Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa and State Security Minister David Mahlobo both refused to answer aspects of questions yesterday about the switching off of the signal jammer obstructing electronic communication during President Jacob Zuma’s recent State of the Nation address on February 15.
It has been alleged that the signal jammer was switched off after Ramaphosa sent Mahlobo a note.
Mahlobo has since agreed that the intelligence services were responsible for wrongly jamming the signal, but the exact events and the content of the note have remained a closely guarded secret.
Yesterday, the opposition tried to probe the issue, but both Ramaphosa and Mahlobo claimed that, much as they wanted to answer the questions put, they couldn’t because the issue was currently before the courts.
Their view, which they claimed was founded on legal advice, was loudly and vehemently challenged by the DA, EFF, UDM and Freedom Front Plus.
DA parliamentary leader Mmusi Maimane asked Ramaphosa when he, as leader of government business, was made aware of the intended use of signal jammers and other additional security measures used during the State of the Nation address.
Ramaphosa said the cases flowing from events on that night meant that he was constrained in answering questions about them, but added that he would answer questions as soon as the court cases were concluded, and that he was in favour of a free flow of information from parliament.
Maimane then raised the fact that all EFF MPs were evicted from parliament on the evening of 15 February, and Ramaphosa said the issue was being handled by parliament, referring to various disciplinary processes before parliament’s power and privileges committee. He therefore did not answer the question further.
DA chief whip John Steenhuisen said Ramaphosa was hiding behind the sub judice rule, and UDM leader Bantu Holomisa asked Ramaphosa directly whether he intervened with Mahlobo on the matter of the jammer.
Then DA MP David Maynier asked Mahlobo whether he would take responsibility for the illegal use of the signal jammer, and if so, whether he would resign.
Mahlobo also claimed the court cases had to be finalised before he answered questions on the matter, causing Steenhuisen to claim he was cloaking his answer in a “spurious application of the sub judice rule”.
He nevertheless repeated his previous statements that there was no executive order or political decision to jam the signal, and that it was merely an “operational error”.
He refused to respond to Maynier’s opinion that he should resign.
EFF MP Sipho Mbatha then asked Mahlobo why the State Security Agency was involved in the State of the Nation at all, given that it was legitimate political activity.
He also called the current government a “reincarnation of apartheid”, and Mahlobo a new Hernus Kriel or Magnus Malan.
Ramaphosa and Mahlobo dodge questions on signal jamming
It has been alleged that the signal jammer was switched off after Ramaphosa sent Mahlobo a note.
Mahlobo has since agreed that the intelligence services were responsible for wrongly jamming the signal, but the exact events and the content of the note have remained a closely guarded secret.
Yesterday, the opposition tried to probe the issue, but both Ramaphosa and Mahlobo claimed that, much as they wanted to answer the questions put, they couldn’t because the issue was currently before the courts.
Their view, which they claimed was founded on legal advice, was loudly and vehemently challenged by the DA, EFF, UDM and Freedom Front Plus.
DA parliamentary leader Mmusi Maimane asked Ramaphosa when he, as leader of government business, was made aware of the intended use of signal jammers and other additional security measures used during the State of the Nation address.
Ramaphosa said the cases flowing from events on that night meant that he was constrained in answering questions about them, but added that he would answer questions as soon as the court cases were concluded, and that he was in favour of a free flow of information from parliament.
Maimane then raised the fact that all EFF MPs were evicted from parliament on the evening of 15 February, and Ramaphosa said the issue was being handled by parliament, referring to various disciplinary processes before parliament’s power and privileges committee. He therefore did not answer the question further.
DA chief whip John Steenhuisen said Ramaphosa was hiding behind the sub judice rule, and UDM leader Bantu Holomisa asked Ramaphosa directly whether he intervened with Mahlobo on the matter of the jammer.
Then DA MP David Maynier asked Mahlobo whether he would take responsibility for the illegal use of the signal jammer, and if so, whether he would resign.
Mahlobo also claimed the court cases had to be finalised before he answered questions on the matter, causing Steenhuisen to claim he was cloaking his answer in a “spurious application of the sub judice rule”.
He nevertheless repeated his previous statements that there was no executive order or political decision to jam the signal, and that it was merely an “operational error”.
He refused to respond to Maynier’s opinion that he should resign.
EFF MP Sipho Mbatha then asked Mahlobo why the State Security Agency was involved in the State of the Nation at all, given that it was legitimate political activity.
He also called the current government a “reincarnation of apartheid”, and Mahlobo a new Hernus Kriel or Magnus Malan.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending Now
Latest Videos