Johannesburg - National Assembly Speaker Thandi Modise has slammed the Helen Suzman Foundation for its court application that claims Parliament had failed to perform its rightful duty during an outbreak of a pandemic.
The foundation argued in their founding affidavits that Parliament had failed to pass legislation to fight Covid-19, instead such powers were allegedly given to Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs Minister Dr Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma.
On Thursday, Modise submitted papers in the virtual sitting of the full bench of the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, arguing that the foundation’s application was “ill-founded.”
Modise was responding to the foundation’s founding affidavits which stated that, under the Constitution, law-making and executive power ordinarily vests in Parliament and the executive.
The foundation argued that the Disaster Management Act, on the other hand, vests extraordinarily wide-ranging legislative and executive powers in the Minister of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs to deal with issues arising out of disasters.
“While centralising power in the minister may have been justified by the sudden threat presented by Covid-19, this basic departure from the Constitution’s separation of powers can only endure for a limited period, namely, until Parliament and the executive can gather themselves and exercise their legislative and executive functions in relation to threats posed by Covid-19,” the foundation argued.
In her papers, however, Modise argued: “Parliament has exercised oversight and scrutinised how Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs Minister and Cabinet have responded to the Covid-19 pandemic and applied the Disaster Management Act.
“Through its various committees, whose transcribed proceedings are publicly available and were at the foundation’s disposal, Parliament has exercised its oversight functions and responsibilities, and continues to do so,” Modise said.
She was adamant the foundation had not placed any credible evidence to suggest the exercise of that oversight role and responsibility was, as a fact, constitutionally insufficient.
Modise made the submission in her bid to ask the court to dismiss the foundation’s application.
She also argued that the application was not urgent, saying the foundation initially made a direct application to the Constitutional Court on May 20, but their application was not successful.
“The failed application was based on facts and legal contentions that are the same, or substantially the same as the present application.
"It is insufficient for the foundation to blithely state it required time and had to consult with its legal representatives before it launched the present application.
"After all, the two applications are, in substance, the same,” Modise argued.
She also took issue with the foundation’s decision to lodge an application four months after the proclamation of the Covid-19 pandemic in March.
“One need merely to consider the relevant case law to realise that this application is stillborn,” she said.
“The foundation claims little time is required to address the issues that arise in this application. Yet, it took the foundation three weeks to file the application, after its application to the Constitutional Court.
“One need only repeat this proposition for its absurdity to emerge. The applicant’s self-righteousness and unreasonable conduct is unjustified,” Modise maintained.
She asked the full bench to refer the matter to an ordinary court.
Judgment was reserved.
Political Bureau