The National Assembly (NA) welcomes the judgement by the Western Cape High Court dismissing the application by the Congress of the People and its leader, Mr Mosiuoa Lekota, to have the ruling handed down in June by Deputy Speaker, NomaIndia Mfeketo, declared unlawful and inconsistent with the Constitution.
Mr Lekota had raised a motion in the Chamber in which he accused President Jacob Zuma of violating of his oath of office. Ms Mfeketo ruled that this was a serious charge which, if proven correct, could have serious consequences.
She said that, except upon a properly motivated substantive motion, such allegations could not be allowed. Mr Lekota was asked repeatedly to withdraw his statement. When he refused he was ordered to leave the Chamber.
Mr Lekota and Cope then applied to the court seeking an order, amongst others, declaring the ruling to be unlawful and inconsistent with the Constitution. He further sought an order reviewing and setting aside the ruling.
The court today vindicated the ruling by the Deputy Speaker and found that there was no dispute that Ms Mfeketo had acted in good faith. It said that the task of controlling debates in Parliament required particular skill and this was best dealt with by the Presiding Officers who were appointed for this purpose.
It further said that it was important to bear in mind that Mr Lekota was not prohibited from saying what he said but was required to say so in a context of a substantive motion. This is in line with the rules of the NA.
Reiterating a critical sentiment expressed in the recent judgement on the matter between the Leader of the Official Opposition, Ms Lindiwe Mazibuko vs the Speaker of the NA and others, the court observed: “A court should be loathe to encroach on [Presiding Officers’] territory and only do so on the strength of compelling evidence of constitutional transgression. In my opinion no such evidence has been produced in the instant nor have applicants shown that second respondent acted irrationally or unlawfully.”
The Presiding Officers have always recognised the importance of jealously guarding Members’ rights of political expression entrenched in the constitution. This allows them to fully represent the electorate and raise, without fear, any issue they consider to be in the public interest.
The Constitution, however, empowers the NA to impose limitations on itself, solely for the purposes of maintaining order and decorum in the House so that each MP can contribute unimpeded but in terms of proper mechanisms.
The rules of the NA provide MPs with ample opportunities to raise allegations of wrong–doing against other MPs or members of the executive but to do so through the appropriate mechanisms.
The Presiding Officers will continue to take decisions in accordance with their institutional role and responsibility and in the interests of Parliament. Failure to do so would undermine the very purpose of having rules.
