Parliament welcomes High Court dismissal of AGANG SA’s interdict against scheduling of motion of no confidence in the President
Parliament welcomes the Western Cape High Court’s dismissal today of an urgent application from AGANG SA to postpone scheduling of a motion of no confidence in President Jacob Zuma.
Debate on the motion of no confidence which AGANG SA earlier proposed for scheduling by the National Assembly (NA) Programme Committee will take place on 3 March.
The party took the matter to court demanding that NA Speaker Ms Baleka Mbete not preside over the debate because of her assumed partiality. AGANG SA also wanted a secret ballot if the motion was put to a vote.
The Court ruled that the application for Ms Mbete’s recusal and secret voting were semi-urgent and should be enrolled on a date and subject to a timetable determined by the Judge President. The interdict sought against the scheduling of the debate was dismissed primarily on the grounds of separation of powers.
In delivering the order, Judge Ashley Binns-Ward emphasised the need for the courts to be mindful of the Constitution’s notion of separation of powers and the effect of the courts impinging on the powers of another branch of the state unless authorised by the Constitution.
He referred to the “ambitious” relief sought in relation to the substantive issues about the role of the Speaker as Presiding Officer and the demand for a secret ballot as complex Constitutional questions, the outcomes of which are unpredictable.
Today’s order confirms the view that each arm of state has a distinct role. In a previous judgment in the same court, a warning was sounded against a “juristocracy” which involved inadvertent politicisation of the judiciary. Such actions would undermine Parliament’s ability to discharge its Constitutional mandate and also have an adverse impact on our Constitutional democracy.
Judge Binns-Ward’s emphasis on the need to protect the separation of powers and the need to maintain a careful balance in relation to the roles of the three arms of government was both instructive and critical.
There was no costs order awarded at this stage.
The Constitutional Court dismissed the same application earlier this month on the basis that it was not in the interests of justice to grant direct access.
