Zuma Breached the Constitution: COPE

LazyLion

LazyLion

King of de Jungle
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
107,437
Reaction score
9,964
Location
District 9
President Jacob Zuma has breached his constitutional obligation by sending troops to the Central African Republic, the Congress of the People (Cope) said on Wednesday.

Party leader Mosiuoa Lekota said Zuma was supposed to request a parliamentary approval to send troops to the CAR.

"As matters now stand he appears to have breached his constitutional obligation."

Lekota said Zuma had no right to deploy soldiers on a mission to disarm and demilitarise citizens of a foreign country.

Thirteen soldiers were killed and 27 injured on Saturday, March 23 in a clash with Seleka rebel fighters outside the capital Bangui.

"We insist that constitutionally South Africans have the right to get a full explanation about what our young men in uniform were doing in [the] CAR and why 13 of them had to sacrifice their lives."

Zuma has insisted troops were sent to the CAR in terms of an agreement signed in 2007, in which South Africa was to train the CAR army.

Another 200 soldiers were deployed late in 2012 when security deteriorated in the CAR to protect trainers and South African military assets already in the CAR.

At a memorial service for the slain soldiers on Tuesday, Zuma said no country discussed its military strategy in public.

"No country discusses its military strategy in public in the manner in which South Africa is expected to do in this country.

"Those who are engaging in this game should be careful not to endanger both the national interest and the security of the republic while pursuing party political goals."


Source : Sapa /mm/fg/ks/jk
Date : 03 Apr 2013 14:10
 
201. Political responsibility.--( I) A member of the Cabinet must be responsible, for
defence.
(2) Only the President, as head of the national executive, may authorise the employ-
ment of the defence force-
(a) in co-operation with the police service;
(b) in defence of the Republic: or
(c) in fulfilment of an international obligation.
(3) When the defence force is employed for any purpose mentioned in subsection (2),
the President must inform Parliament, promptly and in appropriate detail, of-
(,a) the reasons for the employment of the defence force;
(b) any place where the force is being employed;
(e) the number of people involved; and
(d) the period for which the force is expected to be employed.
(4) If Parliament does not sit during the first seven days after the defence force is em-
ployed as envisaged in subsection (2), the President must provide the information required in
subsection (3) to the appropriate oversight committee.
Click to expand...

Sorry but where exactly does the constitution say the president must get approval from parliament to deploy troops ?
 
JungleBoy said:
Sorry but where exactly does the constitution say the president must get approval from parliament to deploy troops ?
Click to expand...

Maybe it's in the Defence Force legislation, but ja... I think COPE is confusing "informing parliament" with "getting approval"
 
That's actually an interesting question, what is Parliament's role in operational military matters? Can the President declare war without Parliamentary approval, for example?
 
Constitutional expert Pierre De Vos has already made it clear that it was constitutional. The problem is that parliament is not doing it's job as it should.

The President has complete power to deploy the Defense Force wherever and whenever he decides. He only has to inform parliament about it after the fact. Parliament can then review the situation and possibly recall the army
 
Structure:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Defence_(South_Africa)

Strategic Business Plan:

http://www.dod.mil.za/documents/strategicbusinessplan/Strategic Business Plan 2009.pdf

The Chief of the SANDF commands the SANDF under the authority of the President and in accordance with the directions of the MOD, pursuant to Section 202(2) of the Constitution. The Chief of the SANDF is the principal advisor to the MOD on military policy matters. The Secretary for Defence and the Chief of the SANDF, operating under the direction of the MOD, act within their areas of responsibility to provide strategic direction to the DOD.

Section 202-204:

Command of defence force 202.
(1) The President as head of the national executive is Commander-in- Chief of the defence force, and must appoint the Military Command of the defence force.
(2) Command of the defence force must be exercised in accordance with the directions of the Cabinet member responsible for defence, under the authority of the President.

State of national defence 203.
(1) The President as head of the national executive may declare a state of national defence, and must inform Parliament promptly and in appropriate detail of *the reasons for the declaration;any place where the defence force is being employed; and the number of people involved.
(2) If Parliament is not sitting when a state of national defence is declared, the President must summon Parliament to an extraordinary sitting within seven days of the declaration.
(3) A declaration of a state of national defence lapses unless it is approved by Parliament within seven days of the declaration.

Defence civilian secretariat 204.
(1) A civilian secretariat for defence must be established by national legislation to function under the direction of the Cabinet member responsible for defence.

MISSION:

To provide, manage, prepare and employ defence capabilities commensurate with the needs of South Africa as regulated by the Constitution, national legislation and Parliamentary and Executive direction.

Basically: “command of the defence force must be exercised in accordance with the directions” of the minister of defence, “under the authority of the president”
 
Garyvdh said:
I love how people quote this guy like he wrote the Bible or something! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

He did help write it.
He was involved in the creation of our Constitution, and is the preeminent constitutional lawyer in SA.
That might explain why people quote him...he's not just some random on a forum with an opinion
 
JStrike said:
He did help write it.
He was involved in the creation of our Constitution, and is the preeminent constitutional lawyer in SA.
That might explain why people quote him...he's not just some random on a forum with an opinion
Click to expand...

Well, yeah... you see that's all he really has to offer... an opinion... which is frequently wrong. ;)
 
I think that COPE is relating to these sections 201-202:

Defence force 200.
(1) The defence force must be structured and managed as a disciplined military force.
(2) The primary object of the defence force is to defend and protect the Republic, its territorial integrity and its people in accordance with the Constitution and the principles of international law regulating the use of force.

Political responsibility 201.
(1) A member of the Cabinet must be responsible for defence.
(2) Only the President, as head of the national executive, may authorise the employment of the defence force *
in co-operation with the police service; in defence of the Republic; or in fulfilment of an international obligation.
(3) When the defence force is employed for any purpose mentioned in subsection (2), the President must inform Parliament, promptly and in appropriate detail, of *the reasons for the employment of the defence force; any place where the force is being employed; the number of people involved; and the period for which the force is expected to be employed.
(4) If Parliament does not sit during the first seven days after the defence force is employed as envisaged in subsection (2), the President must provide the information required in subsection (3) to the appropriate oversight committee.

Is here anyone who can enlighten us on international law and international obligation in authorisation of our defence force? Also I know nobody in the SAPS or any SAPS involvement in the deployment in CAR to shed me details on this aspect. The people I know in SAPS know nothing, except when the news broke regarding our involvement.
 
ToxicBunny said:
He has been wrong quite a few times before on pretty basic things actually.
Click to expand...

He has been wrong one or two occasions, and those situations required quite a bit of interpretation.
He is right the overwhelming amount of time.
On this topic, the Constitution is clear.
 
Fulcrum29 said:
I think that COPE is relating to these sections 201-202:

Defence force 200.
(1) The defence force must be structured and managed as a disciplined military force.
(2) The primary object of the defence force is to defend and protect the Republic, its territorial integrity and its people in accordance with the Constitution and the principles of international law regulating the use of force.

Political responsibility 201.
(1) A member of the Cabinet must be responsible for defence.
(2) Only the President, as head of the national executive, may authorise the employment of the defence force *
in co-operation with the police service; in defence of the Republic; or in fulfilment of an international obligation.
(3) When the defence force is employed for any purpose mentioned in subsection (2), the President must inform Parliament, promptly and in appropriate detail, of *the reasons for the employment of the defence force; any place where the force is being employed; the number of people involved; and the period for which the force is expected to be employed.
(4) If Parliament does not sit during the first seven days after the defence force is employed as envisaged in subsection (2), the President must provide the information required in subsection (3) to the appropriate oversight committee.

Is here anyone who can enlighten us on international law and international obligation in authorisation of our defence force? Also I know nobody in the SAPS or any SAPS involvement in the deployment in CAR to shed me details on this aspect. The people I know in SAPS know nothing, except when the news broke regarding our involvement.
Click to expand...

The SAPS is only involved in 201 (2) (b).
This situation is 201 (2) (c)
 
JStrike said:
The SAPS is only involved in 201 (2) (b).
This situation is 201 (2) (c)
Click to expand...

That is why I want to know this:

Is here anyone who can enlighten us on international law and international obligation in authorisation of our defence force?
Click to expand...

I want details on our law and obligation in regard to authorisation on international level and duty.
 
Garyvdh said:
Uh yeah... Google is your friend. Start reading.
Click to expand...

Yes. And?
It seems he has only been wrong a couple of times.
His record is outstanding. And for good reasons. Just look at his qualifications. There is no one else in SA outside of a ConCourt judge who knows the constitution better than him
 
JStrike said:
Yes. And?
It seems he has only been wrong a couple of times.
His record is outstanding. And for good reasons. Just look at his qualifications. There is no one else in SA outside of a ConCourt judge who knows the constitution better than him
Click to expand...

Let me guess, he is also an Apple user? :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X