Publications
Partners
In a seemingly bizarre coincidence, Parliament is laying down its rules for the removal of a president just as pressure is mounting on President Jacob Zuma to resign.
The parliamentary procedure on what to do if a motion to impeach the president is brought is part of a review of the rule book that has taken four years. The consideration of these draft rules last week came just before a storm exploded in the media this week over the influence of the Guptas.
Senior ANC MP Nyami Booi, who sits in the rules subcommittee, told City Press they had to introduce new rules because there was no provision for impeachment in the rules of Parliament.
“We are planning for any eventuality,” he said when asked about the timing.
He added: “Even with the no-confidence motions, Parliament had to review its rules.”
While the Constitution makes provision for the removal from office of a president, the National Assembly rules have been silent on this matter.
Three years ago, the courts told Parliament to fix a similar lacuna regarding motions of no confidence, and this was done in 2014 – but it is only now that Parliament is getting to its rules about the removal of a president.
The Constitution provides for the removal from office of the president if the National Assembly passes a motion of no confidence or in terms of specific provisions of section 89 in the Constitution. These refer to a serious violation of the Constitution or the law; serious misconduct; or the inability to perform the functions of office.
Last week, the subcommittee that has been reviewing the rules of the National Assembly for the past four years proposed stringent criteria to be followed in tabling a motion to remove a president from office and in processing such a motion. The removal of a president will thus be a prolonged and complex process.
The proposals include that the motion to initiate proceedings to remove a president will have to be limited to “a clearly formulated and properly substantiated charge” that, in the opinion of the Speaker, prima facie warrants consideration by the House.
This means the MP tabling the motion would have to propose that the specified charge be referred to a committee of the House.
The charge would have to relate to an action or conduct by the president, in person, that is incompatible with the Constitution and cannot be an issue for which the president may be responsible only by virtue of his or her overall executive authority. This means the president has to be personally involved in any wrongdoing.
DA chief whip John Steenhuisen told City Press they would oppose this proposal because the president cannot be separated from the exercise of executive power.
The proposed rules further state that an ad hoc committee must be established by the Speaker to investigate the charge and the Speaker must inform the president of the details of the charge and invite him or her to respond in writing within 14 calendar days.
According to the proposed rule, the Speaker of the National Assembly may disallow a proposed motion to initiate proceedings [to remove the president] if it does not comply with the specified criteria.
But the relevant MP may amend and resubmit it if they wish.
The terms of the ad hoc committee will be to determine the seriousness of the charge and to table a report on its findings and recommendations in the House.
The president will have the right to be heard in his or her own defence and to be assisted by a legal practitioner or other expert of his or her choice.
If the committee recommends in its report that the president be removed from office, the House will vote on the matter and, if it is supported by at least two-thirds of the members of the House, the president will be removed from office with immediate effect.
