Pretoria - A game of legal manoeuvring is set to play out on Monday over Parliament’s contemplated move to suspend 25 EFF MPs following the “Pay back the money” fracas during presidential question time - and the urgent court action promised by the party to stop this.
Tuesday’s National Assembly sitting is set to vote on suspending all EFF MPs for up to 14 days pending a probe by the powers and privileges committee in line with a decision of last week’s parliamentary programme committee. If it comes to this, the move to suspend the EFF would be carried given the ANC numerical strength.
While Parliament on Sunday did not want expressly to confirm whether National Assembly Speaker Baleka Mbete had responded by the EFF noon deadline with an assurance that there would be no suspension, the party confirmed that Mbete had been in touch with them to request more time until on Monday.
Lawyers from both sides - it is understood Parliament last week met private lawyers despite having its own team of legal advisers - are expected to finalise the matter one way or the other on Monday.
However, the EFF promise to approach the courts for urgent interdicts against a possible suspension on Tuesday remains on the cards.
While the fracas which led to the premature end of Zuma’s recent question time was referred to the powers and privileges committee, the move to invoke further rules to suspend the EFF MPs pending the committee’s probe followed a few days later.
Suspension for up to 14 days is permitted in the Assembly rules to “facilitate” the committee’s investigations when there is the possibility a parliamentarian may interfere with the probe or when “allegations are of a very serious nature”.
Several constitutional and legal commentators have raised questions whether banging desks, shouting and singing could be viewed as serious. As the matter now stands, the EFF MPs could at best be charged with contravening Rule 51 for disobeying an order by the Speaker.
It is understood the parliamentary powers and privileges committee has compiled draft charges about defying an instruction from the Speaker and causing a disturbance which prevented the House from completing its business in line with Rule 51.
According to the 2004 Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act, a guilty verdict by the committee could lead to a formal warning, reprimand, an order to apologise, a fine of no more than a month’s salary, the suspension of a parliamentarian’s right to participate in any proceedings or the suspension of a parliamentarian, with or without pay, for up to 30 days.
Such proceedings do not preclude criminal investigations against parliamentarians.
The legal exchanges follow last Tuesday’s letter by Mbete to everyone of the 25 EFF MPs asking them for reasons why they should not be suspended pending an inquiry by the powers and privileges committee. That letter was sent two days before the parliamentary programme committee’s decision to move for what is effectively a pre-emptive suspension on Thursday.
By Friday, the EFF had responded to the Speaker, denying culpability.
“I submit that I never deliberately contravened any of the Rules of the National Assembly or commit (sic) any contempt of or disregarded you authority and as such your intention to suspend me will be unconstitutional,” wrote EFF parliamentary leader Julius Malema.
Should the matter go to the Western Cape High Court, Parliament may have to deal with a precedent against it there, a ruling subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court of Appeal.
In late 1997 then-PAC MP Patricia de Lille - on Monday the DA’s Cape Town mayor - approached the court after an ANC-dominated ad hoc committee, established through ANC numerical strength despite the no-vote by all opposition parties in the House, decided to suspend her for 15 days and that she apologise for accusing 12 ANC MPs of being apartheid spies.
The National Assembly adopted this decision even though De Lille had withdrawn her accusation during the session after the statement was ruled unparliamentary and the presiding officer ordered her to withdraw.
So De Lille went to court to get then Speaker Frene Ginwala not to effect the resolution of the House.
In May 1998 Judge John Hlophe ruled in De Lille’s favour.
He said the way De Lille had been treated was a violation of the rules of natural justice.
No one could act in bad faith, and the constitution did not intend to authorise bias, he ruled at the time.
Pretoria News