Process to impeach has been eased

[f2wohf]

The parliamentary process to impeach the president has been made much easier after an agreement to give equal weightings for each political party represented in parliament, eliminating the practice of the majority party using its majority to shield the president.

In an unprecedented move, the proposed composition of a parliamentary panel that will decide whether grounds exist to initiate an impeachment could be made up of one MP from each political party represented in the National Assembly and not based on proportional representation.

The new process is likely to be used against President Jacob Zuma, should he not heed calls to resign.

A National Assembly technical committee, which is devising a rule to give effect to section 89 of the Constitution – a section that deals with the removal of the president from office – agreed to take the two proposals to the rules committees on the composition of the panel.

The rules committee will then have to decide whether to adopt the hybrid committee made up of members of parliament, retired judges and an evidence leader or a panel made up of retired judges and excluding politicians as proposed by the Economic Freedom Fighters.

In a meeting of the subcommittee on the review of the National Assembly’s rules on Thursday, the ANC made a ground-breaking concession when it agreed to give up proportional representation in the proposed structure in favour of a committee in which there is equal representation.

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/process-to-impeach-has-been-eased-20180127

 

[f2wohf]

Interesting, why would the ANC agree to this except if it was for the purpose of kicking Zuma out but being able to blame it on the opposition?

 

[Gordon_R]

I didn't realise that the Constitutional Court had effectively vetoed propotional representation in the impeachment committe:

The ANC conceded when the EFF’s Mbuyiseni Ndlozi pointed out that proportional representation was out of the question in light of last month’s Constitutional Court ruling in the EFF case against the National Assembly speaker wherein the party argued the National Assembly failed to put in place mechanisms to hold President Jacob Zuma accountable.

In rejecting the establishment of an ad hoc committee to investigate and recommend to the National Assembly whether the president be removed from office, the Constitutional Court had said the process lacked a sifting mechanism which would determine whether there was a case for the president to answer.

The court also found against an ad hoc committee system because “parties are entitled to be represented in substantially the same proportion as the proportion in which they are represented in the Assembly”.

It said a decision by members of the majority party in the ad hoc committee might prevent an impeachment process from proceeding beyond the committee to shield a president who was the leader of that party.

 

[ponder]

Interesting, why would the ANC agree to this except if it was for the purpose of kicking Zuma out but being able to blame it on the opposition?

What alternative options do they have based on,

The court also found against an ad hoc committee system because “parties are entitled to be represented in substantially the same proportion as the proportion in which they are represented in the Assembly”.

It said a decision by members of the majority party in the ad hoc committee might prevent an impeachment process from proceeding beyond the committee to shield a president who was the leader of that party.

If you go for option 2 below which I prefer you can negate shifting the blame to the opposition somewhat,

The rules committee will then have to decide whether to adopt the hybrid committee made up of members of parliament, retired judges and an evidence leader or a panel made up of retired judges and excluding politicians as proposed by the Economic Freedom Fighters.

 

[f2wohf]

Here it gives equal weight, they could have went closer to the reality of the seats in parliament without going proportional.

It would have been smarter for the ANC, in the current configuration they give up a lot of power.

 

[HavocXphere]

Interesting. The means the ANC reckons they don't have enough internal consensus to get it across the line.

I bet they change it back after chief chop is gone

 

[/dev/null]

This is amazing.
I also don't think the remarks by the Constitutional Court posted here are sensible: if the majority party(whatever party it may be) can't prevent impeachment at committee level, they can always block it at general assembly level which is the only decision making body(the committees only make recommendation which get rubber stamped by the general assembly)

 

[Sinbad]

This is amazing.
I also don't think the remarks by the Constitutional Court posted here are sensible: if the majority party(whatever party it may be) can't prevent impeachment at committee level, they can always block it at general assembly level which is the only decision making body(the committees only make recommendation which get rubber stamped by the general assembly)

If I read it right the concourt has said the National assembly cannot overrule the committee in this case

 

[ponder]

Here it gives equal weight, they could have went closer to the reality of the seats in parliament without going proportional.

It would have been smarter for the ANC, in the current configuration they give up a lot of power.

But that comes back to the court saying it can be used to shield the president where the party holds a majority.

 

[f2wohf]

But that comes back to the court saying it can be used to shield the president where the party holds a majority.

No, you could put for example 3/4 ANC MP, 2/3 DA, 2 EFF and 1 or 0.5 for every other smaller party.

That would respect the spirit of the ruling.

Putting 6 ANC MPs over 10 MPs would not.

They basically lose power on purpose, probably to kick Zuma out and be able to shift the blame to the opposition. It’s quite a smart strategy.

 

[/dev/null]

If I read it right the concourt has said the National assembly cannot overrule the committee in this case

If that's the case then the only way to fix this would to change the constitution to prevent such a situation. It's like saying that the remuneration committee made up of two or three board members can decide the pay of executives and that the board cant interfere.

 

[/dev/null]

No, you could put for example 3/4 ANC MP, 2/3 DA, 2 EFF and 1 or 0.5 for every other smaller party.

That would respect the spirit of the ruling.

Putting 6 ANC MPs over 10 MPs would not.

They basically lose power on purpose, probably to kick Zuma out and be able to shift the blame to the opposition. It’s quite a smart strategy.

This is unfair to the voters.

 

[f2wohf]

This is unfair to the voters.

Definitely, a proportional committee would be much smarter.

Though, if the composition of the committee is decided and voted by all the MPs, then why not.

 

[Sinbad]

I think the idea of the committee is to be apolitical. Judges, etc...?

 

[f2wohf]

I think the idea of the committee is to be apolitical. Judges, etc...?

It’s the same in most countries. Half judges + half MPs elected or appointed by the Parliament or by the Parliament’s chair.

 

[HavocXphere]

This is unfair to the voters.

As if they care about that

 

[krycor]

I think the point of this system is that for impeachment, the president is shown to be in breach of the constitution.

This president -should- be taken out irrespective of who votes if credible evidence. And that’s kinda the crux of the matter with Zuma.. he was found in breach.

Why voters rights are respected.. because the new president will be re-elected from the existing ruling party members in parliament by the National Assembly. Remember.. national voting elects a party. The National Assembly then elects the president.

Ie you can be president.. but abuse of power = getting taken out and no one can really prevent this other than majority of parties. I’d have liked that the 4 judge positions are held by constitutional judges tho..


What I’m curious tho is how this will impact the DA and other opposition parties. Pretty sure calling for impeachment without credible evidence now will become impossible and be thrown out before it even becomes the showcase it was during Zuma era

 

[Gordon_R]

New rules quietly passed during a busy news week: https://www.news24.com/Columnists/G...-president-empower-national-assembly-20181202

The National Assembly (NA) quietly adopted new rules to govern the removal of a president in terms of Section 89 of the Constitution.

The adoption of the rules represents an advancement in South Africa's democratic health through affording the NA increased power to scrutinise and oversee the president as head of the executive. The rules will arguably go some way in curbing partisan behaviour by forcing political parties to consider a particular set of facts and making an informed vote, rather than votes premised on blind loyalty without an objective set of facts to guide the vote casting.

 

[Frequent visitor]

This is unfair to the voters.

The voters do not elect the President, so how is it unfair to them?

 

[Frequent visitor]

Here it gives equal weight, they could have went closer to the reality of the seats in parliament without going proportional.

It would have been smarter for the ANC, in the current configuration they give up a lot of power.

Welcome back. You have been missed.