EFF MPs braced for interim ruling

EFF leader Julius Malema looks skyward during a special sitting of the house on Thursday, 27 November 2014. Next to him is EFF Chief Whip Floyd Shivambu. Thursday�s special sitting at Parliament in Cape Town included a debate on the Powers and Privileges Committee report that found 20 EFF MPs guilty of disrupting the House on August 21. The charges against the EFF stemmed from their heckling of President Jacob Zuma over the cost of the security upgrades at his Nkandla home. Picture: Nardus Engelbrecht/SAPA

EFF leader Julius Malema looks skyward during a special sitting of the house on Thursday, 27 November 2014. Next to him is EFF Chief Whip Floyd Shivambu. Thursday�s special sitting at Parliament in Cape Town included a debate on the Powers and Privileges Committee report that found 20 EFF MPs guilty of disrupting the House on August 21. The charges against the EFF stemmed from their heckling of President Jacob Zuma over the cost of the security upgrades at his Nkandla home. Picture: Nardus Engelbrecht/SAPA

Published Dec 20, 2014

Share

Cape Town -

Six EFF MPs suspended from Parliament after the “pay back the money” incident of August 21 will find out on Tuesday – five days before their suspensions lapse – whether they will be granted an interim interdict lifting the sanctions.

Among the six are EFF leader Julius Malema and his deputy Floyd Shivambu, both elected to their positions at the party’s “People’s Assembly” last weekend.

For another six MPs who were suspended for 14 days, the question is more or less academic, since their suspensions ended last Friday.

Western Cape High Court Judge Dennis Davis said on Friday he would deliver his judgment on Tuesday, but indicated he was inclined to refer the whole case to the Constitutional Court as it involved questions of whether Parliament had fulfilled its constitutional obligations in the way it conducted the disciplinary hearing – matters falling outside his jurisdiction.

“I suppose it’s unprecedented, I mean I wouldn’t know – which court has the right to declare a Speaker not to be suitable,” Judge Davis said, referring to the EFF’s contention that Speaker Baleka Mbete was unfit for office.

“Why would you want poor old me to decide certain things which are going to go to the Constitutional Court anyway?”

Advocate Dumisa Ntsebeza, for the EFF, said he would prefer the whole matter to be referred to the Constitutional Court, despite argument that it was within the High Court’s jurisdiction to grant the interim relief lifting the suspensions, pending the Constitutional Court’s verdict.

Advocate Willie Duminy, for Mbete, her deputy Lechesa Tsenoli and the chairman of the powers and privileges committee which heard the matter, Lemias Mashile, argued that since Parliament was in recess, and had been for the duration of the suspensions, there was no irreparable harm done and therefore no need for the interim relief sought for the suspensions to be lifted.

Should the EFF ultimately win its case, the salaries that had not been paid to MPs for the period of their suspension could be reimbursed, so there was no irreversible damage.

But advocate Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, also for the EFF, said the damage resulting from the unpaid salaries was greater than just personal harm, since it affected the ability of the MPs to carry out political work.

Unlike ordinary employees, they were paid specifically to do the work of politicians, and the docking of salaries affected their ability to do so, including working in constituencies.

This had the effect of impoverishing democracy, he argued, and prejudiced people who voted EFF to represent them.

The MPs had also been locked out of their offices, hampering their ability to work.

Allowing the ANC to use disciplinary processes to “decide who can attend what meetings” would give it the power to “convert itself into a 100 percent party” by “obliterating the opposition”.

He said the powers and privileges committee report finding the EFF MPs guilty had presented the facts and its findings without analysing which it accepted or rejected, or connecting them to its conclusions.

“There is a step missing,” Ngcukaitobi argued, saying this rendered the process procedurally flawed.

Judge Davis asked whether this wasn’t imposing a “heavy burden on a bunch of politicians who, with respect, don’t have the forensic skills”.

Ngcukaitobi also argued that when the Speaker told EFF MPs to take their seats, ANC MPs had also remained standing, but had not been charged.

Judge Davis said if two people threw pies at him, but he reported only one, this didn’t make the other innocent. But Ngcukaitobi said it would be unfair.

“It demonstrates bias,” he said.

- Saturday Argus

Related Topics: