Ballot in Mbete’s hands
THE motion of no confidence in President Jacob Zuma is an opportunity for ANC MPs to redeem themselves in their constituencies.
This was the assertion by ANC stalwart Sydney Mufumadi yesterday, following the Constitutional Court’s ruling that National Assembly Speaker Baleka Mbete has the power to allow a secret ballot.
“MPs should think of the vote as an opportunity to correct a wrong they did. The vote will be an opportunity to test where their loyalty lies, with the people of South Africa, or not. If they fail to hold the president to account then that has negative implications,” Mufumadi said yesterday.
He said there was no basis to deny a secret ballot.
“She (Mbete) said she was not opposed to it, and now she has been enlightened. She cannot change her mind now and say she is against it because she never gave reason before why the vote should not be held in secret.”
ANC secretary-general Gwede Mantashe said Mbete should use her discretion. He said there was no need for the party to hold a meeting on the matter.
“The Speaker is the Speaker of Parliament. The Constitutional Court says she has powers to exercise her discretion. When you are a ruling party you don’t run the portfolio of a person in finer details. You allow the person to exercise her mind,” he said.
Mbete had argued that she was not empowered to institute a secret ballot when voting on a motion of no confidence. But the court yesterday threw the ball in her court.
Delivering his verdict yesterday, Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng said: “The Speaker says that neither the constitution nor the rules of the National Assembly allow her to authorise a vote by secret ballot.
“To this extent, she was mistaken. Our interpretation of the relevant provisions of the constitution, and the rules, make it clear that the Speaker does have the power to authorise a vote by a secret ballot in a motion of no confidence in the president.”
A few hours after the judgment Zuma told MPs that he did not support the secret ballot, and that the motion would be defeated for the eighth time.
He was unperturbed in Parliament during a question-and-answer session yesterday, saying opposition parties had provided no convincing reasons for the secret ballot.
“How did we vote in the seven (motions of no confidence in the past). Why this time do we do it differently?” he asked.
“My view is that we have to do what we have done in the past.” Zuma said he was fit and proper to lead the country, and would not go because the ANC had not recalled him.
“I think the people of South Africa did not make a mistake by electing me. I am fit and I’m doing it very well.”
Zuma also had to field tough questions about his son, Duduzane, who is seen as the proxy in his controversial relationship with the Guptas, who are at the centre of the state capture allegations.
Duduzane’s name has featured prominently in the leaked Gupta e-mails, detailing the extent of the family’s influence in the running of government affairs.
A visibly irritated Zuma told opposition MPs they were being “unfair”in accusing his son of benefiting from his presidency.
“I have not heard that his business has ever benefited from the government, where Zuma has benefited to say give him something.
“Never‚ I’ve never done that‚ he’s involved in business in his own accord‚“said Zuma, responding to the DA leader Mmusi Maimane.
“You can’t single out one young person and victimise the person just because he’s the son of the president. It’s not fair, it’s not correct.”
IN AN historic and bold judgment, South Africa’s highest court has pronounced in unequivocal terms that the Speaker of the National Assembly has the constitutional authority to prescribe a secret ballot vote for a motion of no confidence in President Jacob Zuma.
This seminal judgment was scribed by the Chief Justice, Mogoeng Mogoeng, who delivered a unanimous decision of the Constitutional Court.
The Speaker, Baleka Mbete, had argued in her court papers that she did not have any power to institute a secret ballot for a motion of no confidence in the president, relying on a precedent originating with the Western Cape High Court.
The Constitutional Court has now ruled differently. With insight and eloquence, it argued persuasively that Mbete indeed has these powers, which it declared “belong to the people” of South Africa, and therefore it ruled that they cannot be exercised in the interest of the Speaker or the governing party.
Furthermore, it was explained that the constitution provided no clarity on exactly in what circumstances a secret or open ballot is appropriate, but rather that the Speaker has the authority and discretion to make such a decision.
In his judgment, the Chief Justice declared that it “is her judgment call to make, having due regard to what would be the best procedure to ensure that members (of Parliament) exercise their oversight powers most effectively”.
The crucial importance of the secret ballot was emphasised by the Constitutional Court, since it would allow MPs to exercise their vote freely.
The ANC has always adamantly held that its members would in no circumstances be allowed to disregard strict caucus discipline and vote against the official caucus position. However, the court has held that such a dogmatic party-political stance is not supported by the constitution.
This constitutional sentiment is further developed by the court in the following words:
“As in the case with general elections, where a secret ballot is deemed necessary to enhance the freeness and fairness of the elections, so it is with the election of the president by the National Assembly. This allows members to exercise their vote freely and effectively, in accordance with the conscience of each, without undue influence…”
Of great importance is that the court had scrupulously upheld the doctrine of separation of powers by rejecting a request by the United Democratic Front (UDM), to the effect that it decide on a date for the secret ballot. What it did was to skilfully remit to the Speaker a mandate to exercise her discretion with a new decision.
As part of its comprehensive orders, the court ruled that the president and Speaker must pay the costs of the parties such as the UDM who had initiated and brought the application to the court.
The judgment is a victory for constitutional democracy in South Africa and could have important consequences for multi-party government in this country.
Devenish is an emeritus professor at UKZN and one of the scholars that drafted the Interim Constitution in 1993