Johannesburg - Mbhazima Shilowa must not be allowed to return to parliament, and the revoking of his Cope membership must remain intact.
This was contained in a brief submission in the Johannesburg High Court on Wednesday by rival Cope leader Mosiuoa Lekota - through his counsel, Hilton Epstein SC - when rejecting a proposal that Cope must be allowed to hold an independent and fully monitored national congress soon - to allow for fresh elections for the contested presidency.
Shilowa - through his counsel, Jan Heunis SC - made the proposal for the two to go to the polls soon and test their popularity among their divided membership.
He submitted that a national congress would end the four-year-old dispute and allow Cope members to make their own leadership choice.
The court, he submitted, must appoint an independent electoral commission, and 10 members from each faction should be included to organise such a congress.
But in his reaction, which lasted less than five minutes, Lekota rejected the idea.
Epstein told the court that he would give detailed reasons on Thursday why Lekota would want the court to continue barring Shilowa from calling himself president and a member of Cope, following an interdict served on him by the same high court on February 10, 2011.
Heunis also made an alternative proposal to the court to prevent the “Lekota faction” from again approaching the court when it rules against them.
He told the court that Shilowa had a valid case to be retained as Cope’s president following the outcome of the Heartfelt national congress in December 2010. Heunis said that congress was properly constituted and Shilowa duly elected.
He pointed out several irregularities that were allegedly undertaken by Lekota and his supporters to suspend Shilowa’s members and lay disciplinary charges against him.
On charges of embezzlement of party funds against Shilowa, Heunis pointed out that Cope’s constitution did not contain in it a disciplinary code of conduct affecting each of its members, including the warring two. He said there was a proposal for such a code of conduct to be established in 2008, but it never happened.
The court heard that there were no grounds for any person to haul Shilowa before a disciplinary committee.
The court also heard that the findings of improper financial conduct undertaken by KPMG were never finalised - suggesting that the disciplinary committee charges against Shilowa were a witchhunt.
Commenting on the suspension of Shilowa’s membership by Cope’s national office-bearers on February 7, 2011, Heunis said such a body did not have the constitutional powers to suspend Shilowa.
He also took a swipe at Lekota for allegedly serving an interdict summons on Shilowa at midnight on February 10.
He said Lekota and Shilowa went to the opening of Parliament on February 10, 2011, and the two sat side by side. Later, according to Heunis, Lekota went to court seeking an urgent interdict preventing Shilowa from being a member of Parliament or of Cope.
Heunis said the Johannesburg High Court gave Shilowa - without his knowledge - until the next day to reply to the application.
Heunis pointed out that the refusal of the court to allow him more time to challenge the urgent application had infringed on his rights.
The Star