidence leader. Thanks chair.

[02:48:53]>> Thanks very much honorable Masaw.

[02:48:58]>> Uh thank you very much chairperson.

[02:49:00][clears throat] Um I think the framework the matrix u gives an opportunity now for parties to engage um in a very sober uh way to find each other because as and when you go through it you can tell that there is there are many areas of convergence and I think it paves a way to uh engage and find each other. Chair, I want to align with your earlier submission on how you want to deal with that uh and give parties uh some time to really interrogate the submissions and engage with each other. Uh where they find each other, they do. I just want to point something chair that is of a concern to me. um I find it not useful. Uh and I'm I'm not saying it's not allowed but how it became maybe a problem moving forward uh on how the committee conducts its business.

[02:50:15]There is a certain paragraph I can't remember which paragraph here you you uh your your legal people will look at it.

[02:50:24]NCC made a submission and already in their submission they say uh the submission of the ANC is in this manner and that manner we don't agree with it.

[02:50:36]One wonders where did they get that submission uh for them to not put their submission forward but look at somebody's submission and start talking about it. uh it may if if we were were given some equal opportunity for us as well before we submit to know what they submitted uh we probably would have an equal footing it's just a concern chair I'm not uh making any suggestion on your office uh but it leaves us wondering what happened uh and maybe moving forward we we may want to deal with that we don't have a problem with any party saying the NC we don't agree with it and all of that but it bears some question to uh actually comprehend how another party got to know what would be the submission of the ANC and not submit what is meaningful uh but criticize another [clears throat] party. Uh thank you very much chair.

[02:51:48]>> Thanks very much. Honorable Ml I will I will respond after cuz that's a serious concern as well. Uh honorable Daniels.

[02:52:00]Uh thank you chairperson.

[02:52:03]Jerson. Um, a right is not a duty and we believe that the president cannot be compelled to testify.

[02:52:25]His participation is a right to be heard, not a duty to give evidence.

[02:52:33]and non- testimony should not have an adverse interference because it can't be weighed against the president when we consider the duty and the right aspect that I've mentioned chairperson rule 129M1 provides that the impeachment committee must proceed to establish the veracity and where required the seriousness of the charges and the report to the n to to the assembly thereon.

[02:53:05]Now the question that I have chairperson is if the committee must establish veracity and seriousness may the president be required to answer before the evidence relied upon against him has been identified presented or closed.

[02:53:23]I don't believe it is the case, chairperson.

[02:53:26]The president has a right to answer a case that has first been properly presented.

[02:53:32]He should not be required to disprove an unformulated shifting or hearsay based case.

[02:53:40]So, Jerson, you know, we must consider uh uh proposals that evidence leader must first present the evidence upon which the committee is asked to rely in relation to its charge.

[02:53:54]The president must be provided with a final issue list such as evidence bundle, witness statements and summaries, expert material, and any adverse material relied upon before he is called upon to answer chap.

[02:54:10]The president is not required to answer any allegation, version or proposition that has not first been placed before the committee as evidence and identified as material relied upon against him.

[02:54:24]Because Jefferson, we must consider that this entire sequence is not a technical indulgence.

[02:54:31]is a practical content of procedural fairness simply because a person answers evidence and not suspicion chairperson and it's on that strength that I base what I've just said chairperson uh for your consideration and there's so much more to consider having perused each party's input that uh I appreciate the fact that we are going to come back to have a bite at this uh in a more effective and um diligent way. Thanks J.

[02:55:05]>> Thanks very much Honorables.

[02:55:17]Um thank you. Thank you chair. Let me start chair by maybe dealing with the issue of where or why we are here. We're here because there's primaakia evidence of misconduct um and violations to the constitution by the president and because there's primaaki evidence against him um it is not a suspicion when that is put um against the president. It is not hearsay. it is not um something that could be interpreted as if it is just mere suspicions that have been put against the president. So the question of the president coming to testify, it is one of the most paramount um issues that need to be dealt with because you can't have an inquiry over the president and the president has not come to testify because him testifying that is an integral part of the ideals and the purpose of the section 89 process of holding him accountable.

[02:56:27]Therefore, you can't hold someone accountable without having that person coming to testify and answer to what is put before him.

[02:56:38]Something that is based most importantly on the independent panel report. The president will not be asked about anything else besides what is the reason why we are having this committee which is the independent panel report. Which brings me to the other point that the issue that we're dealing with here is not that there is a public protector report that found that there is some issues and then that public protector report led to the formation of this committee. We are here in this committee because of an independent panel report.

[02:57:17]So the assertion that we must rely on um or we must start with the reports that may have been done by other institutions. I don't think that would be a wise move because in some instances the outcomes and the views of those particular um institutions fundamentally differs from what the independent panel found. For instance, the public protector's version of paid work is different from the independent panel's version of paid work. So, how can then you bring the public protector on her version of paid work to come and testify um as a basis whereas the issue here we are dealing with an issue of the independent panel report. So no reliance um when it comes to when you are starting must be placed on those particular institutions.

[02:58:18]Reliance must be placed on the independent panel report as it is a basis of the impeachment committee.

[02:58:26]That's why even the court judgment is very clear that the independent panel report um according to paragraph 139 the impeachment committee must proceed up until um when or until the report is set aside that um judgment says nothing about SARS the reserve bank or anything else and then the other issue is that we are in a full-blown trial as we speak chair it's not like we are going to start another process that will lead to another process. This is a full-blown trial. Therefore, we can't say we're going to be listening to these particular institutions to make a determination if we can have another step. The step that we're in now is a full-blown trial. And my view is that we must start with the independent panel report as a basis because that is why you are here. The last issue is the issue of the witnesses where we must allow witnesses must not close off witnesses to come and testify regardless whether a witness used to work in the intelligence of the of the country. Um they must come testify. They must come bring evidence. Um because this process must be an evidence-based um inquiry in which we're trying here to assertain the truth. Therefore, we can't then block out um individuals who may assist um the inquiry with evidence on the basis that they used to work um in the intelligence um of the country. The question that perhaps would need to be answered by the legal team is that when um Chief Justice Noble was delivering the report to the then speaker, he made a statement that their work is done and now that report becomes a report of the speaker. Now in the case whereby as a point of departure um um as it has been proposed that the independent panel um must come and table the report. How would that look like if the authors of the report of the view that their work was done the minute they handed over the report and even in the litigation that is currently happening their assertion is very clear that um so what then would be the the way to deal with that in terms of ensuring that we get their view their wisdom and their understanding which led to that report with those conclusions and at the same time um deal with the question of can they come testify or can they come to table their report. Thank you.

[03:01:17]>> Thank you very much honorable Lfield Chavala.

[03:01:22]>> Thank you chair. After this I will excuse myself. Um, honorable Zumula has covered me on the legal technicalities that govern this and I'm glad I'm speaking after him. So, I will do what is done in the military where a junior speaks to a senior and they say permission to speak freely. So, can I speak freely? We are very busy GNU.

[03:01:48]Um, this is an election year. If you are calling us here to come and talk to the Sudanese businessman, to the immigration officer who let such a huge sum of money pass through our borders or to a bank that allowed this man to withdraw such a large sum of money, you can't even withdraw dollars directly in this country. You want us to talk to the workers at Pala Pala Farm. Every one of them talking about the president, but the president is not appearing. you are really wasting our time. I say again, it's an election year if that's what we are formed for. In the words of honorable Daniels, we are here to establish the truth so that we don't dre the president to the impeachment committee based on hearsay. But you want us to conduct that process precisely based on hearsay because all of those people will be talking about him, but he's not appearing. So honestly I I beg or so say Nigerians GNU don't push us to a corner where as some of us in opposition have to come into boardrooms and say do we really want to be part of this impeachment committee or do we just leave it as a GU process you can't waste our time this way not this year when it's an election year so let us be very clear from the beginning if you want to establish the truth this whole case about the president trying to understand what is so scary about him appearing in the impeachment committee also just permission to speak freely again do you think if those dollars were found in my house I would still be breathing today I would long have been in jail so man let's not confirm what some of us in opposition are already saying that we are dealing with a a legal process that is very captured in this country don't confirm that stereotype can we be serious about ourselves thank you chair and I would like to excuse myself thank you colleagues for this Thank thank you very much honorable members. Uh that concludes the general reflections. Uh I think we we uh the sense that I got from everyone it's uh that we also extending uh this uh now that we've had the presentation on the party submission. We extending it uh with the same deadline uh 48 hours until 18800 hours for political parties to confer with one another. uh and where there's a there are disagreements at least submit uh uh a consensus view in that regard but also for ourselves in the in the background uh we can be able uh to then clean up the document so that by the time we meet next week uh it's not the 114page document we only deal we remove all the commentary uh around the uh the proposals and we are left with the proposal so that it becomes a lot easier for us to to deliberate on that.

[03:04:44]Honorable Zumba uh chair just to register my request that can you also look into the role of the independent panel?

[03:04:54]>> I I will come there. I'm I'm taking from the top honorable Zongola. I'll come I'm coming there. Um so that it's in in so far as the terms of preference can we with then uh look uh do that honorable members uh so that the documents that will then submit for the meeting we are going to have a meeting next Wednesday on the 29th of July. So we want to submit those documents by uh uh by Monday. So if you could if you find one another please let us know and submit the consolidated view together with the party that you have agreed with. Uh it will assist us it will assist us greatly. There [clears throat] are two there are two aspects uh that uh we we have to check.

[03:05:42]Uh so there's one that the honorable Zungula uh has tabled in so far as the independent panel report. Uh whether we can get the the authors of the independent panel report come and uh uh table the report to the committee uh and uh interact uh with ourselves. I I think we have to write to the authors uh but also uh together with legal uh to check what what's possible uh in this uh in this regard. Uh it is also my desire uh that the authors of the panel report uh appear before the committee table. The report uh if you remember very well even though one was not a a member of the of parliament at the time the report was ended to the speaker it was never uh briefed to any committee in parliament.

[03:06:35]Uh so this is the committee that's supposed to be briefed on it taken through it all the considerations of the evidence and and how the the the panel arrived at the uh its decision. I think we we can all benefit from that and um we'll ask legal to then deal deal with that uh issue. I was listening honorable members uh to the input first that was uh given by uh honorable shop uh and then the in the subsequent inputs in so far as the the president's um uh appearing or testifying before uh before the the the committee and there's a I think for me leaves a bit of a legal question that I would like to ask legal uh if at all uh if they can assist whether we we can compel uh the president to uh to testify and if he doesn't what does that uh uh that uh what will that mean for the for the committee cuz I think there's that issue around the ne negative inference that might have to be made in that regard cuz so that we are on the on the right side of the law I know that we might have our desires as members. Uh we also don't want uh the rules themselves to be uh to be challenged uh if someone chooses not to testify and believe that there's no case to answer and also in terms of what honorable shop have proposed that uh the the president testifies or gives the his version or or appears before the committee first. If I can ask legal uh to just uh look at that matter so that when we consider that particular laws in the in the terms of reference uh we do have uh some uh uh legal uh legal uh legal baking uh and if possible legal can then prepare that uh uh briefing to the committee uh for next week Wednesday in so far as the president is is concerned and also looking also in other they will use the case law and other jurisdictions where impeachment processes will have taken place. Will that uh cover us members so that by the time we discussed this particular matter cuz it was also a matter that we discussed last last time we met in June uh that the legal can go a little bit deeper to help us uh uh get to a decision on this particular topic.

[03:09:26]Can we agree to that members?

[03:09:31]>> Yes, agreed chairperson. Thank you.

[03:09:34]Agreed from my side. Thank you.

[03:09:37]>> Thank Thank you very much.

[03:09:38]>> Very progressive chairperson. Thank you very much, Mr. >> Thank you very much.

[03:09:43]>> Thank Thank you very much members. And in so far as this uh item is concerned uh the decisions that uh we are taking is that firstly we are giving political parties 48 hours uh so until Friday 18800 hours uh to uh confer or lobby each other on on uh clauses that they are deferring with and then to submit uh to us uh uh the the agreed position so that we can clean up the metrics for the meeting on 29th. That's the first one.

[03:10:16]The second one is that together with legal we are going to uh a right to to the authors of the independent panel report uh uh to ask them to to in terms of their availability to present the panel to the I mean the report to the committee. Uh so that's the second one.

[03:10:38]And then the the third one it's uh uh for legal to assist us in so far as uh the appearance of the president or if the president might choose not to testify what are the options that are available to the committee so that those two clauses uh in the terms of reference are properly clarified. Uh so these are the three decisions in so far as this item is concerned. Honorable Dagma, did I leave something out that you said?

[03:11:11]>> Um, chair, I just wanted clarity um that in the your summary around communicating with the the authors of the independent panel and you've also referred that the team in your office would would would you know look at um some legal aspects.

[03:11:29]I think we could we just also agree to ask them to consider um you know in regard to both okay the interdicial there will be an outcome on Friday but in regard to the review application whether it would be prudent um to have that engagement um before the review panel so sorry the review process has um come to a conclusion as to whether there are um issues with that panel report and so on.

[03:12:01]I think we must just get an opinion on that. I'm just concerned that we invite without looking at the implications of possible judgments down the line.

[03:12:15]>> I see two hands, honorable M and honorable Zumbula.

[03:12:20]>> No, thank you chair. um we didn't want to engage now because you said >> we were going to engage as political parties and then uh come and sit next week but now we are forced to speak because we see that you are already moving one it must be noted that the EFF objects to the president not um giving evidence himself. We'll be failing the people of South Africa.

[03:12:55]We'll be failing ourselves. We'll failing in our duties to hold executive to account. He's an individual who's been elected into an office, not through lawyers by him. And him taking the oath of office. So, he must come here. The same way he answers questions in parliament that's holding the president to account. He's now compelled not even by parliament by the constitutional court to come and be held accountable here. There were no lawyers when he took an oath of office. There were no lawyers when we were electing him. So we vehemently disagree with any notion that the president should uh speak through lawyers. That's number one. Number two uh chair the constitutional court is very clear.

[03:13:39]This matter this report independent panel report must be referred to the impeachment committee.

[03:13:45]There's no legal opinion that you need to seek h in relation to the review application tabled by the president.

[03:13:52]We're continuing until such time that the report is set aside by a competent court of law. As it stands now, there's no such a judgment. The judgment we have in front of us is the one that says the matter must be referred to impeachment committee and that's exactly what we're doing. So I I I oppose the proposal that says go and seek legal opinion. We don't have money. Our people are dying.

[03:14:22]Children are falling into pit toilets.

[03:14:24]Let's save the little resources of the of the state and focus on things that are going to help us take us somewhere.

[03:14:31]You don't need any legal opinion on a judgment that is tabled or was issued by the court, the highest court in the land. Thank you, chair.

[03:14:43]>> Honorable Zonga, a >> quick one for me, chair. Um I initially thought I'm done speaking for the meeting cuz you were done with your conclusions. However, um maybe I'm I'm rushing, but we can't allow a case where the the the process is is um a second guessed indirectly because there is a court ruling that has led to where we are and the work of the committee must proceed up until um that independent panel report is set aside um by a court of law. Therefore, it cannot be that even the authors now of that independent panel report are asked to give an opinion whether their report is actually going to stand legal scrutiny because the suggestion that has been made is basically saying as the authors of the the the independent panel report to advise when it's taken to the indep when it's taken to court will it survive um constitutional scrutiny or legal scrutiny?

[03:15:53]And without being biased, there's no person who can then say, "No, I think my report was showed. Therefore, let's hold off up until those processes are done."

[03:16:04]The process must continue. If we meet next week, we decide um we conclude on the evidence leaders. We conclude on the terms of reference. The following week we must have the independent panel um Chief Justice Noble um and team come coming to um to table the report um if possible. There need not be any form of delay up until those legal processes because that is not what the constitutional court um um actually crafted in their judgment. Thank you.

[03:16:39]>> Thank you honorable Mami.

[03:16:43]Thank you chairperson.

[03:16:46]Yet well we agree that this matter must proceed. But sh I think we stand to support your recommendation on that you you you seek a a a a a a legal opinion also on the issue on the election whether to testify or not because that will provide a balance and clarity on the right to remain silent because it's there we want to support that and then secondly chairperson There's an issue that Dr. top raised on the issue around the standard of proof on on on these matters whether it's on the balance of probabilities or beyond reasonable doubt that relates to to to court both civil and criminal approach and then the question that arise chair is that which standard of proof is used to determine serious violation of the constitution and the constitution at the same time does not define it or its actual threshold. That's why it will be important for you chairperson as we proceed when we move towards you also seek a legal opinion to that but we support that matters that you said you must seek legal thank you chair >> thank thank you thank you very much uh thank you very much members just just so that we are clear and I'll start the honorable zula uh to say that what what I what you had asked was that you want us to then ask legal not Not that we are going to an external uh council and so forth. They are legal advisers to this committee. The first point of call for us or for myself as the chairperson is the is the legal advisor to the committee that then looks at this uh matter. So you had said honorable Zumba that the the panel had said that they said their work is done. Now we need to request uh them to appear before the committee.

[03:18:54]I said that together with legal. No, when I say legal, I'm referring to the legal advisers to the committee uh which is um uh uh uh uh uh Miss Suen Isaac and and Mr. Michael Prince in the first instance. So we we are not going to spend any extra money cuz they are the employees of uh of parliament. In the first instance, they're going to advise on the question that you ask whether we can call uh we can call them and then if we then say we can call them, then we write a letter asking them to come and appear before the committee like we do with any person that we would like to appear before uh the committees of parliament. That's what we're going to do. And it is the same in so far as the the president uh the first instance we look at the legal advisers they give the legal advice if the legal advice from the legal advisers of the committee it's of says that no this particular matter h requires an external uh person to give an opinion that matter will be brought to the committee but what you will have will be from within in uh the the legal unit in parliament. Uh I I'm I'm not one to just quickly rush to an external uh senior council and so forth to try to get a legal advice. In the first instance, we use the legal advice in that regard. And it's important for us to also be informed of whatever recourse uh that it's available to us in a case where uh uh let's say either the the president in this particular instance says that there is not compelled to uh to testify before the committee so that the committee when it finalizes its terms of reference it can be adequately informed and not only we go with um uh just our own our own wishes. So I'm trying to say as a committee we need a bit of background information or at least uh some some view on this before we finalize the terms of reference. It was not to say in any way that uh we cannot state in our terms that the president must appear but is to say all right what what are the options available to us and that work will be done by the legal advisers that are assigned to this committee in the first instance. Honorable M.

[03:21:28]>> No, thank you chair. You know, we should not go around in circles all the time. We've been here before. There was a full impeachment that process that was taken by parliament or advocate and that should be our base. That should be the starting point to say what lessons did we learn from that. If you remember chair, I was sitting in that committee. You too were sitting in that committee. The initial point was that advocate h cannot uh be given be afforded the opportunity to have um [clears throat] um legal representative.

[03:22:08]And then the committee took a resolution that were not affording her that right.

[03:22:13]She had to go to court to seek intervention for her to have that right.

[03:22:20]And then the court agreed with her that she has the right to have a legal representation. But the court did not agree with her on her giving testimony or evidence herself. So why are we now changing the rules? Because now it's the same process. It's the same impeachment process just different faces. But we want now to pretend as if we were never here before. No chair. the the the you should have already by now sat with your legal team and your staff to advise you on what has or refresh your mind because it's not to advise. You were here it's not very long ago me and you were in that committee. So I don't understand why we are now saying we need a legal opinion on whether the president can come and testify or not. That that that question does not arise. The president must come and and and and and give a testimony. We agree that his legal representative can sit with him, but they cannot answer. They don't answer for him in parliament. This is still parliament. There's nothing different here.

[03:23:21]So, let's not waste time over things and waste money. And the legal team should be seized with the work that is meant for the committee. There's a lot of work. There's a lot of paperwork that still needs to be put in place instead of going around who are here for the first time. Why not? At least we've got that experience.

[03:23:39]Please let's move in that order. Thank you.

[03:23:42]>> Thank Thank you very much. Honorable M.

[03:23:45]We will move in that order. Honorable May, I saw your hand uh and then you lowered it. Are you >> Yes. Yes. Shepher the suffice to say that what I I'd wanted to understand is that >> I think if the committee was to table a report that parliament needed to vote on to meet the constitutional threshold without testimony from the president, I'm not sure how that would serve parliament in its interests. That was just maybe a question I wanted to put forward. But I think the other speakers have covered us in terms of where the matter goes. So I will yield it at that point.

[03:24:23]>> All right. Thank thanks very much. Uh and I take all the points that have been made and we we will take lessons from >> maybe should have prayed for the chair.

[03:24:38]>> M no no no no no thanks very much. Uh we will we will proceed. It's important that at all times also when there are some legal questions and and these matters come up we also satisfy ourselves uh that we are on the right side of the law because this particular matters I always say is the first of its kind and we must at all times be on the right side of the law cuz there are there are various ways that these matters will then uh uh be uh dealt with but we'll proceed on those uh on those three resolutions. in this in this regard. Uh can we then go to the last item which is the minutes can you please take us uh uh that item the minutes of the previous meeting.

[03:25:32]>> Thank you very much. [clears throat] >> The minutes were circulated because just go to the resolutions of the meeting.

[03:25:39]>> Thank you very much. Uh Trey, as I present the minutes, you are correct. Uh they were presented uh to the committee.

[03:25:48]Sorry, they were situated to members. It is the minutes of the 24th of June, our last committee meeting. And as you have indicated chair, I'll just go down at the bottom where the committee made uh the resolutions wherein after the deliberation it was resolved that all political parties would be afforded until Friday 10 July to submit the nomination of candidates for consideration as evidence leaders. The same resolution was made in relation to the toss and was also indicated that the committee secretariat should provide members with a list of all parliamentary support staff supporting the committee together their respective roles.

[03:26:27]Committee agreed that the senior evidence leader would not be subjected to a vetting process as that would be timeconuming and could result in delays.

[03:26:34]The appointment of junior or assistant leaders will be left to the senior evidence leader. The committee further agreed in principle that additional specialist support may be required and this could be this could include investigator with expertise in forensic investigations, exchange control methods and data analysis. And the last one chas the draft directive which was presented outlining the appointment of the evidence leader was adopted with an amendment on the appointment of junior evidence leaders and then we adopted the minutes of the previous committee meetings chair and also chair as you will be moving for the adoption I think there's two important issues that you might want to address one relating to the concern that was raised by Mr. M and the other one relating to the document that would have been submitted by MKP.

[03:27:26]Thank you very much.

[03:27:29]>> Uh thank thank you very much. I will deal with that issue after we we have gone uh through the minutes. Are there any corrections to the minutes? Uh honorable members I don't see any hands. Uh any mover for the minutes as a as a st reflection of our last meeting. Honorable Dagma.

[03:27:55]>> Um thank you chair. Yes I would like to move for the adoption of the minutes as presented. Thank you.

[03:28:00]>> Thanks very much honorable Dagma. Any second Mr. Chairperson >> honorable honorable Daniel second. Thank you very much honorable members. There were there were just two issues that I as we move towards closure that I just need to raise. Uh and so there was one the issue around the the the input of uh the MKP uh that we had missed them. Uh I think we missed them cuz they were submitted uh to the WhatsApp group uh and without context. If I could just ask that uh the any communication especially whether it relates official communication be directed to the uh committee secretary and I can be copied on those uh conversations but let's not uh uh submit the the documents especially of this nature through the WhatsApp group because without context cuz they do sometimes get uh lost.

[03:29:07]in there. Let's use the official channel which is the email to the committee secretary but we have taken note of that document honorable that MK has submitted. Uh can we in the future email them to the uh committee secretary and the advocate nail has just uh indicated to me that uh she will add the input of MK and circulate uh the amended matrix uh this evening. That's the first issue. The second issue relates to the point that honorable Maf raised in so far as the comments from the NCC and I was able to check uh with the team in terms of u uh what could have happened. Uh safe to say that if you remember when the uh the draft at the then there were the draft roles were were sent through to the committee the the inputs of the political parties that were sent to the subcommittee on rules were attached to that referral and that uh when we sub when we sent the the draft rules then uh the inputs of the political parties were also circulated.

[03:30:25]So the NCC made their comments based on the inputs of the ANC to the subcommittee on rules. It was not that they they uh uh got sight of your presentation in this particular round of inputs. Honorable Mash, they were responding to the earlier inputs that were circulated that you will have made to the subcommittee on rules that were referred together with the draft uh terms of reference. So that's that's how the NCC got hold of your initial input.

[03:31:02]It was from the the input you made to the subcommittee on rules. Uh honorable members uh this brings us to the close of our meeting. Uh we uh it's 30 minutes after we had budgeted that from the time that we had budgeted for uh it means that next time we should budget uh the time accordingly. So we'll budget 10:00 to 12:00 uh for the next meeting so that we can uh be in time. So thank you very much uh to yourselves for attending this meeting for participating uh and please do submit if you have additional uh nominees for the evidence leader by Friday 1800 hours and also in term in in uh the conversations that you need to have with one another as it relates to the terms of reference if we can have them by 1800 hours on Friday we'll appreciate. Uh thank you very much and thanks to everyone who joined uh this meeting online uh who watched and uh this conversation on YouTube can session and we'll continue to focus on the things that is in our control. Thank you very much. The meeting is agenda.

[03:32:18]>> Thank