13. The question arises as to why Fedex did not suspend me when it decided to charge
me. If there was a need to suspend me, based on the seriousness of the charges,
this matter would have arisen far earlier, on 2 April, when Fedex took the decision to
charge me. Its failure to do so was not an oversight. It is important for Fedex to
note an interview given by James Selfe and published in the Cape Argus on 4 April
2017 which read:
“Selfe also rubbished criticism Zille should have been suspended pending the
outcome of the disciplinary process, saying “people in the DA are only suspended if
there is a realistic prospect that they will interfere with an investigation or interfere
with witnesses. Neither of these apply in respect of Ms Zille.”
14. I have not sought to interfere with the investigation or interfere with witnesses,
neither would I do so. I do not know who any prospective witnesses are. So, unless
the chairman of the Fedex can prove otherwise, it would be irrational for Fedex to
now resolve to suspend me. I contend that nothing has changed since Mr Selfe’s
public statement above, which means that the proposed “suspension” must be
motivated by other factors, on which I elaborate below, and which would be entirely
unlawful.
15. The contention that a different set of criteria will apply now because it is a
suspension from “party structures” holds no water either legally or rationally.
16. The second reason that has been given by you is the “ongoing harm to the Party’s
reputation caused by this issue until it is resolved”. The ongoing damage to the
party in this matter is of its own doing. My original tweets, in a conversation about
lessons from Singapore, were not in any way intended to harm the party, nor in any
objective reading of them, could they be interpreted as doing so. It was the
subsequent misinterpretation of my tweets as “defending”, “glorifying” or
“justifying” colonialism that caused the damage. All I have done is try to correct
these mis-statements and distortions. I am not the one who has held press
conferences and made speeches, or statements, or continuously leaked
misinformation to the media.
17. When I received the leader’s letter asking me to desist from public comment, I
agreed to do so “subject to maintaining my constitutional right not to be defamed
and misrepresented, as I have been consistently…..” I also undertook to send drafts
of what I intended to publish relating to this matter to you, or the leader, and that if
my submissions were vetoed for publication, I requested the DA to correct factual
inaccuracies, distortions and defamatory statements against me.
18. I have upheld my undertaking. The Sunday Times article replying to Prof Ngwema’s
attack on me was submitted to the leader’s office, and amended on the advice of the
leader’s chief of staff before publication. (This is consistent with the way I have
always interacted with the leader’s office). The Daily Maverick column on the
implications of the recent SRC elections at UCT, was approved by the leader himself;
and my letter to the Times was approved by you. I substantially changed the text of
my Colin Eglin Memorial Lecture to comply with the leader’s directive, and I turned
down an interview request with HARDtalk because they wished to discuss the issue.
I also declined an interview with Justice Malala, and with a current affairs radio
show. Thus I have sought to abide by the party’s request to me, following my receipt
of it. I obviously had to also defend myself in the Provincial Legislature, as the
Speaker allowed a debate requested by the ANC on this issue. I could not avoid
doing so, nor could I continue to allow misrepresentations of what I had actually said
to be perpetuated without being able to respond.
19. As the Fedex will know, I have been defamed repeatedly in respect of the matters
before the Fedex over the past weeks, without responding, and therefore it is not
correct to assert that I have harmed the party. In fact, it is extremely prejudicial to
me that other prominent members of the party continue to speak out on the matter,
thus harming the party and myself, while I am prevented from doing so. Indeed, it
has now got to the point where it is taking on the dimensions of an organised
campaign.
20. There have been several attempts over the last few weeks to force me to resign
immediately, before a hearing takes place. Now that I have made it quite clear that I
will not, and after the Party has delayed for over a month in giving me the further
particulars that I requested to prepare my case, the Fedex has decided to suspend
me. I regard this as a form of punishment for my insistence that we follow due
process, and the decision is hence unlawful.
21. The formal attempts to resolve the matter that you refer to, have all involved the
condition that I resign as Premier, or plead guilty to an offence through apologizing
for offences I did not commit, which would open the way for my expulsion from the
party. It would also have serious implications for two other litigation processes that
my office is currently engaged in opposing. I clearly cannot be expected to
incriminate myself in that way, especially in the light of the precedent set by the
party in a previous case.
CLICK HERE FOR PART 3
Helen Zille’s 45 Reasons Why She Should Not Be Suspended From The DA [Part 3]
