“To sum up: First, the Chairperson’s case rests on a false equivalence between ‘government’ and members of Parliament.  However, they are not the same – criticism of government is not criticism of members of Parliament.  The standing order only applies when speech targets Members of Parliament.  Mr Malema’s speech did not.  That, in and of itself ought to dispose of the appeal.  But, second, even if the linguistic leap contended for by the Chairperson is taken, namely that Members of Parliament were implicated, Mr Malema’s speech is protected political speech.  On a constitutionally compliant interpretation of the standing order, it was thus inapplicable to his legitimate, if robust, criticism of the government.  That too is dispositive of the appeal.  . . . ”. [para 28].

Chairperson of the Nation Council of Provinces v Malema (535/2015) [2016] ZASCA 69 (20 May 2016) Ponnan JA (Leach, Petse, Saldulker and Swain JJA concurring)