Legislator told no ‘blouses’ in parly

… but Tshabalala says following Madiba example

Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) legislator Willie Tshabalala is fast becoming a hit with the media, fellow legislators and visitors to the Free State legislature, all for the wrong reasons!

Just last Wednesday, Tshabalala’s apparently twisted sense of dress came under the spotlight during debate on the 2015/2016 Appropriation Bill, when speaker Mamiki Qabathe was forced to sternly reprimand him over his inappropriate attire.
The MP, a 40-year-old father of two who is of sizable physique and anything above 1.8m tall, was dressed in what another legislator, Mathabo Leeto, described as a “blouse” and questioned whether it was not in breach of house rules for him to address the house dressed like that.

Tshabalala turned up in the legislature in a pair of blue jeans topped by a black and white short-sleeved shirt.

One can be in short sleeves as long as they are not going to address the house as the EFF legislator was trying to do.
And he was promptly stopped dead in his tracks before he could even utter a single word, after Leeto, who is also the MEC for sports, arts and culture, rose on a point of order to ask Qabathe to rule on whether it was parliamentary “for members to address the house dressed in blouses”.

Leeto was referring to Tshabalala’s smart-casual shirt.

It was a remark that sent her fellow legislators, dignitaries and members of the public present reeling with laughter.

But Qabathe was having none of the fun, throwing the rule book at Tshabalala, telling him he would have to be dressed appropriately if he wanted to address the house.
“The rules of the house state that if a member is wearing a short-sleeved shirt and is about to address the house then he should have a jacket on,” said Qabathe.

Unable to conjure up a jacket from thin air, Tshabalala opted instead to drag Madiba into his fashion faux pas.

Tshabalala told the speaker that there was nothing amiss with the way he was dressed because his attire was actually inspired by the anti-apartheid struggle hero.
Nelson Mandela was well-known for his dislike for the collar and tie and was usually seen in his loose-fitting floral shirts, worn untucked.

However, South Africa’s first democratic president would always don the suit, complete with collar and tie, when occasion and protocol required.
And besides, his shirts were almost always long-sleeved and would not have offended parliamentary dress code.
“If Madiba could wear his favourite shirts in parliament then why must my dress code be questioned? This is a Madiba shirt and not a blouse,” protested Tshabalala.
He probably hoped bringing in the great man’s name into it would intimidate Qabathe into dropping her insistence that he puts on a jacket before addressing the house.

But the trick failed to work – at least not immediately – with Qabathe adamant Tshabalala must play by the rules regardless of who his fashion icon was.
The speaker told the legislator should he keep insisting he was right because he was following Madiba’s example then she was going to be tough with him and bar him from addressing parliament until he was properly dressed.
And for a moment or two it appeared Tshabalala was going to have to forget addressing the house that day or at least until he could obtain a jacket.

“If you are going to debate this then it means I will have to be harsh on you and remove you now from the podium,” Qabathe told Tshabalala.

Then she relented, allowing him to proceed with his speech but not before warning him it was the last time he would be allowed to take the podium without being dressed in accordance with the decorum of the house.
“This is the very last time you will get to address the house dressed like that,” said Qabathe.

And when he eventually got to speak Tshabalala soon had the house in ruptures of laughter again as he tried to explain to the house why his party supports the controversial plan to divert a section of the N3 highway away from Harrismith and three other Free State towns that the busy road passes through on its way from Gauteng to Durban.

The Free State government, the ruling ANC party and local communities have opposed the plan to build a new section of the N3 by-passing the four towns because they fear it will take away business from the towns and turn them into ghost settlements.
But Tshabalala told the legislature everyone opposed to the road diversion project has it totally wrong because, he said, there was no plan at all to have the N3 by-pass Harrismith or the other three small towns.

And his explanation: “I don’t know why we keep saying this is a by-pass – it is a new road altogether which will pass by Harrismith, but is not a by-pass,” Tshabalala said.
The house erupted in more laughter, everyone unable to contain themselves.

The self-contradiction in Tshabalala’s statement prompted ANC legislator Thabo Meeko to take to the floor to point out that it was “unparliamentarily for members to confuse the house with meaningless ambiguities”.
Obviously there is no rule prohibiting confusion by legislators.

But even if there was, the majority of Meeko’s fellow legislators – judging by the rolling laughter from all sides of the house when Tshabalala was ‘performing’ – would probably agree that such a rule be scrapped.
Clearly good old-fashioned confusion can be such a brilliant comic relief from the otherwise dull business of making law and voting on budgets.