I disagree with Adriaan Basson on sending Eben Etzebeth back from the Rugby World Cup now. If case law is an acceptable guide, and it is, even though equality issues seem to be a little unequal in the handling of emotive issues, then I must cite a recent case. Public Protector v President Ramaphosa contested that the president discipline Pravin Gordhan preemptively, despite a pending legal challenge to her findings in PP v Gordhan. The court ruled that to do so when the second case might exonerate Gordhan, would be to impose what could not subsequently be reversed, making it prejudicial. Part of the problem for Etzebeth, as Parliament advised, is that his case was badly managed from the outset. Yet you propose that he give up a once in a lifetime chance to play out a World Cup that he has spent years preparing for, and you also propose to prejudice his team, on the assumption of guilty until proven innocent just so that people who have jumped the gun by attaching a claim value to the incident can enjoy the benefit of the doubt in a case yet to be heard. And you propose that knowing that if he is found innocent, such preemptive actions cannot subsequently be reversed. No, the law is even-handed for all. That is our constitutional right, a right that showed equivalent restraint on a number of other cases, notably the one relating to the BLF.