ConCourt to rule on whether Parliament should initiate impeachment proceedings against Zuma

In case you thought President Jacob Zuma’s year couldn’t get any worse, the Constitutional Court (ConCourt) is expected to hand down its judgment today on the Economic Freedom Fighters, United Democratic Movement, and the Congress of the People’s application to force the Speaker of Parliament, Baleka Mbete, to begin an inquiry into Zuma’s conduct to determine if he is guilty of an offence which would warrant his removal.

Zuma stepped down as ANC president in December, but remains president of the country until he hands over power to the next person elected by the National Assembly – or if he is removed from office in terms of the Constitution.

And the Public Protector’s report Secure in Comfort about Zuma’s KwaZulu-Natal home, Nkandla, could open the door for the latter option to become reality.

It is on the basis that the National Assembly did nothing about the report, that the three parties brought their application to court, claiming it failed to hold Zuma accountable and failed to scrutinise Zuma’s violation of the Constitution.

Today’s judgment follows six months after the ConCourt had to make another ruling regarding the oversight responsibility of the National Assembly.

In June, the ConCourt was tasked with determining if a vote of no confidence in the president could be held by secret ballot.

Mbete argued that she “does not have the power to prescribe that voting in the motion of no confidence in the President be conducted by secret ballot”. The court, however, overruled her, declaring that “the Speaker of the National Assembly has the constitutional power to prescribe that voting in a motion of no confidence in the President of the Republic of South Africa be conducted by secret ballot”.

The ConCourt back then refused to directly order Mbete to hold a secret ballot, citing a separation of powers.

But today’s judgment is a totally different ball game, said Wits law professor James Grant.

“In this case, if the court is given a factual basis on which to make the call that power which is required to be exercised for an effective constitutional democracy is not being exercised, and there has been an improper failure, then the court might just hand down the order,” Grant said.

“My understanding is that this is in a different category to Baleka saying she didn’t have the power to hold a secret vote, and the ConCourt corrected her. Here she has clear powers and she’s failed to exercise them.”

The parties also want Mbete to be directed to report to the ConCourt what steps she had taken.

News of the pending judgement yesterday marked 10 years since the Scorpions indicted Zuma on 738 counts of fraud, corruption and money laundering.

– amandaw@citizen.co.za

//