WHY OPPOSTION MP's MUST DEFEND SOUTH AFRICA'S PARLIAMENT
In this opinion, I argue that the opposition parties in South Africa's Parliament have a duty to defend the constitutional principle that the President and the Executive are accountable to Parliament, and that MP's are therefore entitled, if not obliged, to prevent the President from proceeding with his State of the Nation address until he has provided a coherent answer to the question put to him in Parliament by the opposition EFF leader, Julius Malema in August last year. See also my view that DA's recent approach is a dereliction of the duties of its MP's for which they will pay dearly!
In support of these views, my argument relies upon two recent landmark Court decisions.
A watershed moment in the history of South African politics in general and in the history of South Africa's democratic Parliament will occur tomorrow night when President Zuma is scheduled to address a Joint sitting of the National Assembly to deliver his Annual State of the Nation Address.
The second largest opposition party in Parliament, the Economic Freedom Fighters have indicated their intention to disrupt the President's address until he complies with his Constitutional duty to account to Parliament by providing an answer to a question put to him in Parliament in August 2014.
In response the governing ANC has attempted to argue that in terms of the rules of Parliamentary procedure, a joint sitting of Parliament for the State of the Nation Address is not the forum for questions from the Opposition and that the proposed disruption would be unconstitutional not to mention an affront to the dignity of Parliament.
The ANC' s belated interest in the Constitution and the Rule of Law would be laudable if it were not for the fact that it is that same ANC which has undermined the Constitution by attempting to shield the President from having to account to Parliament in general and also from having to respond appropriately, or at all, to any correspondence addressed to the President from the Office of the Public Protector or from having to respond appropriately or at all to the recommendations contained in Nkandla report in particular.
In general, the ANC, who are the governing party and who have a majority in Parliament appear to have come to the view that Parliament serves largely as a forum for the expression and dissemination of ANC views and also as a rubber stamp which turns policies adopted at ANC party conferences or ANC party headquarters into law.
The Nkandla scandal has been the root of most of the conflict between the ANC and the opposition parties for some time now.
In short, Nkandla is a fairly large estate located in the Kwa-Zulu natal province and it is privately owned by the President and/or his family. The are several buildings on the property, one of which is the President's private home. For the record. I mention in passing that the President of the South Africa also has two official residences, one in Cape Town and one in Pretoria.
Below is an extract taken from the Judgment of the Constitutional Court in the case:
Democratic Alliance v African National Congress and Another (CCT 76/14) [2015] ZACC 1 (19 January 2015)
I shall for short call this case the 'DA SMS case.'
"President Zuma became President of the first respondent in December
2007. Less than two years later, in May
2009, he became President of the country.
In May 2009 officials of the Department of Public Works (DPW) and
representatives of the South African Police Service (SAPS) visited President
Zuma’s private residence in Nkandla, KwaZulu-Natal to determine whether the
residence had sufficient security measures to ensure the safety of the
President and his family. They found
that the residence did not have sufficient security measures.
In about 2009 President Zuma made arrangements for the design and,
ultimately, the building of three additional houses in the Nkandla
residence. To this end, he appointed Mr
Makhanya, an architect.
In August 2009 the DPW secured the approval of an amount of
R27 893 067 for the installation of security measures in the President’s
private residence. By February 2010
the costs were estimated to have escalated to about R80 836 249. By July 2010 they were said to have gone up
to R130 604 267.02.
In about December 2011 the Public Protector received complaints
about the escalating costs that were being incurred in connection with the
installation of alleged security measures in President Zuma’s private
residence. The complainants included the
applicant and some members of the public.
The complainants requested the Public Protector to investigate the
costs. The Public Protector’s
investigation took two years.
On 19 March 2014 the Public Protector released the report of her
investigation. The report is normally
referred to as the Nkandla Report (Nkandla Report or Report).
On 20 March 2014 the applicant sent a message
to 1 593 682 cellphones of potential voters in Gauteng by way of an SMS. The message read:
“The Nkandla report shows how Zuma stole
your money to build his R246m home. Vote
DA on 7 May to beat corruption. Together
for change.”
The reference in the message to “Zuma” is a reference to President
Zuma. During this time the applicant and
the first respondent were involved in serious election campaigns throughout the
country. It is common cause that, in
sending the SMS to the more than 1.5 million potential voters, the applicant
intended to influence the outcome of the election that was to be held on 7 May
2014.
On
18 February 2014 President Zuma declared 7 May 2014 as a public holiday and the
day on which national and provincial elections would be held. In due course the applicant, the first
respondent and other political parties that were registered to contest the
elections signed the Electoral Code of Conduct issued under the Electoral Act
and committed themselves to observing its provisions.
The first respondent took the view that, in publishing the SMS, the
applicant had acted in breach of section 89(2)(c) of the Electoral Act and item
9(1)(b) of the Electoral Code of Conduct.
Section 89(2)(c) of the Electoral Act precludes any registered political
party or candidate from publishing any “false information” with the intention
of influencing the conduct or outcome of an election.
The first respondent, therefore, brought an
urgent application in the High Court for an interdict restraining the applicant
from further disseminating or distributing the SMS and for an order compelling
the applicant to send another SMS to the same recipients with an apology in
certain specific terms."
As the DA emphasised in argument, the Report crucially finds that
the President was aware of all of this. The
site-progress minutes indicate that detailed aspects were discussed with the
President.On at least one occasion, in May to June
2010, he complained about the slow progress of the security features and that
this was impacting the schedule for the completion of the new residences.The Report finds that the President thus “allowed
or caused extensive and excessive upgrades that go beyond necessary security
measures to be made to his private residence, at state expense
The DA noted that the Report concludes that “the
President tacitly accepted the implementation of all measures at his residence
and has unduly benefited” from them.
In addition, though the President told Parliament that his family had built their own houses and the State had not built any for the family or benefited them, the Report finds “this was not true”.
The Report also sets out the attempts made to elicit a response from the President and his apparent reluctance to give one.
To have “stolen” cannot possibly refer only to a criminal conviction on a charge of theft. If so, a complainant would hardly be able to lay a charge, aimed at a trial and conviction, by telling police that someone “stole” something. Someone who steals commits the crime of “theft”, which has a legal definition of course. However, dictionaries tell us that to “steal” is indeed used to mean to “thieve”, but also to “take for oneself”. It is even used to describe actions like misappropriation or embezzlement. The terms theft, fraud and robbery are commonly used interchangeably, although these are separate criminal offences in our law. To steal has also been defined as to “take without permission or legal right and without intending to return it”.
Could the fact that the Report “shows how” President Zuma benefited unjustifiably from tax payers’ money be described as showing a way of “stealing” on a wide conception of the word? It seems so. The text was not a legal statement. It was an election punch line. The exposition of some parts of the Nkandla Report demonstrates that these could well be construed to justify the view disseminated by the DA. The Nkandla Report for example found that the expenditure incurred “was unconscionable, excessive, and caused a misappropriation of funds”. It expressly concludes that the President was “aware of what the Nkandla Project entailed” and uses the word “benefitted” more than once. This judgment simply notes select examples from the Nkandla Report. The joint judgment gives a comprehensive account of the extracts of the Nkandla Report supporting the conclusion that the statement is not false.
According to the Nkandla Report, there was “misappropriation” of taxpayer money. The President benefitted from it. The misappropriation appears to have been tacitly accepted and in certain circumstances caused by the President, as set out in the Nkandla Report. The Nkandla Report seems to “show” that the President at least accepted actions which resulted in the misuse of taxpayer money which should not have been used on the project.
It does not indicate that the President intended to return the appropriated money. The conduct alleged in the Nkandla Report does fall under a broadly conceived but reasonably possible meaning of the word “stole”, used in the context of an election campaign.
The SMS cannot be said to contain “false information” within the meaning of section 89(2)(c) of the Electoral Act or “false allegations” in terms of item 9(1)(b) of the Electoral Code, as interpreted within the context of the constitutional protection of the rights to free and fair elections, free campaigning and freedom of expression. The Electoral Court erred in this regard.
As stated earlier, the references to the Nkandla Report in this judgment are not intended to contain any findings on the veracity of the Nkandla Report or the liability of the President for theft or anything else. The judgment investigates the link between the SMS and the Nkandla Report."
COMMENT
The above extracts of the DA SMS Judgment sets out the salient points of the history of the Nkandla scandal in addition to its reasons and judgment.
The question which the highest Court in the Country had to determine was whether the Democratic Alliance's election SMS saying that: the Nkandla report shows how the Zuma stole your money to build his R246 million rand home could be said to be false. If so, the ANC would have been entitled to their interdict in terms of the Electoral Act which prohibits the publication of false statements to gain an advantage in an election.
The Constitutional Court ruled against the ANC for the reasons saying that the SMS was not false.
The ANC and the President have been trying to hoodwink the public on Nkandla for years now. They have also endeavoured to use every trick in the book to undermine the Public Protector in addition to attempting to downplay the damning allegations in that Report.
Now, at least, the Constitutional Court seems to have said, that if that which is contained in the Report of the Public Protector is true, then Zuma is a thief. i.e. a criminal.
Arguably Nkandla scandal is to Zuma what the Watergate scandal was to Nixon. However, bear in mind that Nixon's offences related to what he knew about a break-inn to the offices of another political party, when he knew it, and whether he lied about it.
There are a host of allegations against Zuma in the Nkandla report all of which are more serious than Watergate.
Apart from the issues of theft and corruption, the allegations (see underlined extract of judgment above) that Zuma lied to Parliament when he said that certain buildings on Nkandla had been built by his relatives and were not built with public funds. That allegation alone, if true, ought be grounds for his resignation or impeachment.
Then there's the matter of the blatant failure of the President to co-operate with the Public Protector or and particularly, the failure to answer specific and damning questions put to him by her.
Zuma's conduct does not speak to his innocence. Instead, it suggests he is guilty or has something to hide.
The evidence of the President's various transgressions is so overwhelming that had this been almost any other country where some Rule of Law exists and multi-party elections are held, the ANC would have rushed to rid themselves of their leader. This partly to avoid the party being tainted in they eyes of voters, and partly to prove how committed the party is to stamping out dishonesty and corruption.
Since so many ANC members are themselves involved in corruption , it seems that there isn't much concern about the party being tarnished by the allegations against Zuma.
Instead, as I will show below, the ANC defended their leader's refusal to answering questions in Parliament and insisted, despite the mountain of evidence against the President, that he had done no wrong in regard to Nkandla.
The following judgment sets out what occurred when Julius Malema's Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) challenged the President in regard to the Nkandla report.
My Conclusion follows after the this extract.
***
DAVIS J - CAPE HIGH COURT CASE OF THE ECONOMIC FREEDOM FIGHTERS & 20 OTHERS v THE SPEAKER OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY & 3 OTHERS Cape High Court case nr 21471/2014 23 December 2014
This is an urgent
application in which the applicants seek an interdict directed at preventing
the Speaker of the National Assembly (‘the first respondent’) from implementing
or enforcing the decision of the National Assembly of 27 November 2014, which
interdict would prevent
the imposition of the sanction of
suspension of membership without remuneration or a fine in respect of the 2nd
to the 21st applicants respectively.
I propose to deal with common
cause facts and those which are not
denied by respondents .First applicant is a political party. It is the third largest party represented in
the National Assembly. The second to
twenty first applicants are public representatives, representing the EFF as
members of Parliament in the National Assembly.
On 27 November 2014 these applicants were found guilty of certain
transgressions by the National Assembly and a decision was taken regarding
their suspension from office. Sanctions
were imposed as follows:
A withdrawal of benefits equal to 14 days
salary (Category C).
Suspension from membership of the National
Assembly without pay for a period of 14 days (Category B).
Suspension
without pay as a member of the National Assembly for a period of 30 days
(Category A).
The following members were in category A:
second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh applicants. The following members were in category B:
eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth applicants. The following members were in category C:
fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth,
twentieth and twenty first. Category B
suspensions lapsed on 15 December 2014.
Category A suspensions will lapse on 28 December 2014.
The background to these events began on 21 August 2014. President Zuma was scheduled to answer
questions at the National Assembly pursuant to the provisions of Rule 111 of
the Rules of the National Assembly. One
of the questions pertained to the implementation of the findings of the
remedial action prescribed by the Public Protector in a report of March 2014
into the so-called Nkandla issue. The President
answered the question posed as follows:
“Honourable Speaker, as the Honourable members are
aware my response to all the reports on the security upgrades of my private
residence were submitted to the Speaker on Thursday last week, 14 August
2014. I thank you.”
According to Mr Ntzebeza, who appeared together with Mr Ngcukaitobi on
behalf of the applicants, the President’s answer was “unintelligible”. In Mr Ntzebeza’s view the consequences were
therefore unavoidable. Second applicant,
as the leader of the first applicant, was, in counsel’s view, compelled to
raise a follow-up question. According to
the record of the debate as contained in Hansard, second applicant said the
following:
“Mr President, we are asking this question precisely
because you have not provided the answer.
Firstly, you failed to meet the 14 days of the Public Protector and
secondly, when you responded you were telling us that the Minister of Police
must still decide who must pay. In our
view the report of the Public Protector supersedes any other formal report
which you might be expecting somewhere else, so the question we’re asking you
today and we’re not going to leave here before we get an answer .. is when are
you paying the money because the Public Protector has instructed you that you
must pay the money and we want the date of when you are paying the money?”
The President then gave the following answer:
“The issue for example that the Honourable member is
referring to is a matter that arises in the recommendations of the Public
Protector and I am saying the people who did the upgrades at the Nkandla, they
are the ones who always determine who pays, when to pay. It is the government that decides and the
matter is referred to people who are legally authorised to make that
determination.”
Mr Ntzebeza was equally critical of this reply. He said that this reply was “meaningless”. Mr Ntzebeza contended that second
respondent was then required to obtain a proper or
meaningful response from the President.
Mr Ntzebeza submitted further that instead of so proceeding, she
purportedly proceeded to recognise another member of the National Assembly, in
this case Mr Bantu Holomisa and asked him to address the House. An unidentified member of the ANC then interjected,
followed by Mr Floyd Shivambu, the third applicant, who raised a point of
order.
At this point the Speaker signalled to the President that he had the
floor if he wished to add anything to his reply. The President said:
“I have answered, I have
answered the question.”
The record in Hansard then reflects a number of
attempts by members of the first applicant to draw the attention of second
respondent to what they considered to be the inadequacy of the reply given by
the President. In their view, second
respondent refused to recognise them. At
one point, third applicant said the following:
“And he has not answered the question of when he is
paying the money. That is what ... for
him.”
The Speaker:
“Honourable Shivambu, I will throw you out of the
House. I will throw you out of the House
if you don’t listen. Honourable
Holomisa, please.”
Further objections then followed.
The following passage is
significant:
“Mr GA Gardie:
Honourable Speaker the issue here is about the money.
The Speaker:
Take your seats Honourable members.
Take your seats, take your seats.
I will have to ask the sergeant at arms to take out members who are not
serious about this sitting.”
Mr Ndlozi, the sixth applicant,
attempted to speak. He was instructed by
second respondent to take his seat. At
this point the second respondent, according to Hansard, instructed the sergeant
at arms to:
“Please assist me with relieving the members of the
House who are not serious about this sitting to take their leave.”
Security was called. The business
of the House was suspended. The
applicants, in their founding affidavit, allege that the banging on the tables
and the chanting and the exortation on the President to “pay back the money”
occurred after the Speaker had adjourned the House and suspended its business
for the day. Specifically, they allege
that the suspension of the National Assembly and therefore of the business of
the day, did not result from the chanting and singing by members of the first
applicant demanding that the President should ‘pay back the money’.
Significantly, in her answering affidavit, second respondent makes no
mention thereof, that is she does not deal with the allegation that the banging
of the tables and the chanting that happened occurred after the House had been
suspended. It must follow that, given
that these specific averments in the founding affidavit were not gainsaid, they
should form part of the factual matrix that I am obliged to consider.
I should add that second respondent referred to a video recording
(annexure B to a letter of referral) but I was not provided with a copy
thereof. I cannot therefore take
cognisance of exactly what occurred because I do not have the video to which
second respondent refers. It was not made part of my record.
I am therefore obliged to accept applicant’s version in respect of when
“the banging on the tables” took place.
On 26 August 2014 the second
respondent referred an allegation of “gross disorder” to the Powers and
Privileges Committee (“the committee) for investigation. The allegations were all brought against the
second to the twenty first applicants.
-
The committee is a standing committee of Parliament. It is constituted on the basis of
proportional representation. It
comprises 11 members, six from the ANC, two from the Democratic Alliance, one
from first applicant, one from the Inkatha Freedom Party and one from the
United Democratic Movement. It appears
that, since the member of the first applicant, who sits on the committee, was also
charged with misconduct, the first applicant was not
represented at the committee. A total of
7 charges were preferred against the applicants.
A report titled “The Report of the Powers and Privileges Committee of the National Assembly on the hearing into allegation of misconduct constituting contempt of Parliament by members of the National Assembly” was then prepared by the committee. The report made the following findings: category A members were found guilty of between four to seven charges and suspended for 30 days without pay; that is second to seventh applicants. Category B members were found guilty on two charges and were suspended to 14 days without pay; that is eighth to thirteenth applicants. Category C members were found guilty of one charge and fined an equivalent of 14 days salary. That is fourteenth to twenty first applicants.
The report was then adopted by the National Assembly on 27 November 2014 by a majority vote. The decision of the committee was then conveyed to the individual applicants on 28 November 2014. It is these decisions which are the subject matter of this challenge.
It is important to emphasise at this stage as to what this case does not concern. It does not require the Court to determine whether the conduct of the applicants was deserving of the sanctions that were imposed. That is for another Court which may have the benefit of a far more comprehensive affidavit from the second respondent, including the benefit of the video .An affidavit of less than fourteen pages much of which deals with the conduct of the Speaker clearly needed amplification .
This case does concern the complaints raised by the applicants to whether President Zuma should have been required by second respondent to provide an answer that was, in the view of the applicants, more satisfactory and comprehensive. This Court is not required to make any determination on these questions. Its sole role is to examine the facts by way of the affidavits submitted and then apply the requirements for interim relief .Accordingly, this judgment can only be construed within this specific context. With this in mind, I now turn to the law relating to interim relief.For this reason it appears to me that when a sanction of suspension is imposed on public representatives, the National Assembly must have very careful regard to the impact of this decision on the rights of those people who are represented by the members, that is the voters. In this case, the National Assembly was surely required to take into consideration that the suspension of twelve members out of twenty five from the third largest political party in South Africa would weaken the party’s ability to represent those citizens who voted for them, albeit for a short period.
It cannot be denied that these voters have the right to be represented in Parliament by the representatives that they have so chosen.
To take away this right, albeit for a short period, requires careful analysis. With this core democratic value in play, it follows that Courts are required to scrutinise these decisions with great care.
The third important provision which is relevant to this case is section 58(1)(a) of the Constitution which provides that cabinet ministers, deputy ministers and members of the National Assembly (a) have freedom of speech in the Assembly and its committees subject to its rules and orders.
In De Lille’s case supra, at para 29 Mahomed, CJ said the following about section 58:
“The right of free speech in the Assembly protected by section 58(1) is a fundamental right, crucial to representative government in a democratic society. Its tenor and spirit must conform to all other provisions of the Constitution relevant to the conduct of proceedings in Parliament.” "
For these reasons therefore the following order is made:
THE FIRST RESPONDENT OR ANYONE ACTING UNDER AUTHORITY OR DIRECTION FROM IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER, IS INTERDICTED FROM GIVING EFFECT TO OR IMPLEMENTING OR ENFORCING THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY ON 28 NOVEMBER 2014 AND CONVEYED IN WRITING TO THE APPLICANTS ON 28 NOVEMBER 2014 TO IMPOSE A SANCTION OF SUSPENSION OF MEMBERSHIP OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY WITHOUT REMUNERATION IN RESPECT OF THE SECOND TO TWENTY FIRST APPLICANTS.
IT IS DIRECTED THAT PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THE APPLICATION IN PART B, THE APPLICANTS SHALL BE ALLOWED AND ADMITTED TO CARRY OUT THEIR FUNCTIONS AND ENJOY ALL PRIVILEGES AS ELECTED MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY.
THESE ORDERS SHALL COME INTO EFFECT IMMEDIATELY AND SHALL OPERATE UNTIL THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE RELIEF AS SOUGHT OUT IN PART B.
THERE IS NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. "
***
COMMENT
As an Advocate of the High Court, I hold the following view in regard to the President's right to speak tomorrow night at the State of the Nation Address: I express this view as part of a call to the opposition parties to ensure that the President is made to understand, that he will not be allowed to speak in Parliament ever again until he complies with the Constitution, and demonstrates that is accountable to Parliament and is willing to be accountable to Parliament!
To do that, the President must answer the Question put to him by Julius Malema. If the opposition remains silent in the face of the President's contempt of Parliament they condone it!
The ANC & the President treat Parliament with contempt and as a rubber stamp.
Tomorrow night represents a watershed moment in the history of South Africa's parliamentary democracy. Here is why:
Up until now, if the ANC or the President wanted for anything they could just take it and there's overwhelming evidence that they did just that.
But now, the ANC requires Parliament to rubber stamp another year of Zuma's presidency. The opening of Parliament is one of the functions traditionally done by the head of State.
The sight of a full National Assembly sitting at the feet of the Great Leader as he delivers his Gospel, the State of the Nation Address, looks good on Television. The ceremonial occasion serves to confirm the President's authority and effectively rubber stamps his presidency for another year.
The ANC and the President are aware however, that if the opposition shout him down and refuse to let him speak, it will have the opposite effect - the President's standing will be undermined.
The voters are watching.
Will the EFF and the DA, the two largest opposition parties, permit the President to use /abuse Parliament as a rubber stamp at will. Or will they stand up say. ..Enough! If they fail to do their duty and fail to object to the President's contempt of Parliament on behalf of the voters, then they aren't worthy of the being called Opposition and they should give way to people who are prepared to defend the supremacy and the dignity of Parliament.
The President is obliged by the Constitution to be accountable to Parliament. In particular, he has to answer questions put to him by the representatives of the people who represent Opposition parties. That sort of accountability is one of the core features of a democracy.
Instead, the President, duly assisted by his party, has shown utter contempt for Parliament, not only in his persistent refusal to answer The Question, but also in the manner in which he and the ANC dealt with the Public protector and the Nkandla matter.
By acting in this manner, the President and the ANC have reduced our Parliament to a Sham. In so doing the message to voters is that Law is made at ANC headquarters & at ANC conferences. This is an act of contempt directed at the voters of this country.
If an elected President ignores his obligation to be accountable to Parliament, then, I'm afraid, there IS no Parliament.
Alternatively stated, how much more contempt for Parliament must the President and his party show before we shout him down and deny him a right to speak?
I find the recent and new-found interest on the part of the ANC in the rules relating to joint sittings etc. to be highly amusing if it weren't for the underlying message. Which is, when we desire it , the rules of Parliament must be adhered to. Only we, the ruling partly are entitled to treat Parliament with contempt and only we and the Dear Leader may refuse to account to Parliament or treat the voters with the contempt that we do ...
Bear in mind the President was last in Parliament in August. Since then his duty to account has simply been abrogated by Presidential disuse. The fact that a head of State can simply not turn up in the Parliament that elected him and can fail to be available to be held to account is unheard of in any proper functioning democracy.
And now the ANC have added insult to injury by suggesting that the State of the Nation address must proceed and the President will answer the question on date in the near future. They miss the point, the President should be castigated for not attending at or answering to Parliament for over 6 months. Instead the ANC think he should be rewarded with a longer period of ducking questions.
Unless the President purges his default by opening his address and saying: "Honourable Mr Malema, in response to your question when last I was here......" then Parliament remains a Sham.
I should point out that if Zuma does answer, and the answer is coherent , then that may be the end of Julius' Question . The EFF are not entitled to insist upon an answer they like nor are they entitled to dictate what that answer should be.
The EFF in my view are not only entitled to an answer that is at least coherent. The you can see from the EFF case above, the content of his last attempt to answer was embarrassing and nonsensical.
As MP's who re-present the voters the DA and the EFF in my view are duty bound to disrupt this shameful attempt to pretend we have an operating Parliament instead of the mockery the President, the Speaker and the ANC have reduced it to.
The Voters are entitled to have their elected MP's stand up and say,: "The President cannot claim any right to speak here until he answers the question!!?" And it is in this context that the judgment of the Honourable Davis J is particularly relevant. One of the reasons for the Court making an order interfering with the suspension by Parliament of the EFF MP's is because this violates the democratic rights of those people who voted for the EFF MPs in the first place.
If I were the President, that is what I'd do. It would pull the rug out from under the EFF and start by providing a coherent answer. i.e. The President must purge his default.
That would show respect to Parliament and those who voted for it. It would also be seen as Statesman-like.
The EFF would look foolish if they proceeded to disrupt the joint sitting in the face a belated, but coherent reply, a little humility and some belated respect for Parliamentary accountability.
I doubt, however, that the President will do that. And that would be another opportunity missed.
Of course, then the so-called commentators on TV, who must have relatives in government posts earning a fortune, will just blame the EFF.....
S G WALTHER
Advocate of the Cape High Court
