Johannesburg - It will take a miracle to revive a deal struck by Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa to resolve the crisis in Parliament, says the ANC, while opposition parties blame the DA for the collapse.
Ramaphosa is to meet opposition leaders in Pretoria on Monday morning to discuss the way forward, his spokesman Ronnie Mamoepa confirmed on Saturday.
As things stand, the deal is off.
Unless it is revived, a report recommending the suspension of EFF MPs for up to 30 days without pay, which had been held in abeyance in terms of the deal, is likely to be adopted when the National Assembly returns for an unscheduled sitting on Tuesday to complete its business for the year.
ANC caucus spokesman Moloto Mothapo said: “Whether the meeting will be able to miraculously resuscitate (the deal) remains to be seen.”
Meanwhile, a picture has emerged of frantic behind-the-scenes efforts to rescue the agreement after it began to unravel over a DA motion to censure President Jacob Zuma for his failure to return to Parliament, as he is required to do at least once a quarter, to answer questions in person.
After the meeting between Ramaphosa and opposition leaders on Tuesday, attended by ANC chief whip Stone Sizani, efforts began that evening to persuade DA parliamentary leader Mmusi Maimane to delay or amend the motion of censure so Ramaphosa would have something to show his party’s caucus the opposition was negotiating in good faith.
United Democratic Movement leader Bantu Holomisa, Cope leader Mosiuoa Lekota, and Sizani, cajoled Maimane to make concessions. He agreed to delay his motion by 24 hours and offered to consider amendments softening the motion.
But the deal collapsed the following day when the motion went ahead in its original form, with Ramaphosa accusing Maimane of not negotiating in good faith. Maimane said the motion had never been discussed at the meeting with the deputy president and the principle of executive accountability could not be up for negotiation anyway.
DA chief whip John Steenhuisen confirmed there had been talks about amending the motion, but said Sizani had never come back to him on these, instead demanding that it be withdrawn completely.
“One of the things we said was we would use the word ‘rebuke’, that ‘this House rebukes the president’, or ‘expresses its extreme dissatisfaction’. There were concessions we were prepared to make to the ANC. They weren’t interested in them.
“Again this leads me to conclude they needed this casus belli (justification for war) and they knew the DA wouldn’t back down.”
Holomisa laid the blame squarely on the DA.
“Maimane promised to amend the motion and remove the censuring of the president.
“He said he would still go on about a matter of principle, blah, blah. And then it turned out he didn’t do that.”
He said it had been clear that Steenhuisen was unhappy with the agreement reached with Ramaphosa and had then suggested that Maimane be given time to discuss it with his caucus.
“Something is not right in that party, there are too many leaders.
“What happened shows Maimane is not in control of his party in Parliament.”
He said Maimane had sent him an SMS on Wednesday saying he would continue with his motion because it was “a principle issue”.
The SMS continued: “I know the risk I take now, and also inform you of my potential withdrawal from the process with LOGB (Ramaphosa as leader of government business). This is personal and not party.”
Holomisa said when he read the SMS he knew the DA was out of the deal and he had responded: “Good luck”.
Lekota also blamed the DA, calling the party reckless. “Even if they could have just agreed to withhold, not to withdraw, their motion, we would have gone through.
“We had a breakthrough, but Cyril had nothing to go to his party with and say, these guys have also shown goodwill. So now they destroyed it.”
Responding, Maimane said it was a constitutional requirement for Zuma to come to Parliament and this couldn’t be traded away.
“When I said I would withdraw it, it was because I wanted to make it crystal clear that, if it was a co-opting of the opposition so that there’s silence, and if it meant amending constitutional arrangements then I can’t be part of that, and that’s still my position.
“If you want to say, okay, there’s a process, but the president doesn’t need to come, let’s agree we can forget about that issue. Is it actually strengthening the institution or weakening it?” Maimane asked.
- Sunday Tribune