Hon Speaker and Hon. Members,

to make my contribution to this debate, I wish to invite the Hon. Members to go with me through the same response by the Hon. Mr. Mike Mabuyakhulu to  Question 35 already alluded to by the Hon. Mr. MB Gwala. The Hon. Mdletshe posed the following question to the Hon. Minister:

"Does the Provincial Department have a right to ignore the stipulations of a National Act if and when the Minister of that Department does not feel abiding by the stipulation of that Act?"

The Minister responds:

"I am not in a position to answer on behalf of my predecessors in office, nor am I in a position to answer why my predecessors didn't ensure that the Provincial House fulfills the requirements of the Public Entity and that it operates as such."

Hon. Speaker; It has always been Minister Mabuyakhulu's defence to blame his predecessors each time this issue is raised. Let me state first for the record that - during the tenure of the Hon. iNkosi NJ Ngubane - amaKhosi had no problem whatsoever with regards to acquiring resources for the House. We had good working relations with the then Minister and his Department. But that changed completely when the current Minister took over. For the first time amaKhosi were made to feel like unwelcome beggars. So the two cannot be compared.

But the Minister's counter argument is also flawed for another reason.

Let us agree for argument's sake, that the Minister's predecessors did not do what they should have done. But, does that give the current Minister an excuse to defy the law and abdicate his responsibility to put right what he found not right? Hon. Speaker, the Minister's colleague, the Hon. Dr BM Radebe has stated in this House what he found not right when he assumed his current position. But he did not fold his arms and say just because my predecessor did not do 'A, B.C' he will not do it. And it would not have made sense for him to fold his arms. Why dos Minister Mabuyakhulu not learn from his colleague? Two wrongs cannot make a right. To simply fold his arms and not remedy the situation just because his predecessors did not do something, is an inexcusable dereliction of duty by the Minister. The Minister is duty bound to implement the stipulations of the law. This is not his private property.

It is the government which must serve the people. So he, as a servant of the people, must simply do what is expected of him.      

Hon. Members, replying to the same question Minister Mabuyakhulu further stated:

"The Act is however clear that the Public Entity, unless it is established by a specific law such as iThala and KZN Ezemvelo Wildlife, its existence is entirely at the discretion of the Executing Authority.

There is therefore no legislation in KwaZulu Natal that specifically establishes the Provincial House as Public Entity."

Hon. Speaker this is the gist of the issue. The cat is out of the bag here.  All other reasons, such as that he came to the conclusion that the House was not a public entity because it had failed to carry out its legal obligations are just a smokescreen. The real reason why Minister Mabuyakhulu does not accord the House its status is that there is no law in the Province which stipulates to that effect. In other words, even if the House had had submitted the required documents the Minister would not have felt obliged to recognize its Public Entity status because there is no such law in the Province.

The question is, why is it that the Minister has not seen the need to have such a law promulgated? Because the House is not a matter of importance to him. Since when has the Provincial law taken precedence over the national act? Who is at fault for the fact that there is no such a law; is it the House or the Minister? If it is the Minister, must the House then be crucified for the sins of the Minister? These are crucial questions!

The Minister reminded the Hon. iNkosi Mdletshe that the Public Entity status of the House is at his mercy! This is the true ANC colours! This is the attitude that differentiates the IFP from the ANC. On the one hand, you have the IFP born and bred on the soil of Africa. Having spent all its life in Africa the IFP is steeped in African humanism which charges it to respect things indigenous and African, including African institutions such as ubuKhosi. On the other hand, you have the ANC, which - though born on the African soil by indigenous leaders - was forced into exile and consequently had her soul and character uprooted from Africa and thus influenced by things foreign to Africa. Therefore despite the lip service the ANC pays to the African patterns and ways of thought, behaviour and life, it is spiritually and culturally still living in exile worshipping gods foreign to Africa. 

This is the gist of the problem. To better understand it, you need to look at the history of upheavals between the traditional leadership in the whole country and our government since CODESA. If you doubt what I am saying just ask ordinary South Africans how they interpret a government position which says, less-than-16-year-old girls must never undergo virginity testing, while in the same breadth it allows 12-year-old girls to abort without even notifying their parents. Ask ordinary South Africans how they would interpret the government act which commissions a Cabinet Committee led by its Deputy State President to look into the concerns of traditional leaders. When that very Cabinet Committee says indeed the Constitution must be amended to accommodate their concerns, the same government reneges!

Ask ordinary people of KwaZulu-Natal how they would interpret the act of a Premier who ridicules and belittles a solemn agreement signed by the President of his organization, Dr Mandela by derogatorily telling this House that there will be no International Mediation here, iNkatha must come and beg the ANC!

Do you want another example? We had a Member in this House, iNkosi Zibuse Mlaba. The circumstances which led to his resignation are still a mystery up to this day. Yes, we heard the political reasons for his resignation. But history is yet to tell us the real reasons behind his resignation. What is worse, in his place, the ANC did not put another iNkosi.

Consequently, among all the ANC Members of this Parliament, no one is iNkosi! Just look at how many IFP Members of this Parliament are amaKhosi.       

This makes us understand the deafening silence on the part of the ANC when Minister Mabuyakhulu plays party-political games with a public institution which is the custodian of our very being as uZulu. In short, until the ANC is struck by a lightning like the Apostle Paul, they will never do anything which promotes African forms of governance.

It is against this background that this House must support today's Motion to the effect that:       

"This House resolves

"To condemn the ruling party's hypocrisy in pledging to respect the House as a legitimate stakeholder but, at the same time, treating it as a mere rival party political institution."