Publications
Partners
The National Assembly will debate a motion on Tuesday calling for the removal of President Jacob Zuma from office.
The motion was tabled by DA leader Mmusi Maimane through a letter to National Assembly Speaker Baleka Mbete on Thursday just minutes after the Constitutional Court ruled that Zuma violated his oath of office and failed to uphold and defend the Constitution of the republic.
Maimane requested that Mbete consider his request to have the motion calling for the removal of the president debated by MPs. Mbete’s spokesperson, Mandlakazi Sigcawu confirmed this afternoon that the debate would indeed go ahead on Tuesday.
It will be the first time in the history of a democratic South Africa that a motion to remove a president is debated.
In the past, MPs have debated motions of no confidence in the president, which are political statements. But the motion to remove a president is provided for in the Constitution and is considered on the grounds of a serious violation of the Constitution or the law, serious misconduct or the inability to perform the functions of office.
MPs will vote at the end of the debate and the majority vote will carry. Two-thirds (267) of the National Assembly’s 400 MPs will have to vote for the impeachment for it to carry.
In his letter to Mbete, Maimane said he was writing in light of the Constitutional Court ruling in the Economic Freedom Fighters and Others v the Speaker of National Assembly and Others and the Democratic Alliance and Others v the Speaker of the National Assembly and Others’ case, which confirmed the legal principle that, absent a judicial review, the Public Protector’s findings and remedial actions were binding and had to be implemented.
Maimane wrote: “The Constitutional Court found that President Zuma’s failure to comply with the remedial action taken by the Public Protector as set out in her report dated 19 March 2014, Secure in Comfort, is unlawful and inconsistent with the Constitution.
“The actions of President Jacob Zuma in requesting the police minister, Nathi Nhleko, to determine the amount he should repay for the costs of upgrading his private home in Nkandla were inconsistent with the remedial action directed by the Public Protector and therefore inconsistent with the Constitution.
“President Zuma seriously violated the Constitution when he sought to undermine the Public Protector’s findings by instituting parallel investigative processes, and Parliament has an obligation to condemn him and his actions,” added Maimane.
He also listed other cases in which the courts had ruled against Zuma or his executive.
These included the Supreme Court of Appeal’s judgment in The Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development v The Southern African Litigation Centre in the President Omar al-Bashir matter, where the government’s conduct was found to be inconsistent with South Africa’s obligations in terms of the Rome Statute and the implementation thereof and therefore unlawful; and the appointment of Menzi Simelane as the national director of public prosecutions, which was found to be inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid.
Maimane also made reference to the Constitutional Court ruling where Zuma’s decision to allow the then chief justice of South Africa, Sandile Ngcobo, to continue performing active service as chief justice was inconsistent with the Constitution and thus also invalid.
