Zuma dossier handed to Parliament
• Outa provides evidence for vote of no confidence
The Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse on Wednesday handed Parliament a dossier of documents that it said contained “evidence” sufficient to warrant the removal of Jacob Zuma as president. It said the dossier would help MPs in the vote of no confidence.
undue benefit from the R245m security upgrades at his private home in Nkandla and how the Gupta family used its proximity to him to influence ministers’ decisions and to land lucrative government contracts.
ANC parliamentary caucus spokeswoman Nonceba Mhlauli said the ANC caucus’s position on the vote had not changed.
“We are not going to support a motion of no confidence in a secret ballot,” Mhlauli said.
Before the Constitutional Court ruled National Assembly Speaker Baleka Mbete had the power to decide whether a vote of no confidence should take place through a secret ballot, the ANC had said it would oppose a vote of no confidence in Zuma.
DA chief whip John Steenhuisen welcomed the dossier, saying ANC MPs had not put much effort into finding information regarding state capture.
“I think the more these [documents] are circulated, the better it is going to be. ANC MPs are not making an effort to get this info so it should be brought to them,” Steenhuisen said.
He warned that using litigation as a veiled threat to get ANC MPs to vote in any particular way would be a violation of the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act.
“It’s a violation to threaten or coerce an MP to vote one way or the other. The moment you start to threaten people you run [the] risk of falling foul of the powers and privileges and immunities act,” he said. There was, however, a “considerable difference between lobbying and threatening”, Steenhuisen said.
Outa’s Wayne Duvenage said the documents were compiled in the format of court papers, so they could be used for the purpose of litigation if needed.
He did not discount the possibility of legally pursuing Zuma and MPs who voted to keep him in power if there was an open ballot. “If they vote to keep him in power, we can confidently say [they] have not exercised their constitutional mandate and if it is not a secret ballot, we will be able to see who the transgressors are,” said Duvenage.