The controversial Protection of Information Bill is vulnerable to a Constitutional Court challenge as the ad hoc committee processing it is defunct, opposition parties have warned.
The Freedom Front Plus yesterday joined a chorus from the opposition benches who have been warning that the committee is illegally constituted and should not continue work on the draft bill until it has been “revived” by a resolution taken in the National Assembly.
In a statement, FF+ chief whip Corné Mulder said the bill would most probably not only be disputed in the Constitutional Court, but could also be referred back to Parliament on a technical point.
He said without even considering the merits of the controversial bill, the Constitutional Court would probably declare the legislation unconstitutional as a result of this basic technical oversight by the ANC government.
Last Tuesday, the DA, African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP) and the IFP walked out of a meeting of the committee, charging that its lifespan had ended on January 28, the date approved by a previous sitting of the National Assembly.
Deputy Speaker Nomaindia Mfeketo, while acting as Speaker, extended the committee’s term on January 28, but opposition MPs claim this was a “procedural travesty” as only a sitting of Parliament could extend the life of an ad hoc committee.
Rule 214 of the National Assembly says an ad hoc committee ceases to exist if it has not completed its task by its deadline.
A meeting of the chief whips’ forum last week failed to resolve the issue.
However, the ANC is expected to bring a motion during today’s sitting to either ratify Mfeketo’s extension or to call for the committee to be reconstituted.
ANC parliamentary spokesman Moloto Mothapo said the chief whips’ forum had agreed to “further engagements” on the issue.
But DA chief whip Ian Davidson said the party expected the matter to be on today’s order paper.
As far as the DA was aware, there was no rule allowing for the committee’s lifespan to be further extended.
“It will depend on the wording of the motion; if they re-appoint the committee with the same terms, we’ll support it, but we’ll see,” he said.
ACDP MP Steve Swart also expected the issue to be on the agenda for today’s sitting.
The proper route forward was for Parliament to appoint a new committee, he said.
“I understand that there’s been a digging in of heels and Parliament will be asked to ratify the decision of the deputy Speaker.
“We won’t support it, believing it amounts to abuse of parliamentary rules by the Speaker,” said Swart.
Swart has on several occasions warned on the constitutionality of the bill and the processes followed, saying there is a possibility of constitutional litigation. - Political Bureau