Julius Malema's remarks and behaviour - although unparliamentary – did not necessarily warrant the member's forced removal from the National Assembly‚ the Democratic Alliance said. The party said it would “lodge a formal complaint with the National Assembly Rules Committee and request a review of today’s proceedings”.Economic Freedom Fighters leader Malema was on Wednesday night forcibly ejected from parliament by 16 security officials after he refused to retract his accusation that Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa was a murderer.National Assembly chairperson Grace Boroto ordered ordered Malema to leave the debating chamber‚ which he refused to do.She called on serjeant-at-arms Regina Mohlommi to remove Malema‚ but when she was unable to do so‚ Boroto called in parliament's security unit‚ recently recruited from the police.Malema has been suspended for five days.A DA statement said Malema’s actions “did not constitute a life-endangering disruption in accordance with the Rules of the National Assembly‚ and did not necessarily warrant the member's forced removal from the house”.“The Presiding Officer's mismanagement of today's National Assembly plenary and misapplication of the rules not only led to this evening's chaos‚ but undoubtedly the sitting's inevitable collapse‚” said DA chief whip John Steenhuisen.Boroto “escalated the rather tense exchange between Malema and Ramaphosa‚ by bungling the ruling and ejecting Malema”‚ Steenhuisen said.The DA said Boroto had erred by applying Rule 53 – “a provision reserved for gross disruptions to the National Assembly’s order of business”.“If anything…(Boroto) would have been obliged to use Rule 52(b)”‚ which states that if the presiding officer “is not the Speaker‚ name the member (whose ‘contravention…is of so serious a nature that an order to withdraw from the Chamber for the remainder of the day's sitting is inadequate’)‚ whereupon the Speaker‚ after consultation with the presiding officer‚ may take such action as he or she deems necessary‚” Steenhuisen said.And‚ he added‚ “as were no items left for the house to deliberate…the presiding officer could have simply adjourned the sitting‚ immediately de-escalating the matter”.“Parliament's presiding officers have a duty to protect its members and apply the rules fairly. Today they failed to uphold that duty‚” Steenhuisen said...