EFF aims high with impeaching Zuma

The radical EFF has chosen to take the path of impeaching President Jacob Zuma rather than the route of carrying a vote of no confidence by parliamentary vote. Impeachment is defined as “the process by which a legislative body formally levels charges against a high official of government. Impeachment does not necessarily mean removal from office; it is only a formal statement of charges, akin to an indictment in criminal law, and is thus only the first step towards removal.

“Once an individual is impeached, he or she must then face the possibility of conviction via legislative vote, which then entails the removal of the individual from office.”

Take into account that, to date, no US president has been removed from office by impeachment and conviction though proceedings have been initiated against several presidents of the United States.

Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton are the only two presidents to have been successfully impeached by the House of Representatives, and both were later acquitted by the Senate.

The impeachment process against Richard Nixon was technically unsuccessful, as Nixon resigned his office before the vote of the full House for impeachment, but, according to Wikipedia, successful in the broader sense of leading to Nixon’s departure.

It is no secret that Julius Malema was once one of Zuma’s staunchest allies before being expelled from the ANC in April 2012 – and has, as the self-styled commander-in-chief of the EFF, become one of the president’s most strident critics.

It must also be considered that while Malema’s party would more than likely vote for a no-confidence vote in parliament, it has opted for the more complex – and arguably more high profile – reliance on impeachment.

But the practice of politics has ever been wheels within wheels.