How Parliament can remove Zuma

MickeyD

RIP
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Messages
139,095
Reaction score
432
Location
Nelson Mandela Bay
Cape Town - According to Parliament, the Constitution does not make any provisions for a president to be impeached.

Chapter 5 of the Constitution provided for either the removal of the president (section 89) or a motion of no confidence (section 102).

"The Constitution does not make any reference to 'impeachment'," it said in a guide on removing a president from office sent to media on Monday night.

"While the two processes could lead to a similar outcome namely, removal of the president from office, they are different in an important way."

Motions regarding the removal of a president were treated as a priority, said Parliament.

It said it had received a notice of motion on March 31 and scheduled the debate for Tuesday.

The Democratic Alliance had filed the notice of motion to remove the president in terms of section 89.

DA national chairperson Phumzile Van Damme on Monday said: "MPs have an important opportunity to restore Parliament's reputation and indeed that of South Africa's democracy by voting in favour of the motion tomorrow [Tuesday] to impeach President Jacob Zuma in terms of Section 89 of the Constitution."

Parliament explained the process which deals with the removal of the president as follows:

Removing a president

The National Assembly, by a resolution with a supporting vote of at least two thirds of MPs, could remove the president from office on three grounds:

a) A serious violation of the Constitution or law;

b) serious misconduct; or

c) inability to perform the functions of the office.

If a president was removed from office in terms of a or b, he or she may not receive any benefits of the office and may never serve in any public office.

"Section 89 is tantamount to dismissal as per labour terms and is commonly referred to as 'impeachment'."

According to Parliament, the National Assembly has not yet established a procedure for section 89 motions.

There was a proposal made in the rules subcommittee which envisaged three stages - a motion is tabled and debate, the matter is referred to a committee process and the committee then reports a recommendation to the House.

The subcommittee was currently debating what type of committee this should be.

"A committee of independent people has been proposed - research is being conducted on this," Parliament said.

"While this proposal is in line with international practice, it has not served before the rules committee yet."

It said meetings of the subcommittee on this and other matters were scheduled for this week.

However, there is an interim process in place.

The DA's motion did not propose the establishment of a committee, as was done in a previous motion last year, and so will be put directly to the House and debated.

How does voting work?

Opposition parties are said to be pushing for a secret ballot vote on Tuesday.

However, according to Parliament, the Constitution stipulated that there were specific instances where a secret ballot was used in the National Assembly. These were for the election of president, speaker and deputy speaker.

It said there was no requirement for voting by secret ballot for Tuesday's motion.

It was unclear whether ANC MPs would be given a free vote.

A free vote is when MPs are given the opportunity to vote according to their own conscience instead of according to an official party line.

At a media briefing on Sunday, National Assembly Speaker Baleka Mbete, who is also ANC chairperson, would not directly answer a question on whether she would support a call for a free vote for her party's MPs.

National Council of Provinces chairperson Thandi Modise said there would not be any party influence over how MPs should vote.

Genevieve Quintal, News24

Source: http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/analysis-how-to-remove-zuma-20160405
 
It was unclear whether ANC MPs would be given a free vote.

A free vote is when MPs are given the opportunity to vote according to their own conscience instead of according to an official party line.

It is little gems like these that are the cause of so much trouble in this country.
 
The National Assembly, by a resolution with a supporting vote of at least two thirds of MPs, could remove the president from office on three grounds:

Well this will never happen. The majority of ANC MP's are spineless sycophants who will defend their showeheaded leader until they die.
 
It is little gems like these that are the cause of so much trouble in this country.

Not really. MPs are sent to Parliament with the understanding that they'd promote the party's stance.

If we had elections like in the US where all representatives are elected in their regional elections and not proportionally like here we could well end up with less opposition MPs in Parliament.
 
from a friend's timeline:

MPs are sworn in as members of the National Assembly not as members of political parties but as individual public representatives. Once they're sworn in they serve the Republic and its people and not a political party.

hey make the oath to be faithful to the Republic and obedient to the Constitution in their personal capacities, not on behalf of political parties. They say "I, Joe Soap. . ." not "I, Joe Soap on behalf of the ANC or Jacob Zuma. . ."

There's nothing legally the ANC can do to them if they vote to uphold the Constitution. The ANC itself had to abandon a disciplinary process against Ben Turok when he refused to vote for the Secrecy Bill. This because they have no legal tool to punish people for doing the right thing thing with.

Now, you ANC Members in parliament, go into the impeachment debate knowing this. Go in there knowing that we, The People who you're supposed to be representing in the National Assembly are watching you as an individual, not as an ANC member. Vote the way you see right. You can't abstain, this is not an issue of morality but a question of law. You're either faithful to the Republic and obedient to the Constitution as per the oath you took or you're not. There's no middle ground on this.
 
Not really. MPs are sent to Parliament with the understanding that they'd promote the party's stance.

If we had elections like in the US where all representatives are elected in their regional elections and not proportionally like here we could well end up with less opposition MPs in Parliament.

That is why the DA was pushing for electoral reform a while ago to get some sort of public accountability to parliament, whilst keeping proportional representation as much as possible.
https://www.da.org.za/2013/03/da-electoral-reform-bill-will-make-mps-accountable-to-the-people/
 
According to Parliament, the Constitution does not make any provisions for a president to be impeached.

So much wordplay and legalese to hide behind ... one can understand why it has happened so many times throughout history that this sort of debate is ultimately settled with a bullet instead.

Simple question is should he go? Simple answer is yes!

Just make it happen or admit that you prefer your snout in the trough while South Africa burns to the ground.
 
from a friend's timeline:

I think Mmusi specifically stated that the DA would be noting how each individual in the ANC votes... I'd assume a vote for Zuma would open MPs up to charges of failing to hold the executive to account in the CC at the very least.
 
Unfortunately Jacob Zuma will never be impeached or recalled. The Sowetan article below, entitled 'SA has been hijacked by people with skeletons - Masses of blacks will wake up too late' By Prince Mashele refers.

http://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/2...tons---masses-of-blacks-will-wake-up-too-late

To quote a piece from the article... 'There is official confirmation of NEC corruption. Recently the president of the ANC Women's League, Bathabile Dlamini, made an important confession: "All of us there in the NEC have our smaller skeletons and we don't want to take out all skeletons out (sic) because hell will break loose."'

Since Jacob Zuma had the Intelligence portfolio during the struggle years, and has appointed a stalwart supporter, namely David Mahlobo, to the Intelligence portfolio, it is possible that he may indeed know where the skeletons are buried and that the NEC could be rendered toothless by the fact. It certainly seems to explain the apparent apathy in the face of the legacy destroying revelations rocking the ANC on what seems to be a daily basis.

Maybe they all know that if the music stops playing, Jacob Zuma had better have a chair else no-one of them will.

Max du Preez, in this article entitled "Why can't Zuma be Thabo-ed?', raises much the same issues... http://www.news24.com/Columnists/MaxduPreez/why-cant-zuma-be-thabo-ed-20160308

It brings to mind the J. Edgar Hoover era, when he had secret files that enabled him to weather the animosity of multiple US Presidents. And, frighteningly, it raises the specter of Jacob Zuma pulling the strings even after his term ends.
.

Edited to include the very relevant Max du Preez article.
 
Last edited:
in blood
Stepp'd in so far that
should I wade no more,
Returning were as tedious as go o'er

I think our country sinks beneath the yoke;
It weeps, it bleeds; and each new day a gash
Is added to her wounds

Our country has turned into a Shakespeare play - why did it have to be Macbeth though?
 
There's nothing legally the ANC can do to them if they vote to uphold the Constitution. The ANC itself had to abandon a disciplinary process against Ben Turok when he refused to vote for the Secrecy Bill. This because they have no legal tool to punish people for doing the right thing thing with.

Perhaps because later he voted for it....

ANC MP Ben Turok says he will vote in favour of the adoption of the secrecy Bill "on the basis of press reports and discussions with colleagues".
 
The problem is that the ANC can redeploy them, and without floor crossing, there is nothing the MP can do about it. MPs are not appointed for the full term. The party has control over that.
 
...by a resolution with a supporting vote of at least two thirds of MPs...

Much as we would hope that MPs would vote with conscience and what not, the ANC is a spineless single celled organism. Not too different to simple bacteria or unicellular fungi. There is no conscience or moral fibre. And they sure as hell ain't going to kowtow to the opposition's call for removal. Fait accompli.
 
I think Mmusi specifically stated that the DA would be noting how each individual in the ANC votes... I'd assume a vote for Zuma would open MPs up to charges of failing to hold the executive to account in the CC at the very least.

I don't see how this would work?
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X