SA Politics Thread Part 11: The GNU Normal

Status
Not open for further replies.
The_Right_Honourable_Brit said:
What happened here? @Agent69


I know the ANC is desperate to develop any kind of power base within the WC because they are so dysfunctional but it looks like they did it illegally.
Click to expand...
Copilot:
This story revolves around a dramatic political and legal battle in the Matzikama municipality in the Western Cape, South Africa. Here's a structured breakdown of what happened:

🏛️ Background: Political Shake-Up
• Date of incident: 29 May 2025
• The Democratic Alliance (DA) and Freedom Front Plus (FF Plus) were governing Matzikama through a coalition.
• A motion of no confidence was passed against the DA mayor, deputy mayor, and speaker.
• This was supported by renegade DA councillor Christo Boks, who voted against his party.

⚖️ Legal Challenge
• The DA argued that once Boks voted against the DA, he automatically lost his party membership—and therefore his council seat.
• The DA walked out of the meeting, claiming it was no longer valid.
• Despite this, the remaining councillors (ANC, EFF, PA, GOOD) continued and elected a new leadership coalition.

🧨 The Court Ruling
• The DA filed a legal challenge, calling the ANC-led takeover a “coup” and “unlawful power grab”.
• The court sided with the DA, ruling that the 29 May council meeting and its outcomes were unconstitutional and invalid.
• The ANC attempted to appeal this ruling—but lost the bid to appeal, meaning the court’s decision stands.

🔍 Implications
• The ruling reinforces the importance of party discipline and procedural legality in council decisions.
• It also highlights the fragility of coalition politics in hung municipalities like Matzikama.
• The ANC’s attempt to gain a foothold in the Western Cape—where it traditionally struggles—was legally thwarted.
 
www.news24.com

Veterinary council reports Steenhuisen to Ramaphosa for ‘overstepping’ his mandate | News24

The SA Veterinary Council has told the president that the minister acted unlawfully.
www.news24.com www.news24.com

The heat is on, on deployed cadres. GET THEM FARMER JOHN

The SA Veterinary Council (SAVC) has accused Agriculture Minister John Steenhuisen of seeking to delegitimise its free and fair elections and wants President Cyril Ramaphosa to rein him in.

READ: Steenhuisen warns of commissions as ‘talk shops avoiding accountability’ while corruption thrives

A fortnight ago, Steenhuisen questioned the integrity of the election process of the regulatory body for the veterinary and para-veterinary professions, citing “inconsistent and conflicting communications to registered veterinary professionals regarding voting deadlines that created confusion and may have resulted in the exclusion of some eligible participants”.

Following the minister’s media statement, the regulator’s registrar, Mongezi Menye, penned a 27-page letter to Ramaphosa, accusing Steenhuisen of interfering in the election process.


The directive by the minister is further unlawful on the basis that it instructs the SAVC to restart the election while there is no council or governing body to play an oversight role as stipulated in the act and regulations.
Mongezi Menye
Menye said the council took a unanimous resolution on 30 July, indicating that they were accepting the legal opinion sourced at the department’s request.

“The minister must proceed and appoint the council. The resolution was sent to the minister on 31 July and he has not yet responded to this letter. This means that the minister’s directive is in direct contradiction of the full council resolution,” the letter reads.

He told the president that Steenhuisen was not empowered by the Veterinary and Para-Veterinary Professions Act to overturn or rescind a council resolution. He said the election process conducted by the SAVC in terms of the act and council resolution could only be nullified by a court of law.

“This would constitute egregious interference with a free and fair election and interference with the right to elect council members within a free and fair process. The fact that the minister seeks to nullify even the five other components of the election, which are not tainted by any allegation of irregularity, clearly indicates the irrationality of the decision.”
Mongezi Menye
In a statement on 3 August, Steenhuisen said he had requested a comprehensive report from his department, including legal advice on the validity and procedural soundness of the SAVC elections.


He cited concerns raised “in the interest of full transparency and to enable appropriate legislative oversight” and formally requested the department to initiate the process to restart the SAVC election.

Multiple irregularities​

On Friday, Steenhuisen told City Press that his role was not to engage in personal disputes but to fulfil his statutory duty under the act. This duty, he said, was to ensure that the council elections were lawful, procedurally fair and credible.

He said the department’s review identified multiple irregularities in the SAVC’s elections process this year. These included a failure to consult the full outgoing council, the inclusion of ineligible candidates, the exclusion of eligible nominees without a lawful basis and the premature closure of the voting platform.

In addition, I received several letters from those in the veterinary sector, indicating their concern and unease at how the election had been run.
John Steenhuisen
He said his interventions were directed at remedying these defects to restore public trust and lawful governance, not at creating conflict with the council or its CEO.

“My actions are not interference; they are the lawful exercise of my oversight powers and obligations as minister,” he said. “The onus was therefore on the registrar to ensure compliance with these provisions.

“Where this was not done and in light of the irregularities raised, I called for further scrutiny of the registrar’s role.”

He said the matter warranted consideration of whether an inquiry into the registrar’s conduct should be instituted, including whether costs arising from the flawed processes should be borne personally by the officeholder responsible.

Steenhuisen said he rejected the recent legal opinion obtained by the SAVC, noting that it exceeded the agreed mandate. The mandate was limited to advising on whether the minister could extend the council’s term, he said, but instead pronounced on matters that fell exclusively within his executive powers, such as rescinding the election results and ordering a rerun.


The legal opinion obtained by the council was not binding on me, nor was it obtained within the scope of what had been agreed.
John Steenhuisen
He added: “It went beyond its original mandate, which was to consider whether the council’s term could be extended and instead opined on ministerial powers that fall squarely within the executive authority of the minister.”
Click to expand...
 
Vrotappel said:
Copilot:
This story revolves around a dramatic political and legal battle in the Matzikama municipality in the Western Cape, South Africa. Here's a structured breakdown of what happened:

🏛️ Background: Political Shake-Up
• Date of incident: 29 May 2025
• The Democratic Alliance (DA) and Freedom Front Plus (FF Plus) were governing Matzikama through a coalition.
• A motion of no confidence was passed against the DA mayor, deputy mayor, and speaker.
• This was supported by renegade DA councillor Christo Boks, who voted against his party.

⚖️ Legal Challenge
• The DA argued that once Boks voted against the DA, he automatically lost his party membership—and therefore his council seat.
• The DA walked out of the meeting, claiming it was no longer valid.
• Despite this, the remaining councillors (ANC, EFF, PA, GOOD) continued and elected a new leadership coalition.

🧨 The Court Ruling
• The DA filed a legal challenge, calling the ANC-led takeover a “coup” and “unlawful power grab”.
• The court sided with the DA, ruling that the 29 May council meeting and its outcomes were unconstitutional and invalid.
• The ANC attempted to appeal this ruling—but lost the bid to appeal, meaning the court’s decision stands.

🔍 Implications
• The ruling reinforces the importance of party discipline and procedural legality in council decisions.
• It also highlights the fragility of coalition politics in hung municipalities like Matzikama.
• The ANC’s attempt to gain a foothold in the Western Cape—where it traditionally struggles—was legally thwarted.
Click to expand...
Not sure I agree with this, for the same reason that the same DA asked ANC MPs to vote with their conscience against Zuma.

Not towing the party line should never be ruled illegal. It's a mechanism of accountability...
 
Mike Hoxbig said:
Not sure I agree with this, for the same reason that the same DA asked ANC MPs to vote with their conscience against Zuma.

Not towing the party line should never be ruled illegal. It's a mechanism of accountability...
Click to expand...
Le Grange ruled in the DA’s favour, declaring the sitting unconstitutional and invalid and set aside all decisions taken after DA speaker Andreas Sindyamba had adjourned proceedings.
Click to expand...
 
Yeah I was replying to the AI message saying that he ceased to be a member as soon as he broke ranks...
 
Mike Hoxbig said:
Not sure I agree with this, for the same reason that the same DA asked ANC MPs to vote with their conscience against Zuma.

Not towing the party line should never be ruled illegal. It's a mechanism of accountability...
Click to expand...
In SA politicians are easily bought...

No conscience there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X