Well, let's stay with charges, but at a much earlier stage of the process. The Democratic Alliance today laying criminal charges against the Higher Education Minister Norborslet and Carbine. This in regard to a number of things lying to Parliament and also questions of a dodgy appointment of boards to various sector education training authorities. Lindsay Dandlinger, another of our
EWN team, has the latest on this story. Lindsay, do you have a sense of what the DA is trying to achieve with this, because you could argue that politically this makes it even more difficult for President saw Ramapousa to move against Minister and Carbine. If she's squarely in the DA sites, his instinct may actually be to keep her for longer than he than he perhaps intended.
Well, John, I think as much as the DA might want to deny it and to make this purely a point about the right thing about holding people accountable in terms of the law, I think we cannot discount that there is political theater at plague here. This is a retaliatory move for firing Andrew Whitfield as the Deputy Minister of Trade. The DA has said as much over the weekend.
That all transgressions cannot be viewed as equal, and that it is unacceptable that nothing is being done about the Higher Education Minister, who, incidentally this hour is in the National Council of Provinces and facing the heat again from Damps over the theater matter as she delivers her budget vote in the National Council of Provinces today and interestingly has steered clear of mentioning anything related to those boards
as she delivered that by the address. But the DA saying that although they've already laid a complaint with parliam Ethicxtimotee, they've also laid a complaint with the Public Protector. This is the third leg of their approach, which is to hold in Cabane accountable in terms of the law, and that in their view there is already enough evidence to suggest that she's contrademned the Powers, Privileges and Immunities Act of Parliament. And you will recall John that many years
ago now. But this is incredentally the same law and the same provision that was used to charge and ultimately sentenced former anc MP Tony and Genny. And so the DA says, if it could be used against him, there is President that the Booklyn Cabane is guilty of, although not the exact same circumstances, by a similar offense, and that is misleading Parliament, which that acts ye to be a charge of fraud essentially.
Lindsay, let's look a little bit ahead and then steer me straight if I'm off the road. But my understanding is the DA is talking about not voting in favor of the Minister of Higher Education's budget. I mean, it isn't really the minister's budget, it's the department's budget. What I want to ask of you because you followed the kind of voting patterns around the budget very very carefully
in all its iterations. If they were to take that step, would that again be symbolic or could it lead to the budget actually not being passed.
No, it would rather be symbolic, John, because the matter which they are complaining about, not to discount that it is an oversight matter. It is a matter of concern. It cannot have the effect of withholding money for a department. So even though the DA is currently arguing in the National Accouncil of Provinces as we speak that this particular minister cannot be trusted with these billions and billions of rand they reckon. She's reckless with it. She cannot be
trusted not to commit further corruption. It handles this money withholding the vote for that particular department won't have an effect on the entire Appropriation Bill, which is the final leg of the budget. It's the ball that contains all the various allocations to all the departments. And so very much like we've seen in the past, where we know that the DA when they were in opposition they regularly
voted against the budget both of various departments. Is really something that will be recorded for record purposes, but the two don't match.
You.
There is no way in which the money can be withheld from that particular department because a political party doesn't like a way in which she's acted, or they don't approve of the minister. These things will come under discussion before it gets to the House in the next four weeks, so it will be under discussion in the Appropriations Committee.
It is in that committee where the political parties can register their unhappiness with a particular issue, whether that be a monetary issue, in which case they do then have the right to make amendments, perhaps to change money here or there, but they cannot do that on the basis of the fact that they don't approve of the incumbent in that post. So it will largely be symbolic and I don't think, I don't believe that it will have
the effect of collapsing the budget. And incidentally, the DA has said they will vote for the Appropriation Bill in its entirety, but it's really a symbolic measure to indicate their displeasure with the minister and this particular issue.
Thanks so much, Lindsay Dentlinger, EDW and Reporter are always keeping us up to date and on track with what's happening down in Parliament. It's twenty nine minutes to foll