More action to follow the State of the City Address drama

Two councillors who were removed by security personnel from the Council Chamber during the State of the City Address on 30 April said they won’t appear before the Integrity Committee as planned by the Council Speaker Vasco da Gama.

Councillor Thapelo Amad from the Al Jama-ah party and councillor Lloyd Philips were removed from the Chamber after they requested that the speaker initiate a recount to determine whether they had reached the quorum. This follows after ANC councillors staged a walk-out while Mayor Herman Mashaba was delivering his speech.

“Speaker, we just want a recount to determine whether we reach the quorum. That’s all we ask,” said Amad and Philips during the proceedings. However, Da Gama requested them to take their seats or leave the chamber. The pair further requested the speaker to refer to the rules of the house which never transpired. The councillors were subsequently removed by security guards from the Chamber after refusing to back down.

Da Gama said he will go through the recordings of the day and refer the matter to the integrity committee by 22 May.

“The State of the City Address is a function held to give the mayor an opportunity to tell residents of the City about the challenges, achievements and plans it has going forward. No disruptions are allowed and councillors cannot stand up for points of order. A quorum is considered only when a resolution has to be taken at the end of the proceedings,” said Da Gama.

However, the two councillors said they will not appear before the integrity committee until Mashaba presents himself to the committee first. “Last year, there was a resolution taken that no councillor should appear before the integrity committee until Mashaba presents himself to the committee on a matter that is still sub judice. The State of the City Address is council business and we ought to have a quorum. We have got to approve and debate it afterwards. If we’re given the rules we would have continued with the business of the day,” said Philips.

Both councillors said their parties were considering taking legal action on the matter. “We are in discussion with our legal team because we feel that what transpired was unconstitutional. We were also humiliated. It is a great regret to see minority parties being treated in the manner that we were treated. The speaker could have just referred to the rules and we would have continued with the proceedings, but he chose not to provide the rules and the grounds on which he was removing us from the Chamber,” said Amad.

dramaWhat do you think the speaker or the councillors could have done differently to avoid the drama?