Parliament failed to hold Zuma to account
Court orders probe into impeachment
THE Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) celebrated its final victory of the year after the Constitutional Court ruled in its favour and found parliament had not done its duty to hold President Jacob Zuma to account for his breach of the Constitution when he spent public money upgrading his private Nkandla home.
The court ruled parliament had also breached the Constitution in its conduct.
The court came to four judgments‚ but a majority judgment ordered parliament to start processes under Section 89 of the Constitution to investigate whether Zuma should be impeached within 180 days.
Parliament says although it agreed with one of the minority judgments that the ruling was judicial overreach, it would comply with the ConCourt’s majority judgment.
The EFF‚ the United Democratic Movement (UDM) and the Congress of the People (COPE) had asked the court to find that parliament and National Assembly speaker Baleka Mbete had not done enough to hold Zuma to account for violating the Constitution by using taxpayers’ money for “upgrades” to his Nkandla home. They wanted a hearing and investigation into Zuma’s conduct.
In a statement following the court’s finding‚ parliament’s spokesman Moloto Mothapo said that “the court neither declared that the speaker failed to hold the president accountable nor ordered her to establish an impeachment committee of the type described by the applicants”.
He said the court “held the National Assembly collectively responsible for not meaningfully implementing Section 89 of the Constitution”.
Section 89 allows a president to be removed with a twothirds vote of no confidence for violating the constitution‚ for serious misconduct or breaking the law.
But there are no parliamentary rules on how to implement a motion tabled in parliament under Section 89.
The Democratic Alliance‚ which had been an intervening party in the case‚ had argued that these rules were needed to implement Section 89 in parliament. The majority judgment penned by Justice Chris Jafta concurred.
The court told parliament it had 120 days to make rules on how it would impeach a president under Section 89.
The removal of a president by impeachment requires a factual inquiry into whether the president should be removed in terms of Section 89.
This is why the court ordered parliament to start a process, such as a hearing or investigation under Section 89, to determine if the president should be removed for violating the constitution or for serious misconduct within 180 days.
Mothapo said parliament would ensure the finalisation of the National Assembly rules in line with the ConCourt order.
Mothapo said parliament’s rules committee had already started a process during its overhaul of the rules “to outline a procedure to be foll around Section 89.
The court found using an ad hoc committee to hold Zuma accountable in parliament was not acceptable as it could easily be interfered with.
Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng wrote the minority judgment in which he said the majority order was a “textbook case of judicial overreach” into parliament.
He found applicants EFF‚ UDM and COPE were themselves part of a process already taking place to make rules for motions to remove the president under Section 89.
He said the order served no “beneficial or practical purpose” given that rules were being made.
Deputy Chief Justice Raymond Zondo‚ in his minority judgment‚ found that motions of no confidence in Zuma had satisfied parliament’s duty to hold Zuma to account for violating the constitution. He would have dismissed EFF’s application.
But the majority judgment means EEF won with costs‚ which will be paid jointly by parliament and the presidency.