Parliament to meet over the rules of removing president Zuma


Karabo Ngoepe

PRETORIA- Parliament’s National Assembly Subcommittee on Review of Rules is scheduled to meet this week to deliberate on a draft procedure for implementing section 89(1) of the Constitution regarding the removal of a president.

The announcement was made on Sunday with Wednesday 10 and Thursday 11 January reserved for the meeting. Parliament spokesperson, Moloto Mothapo said the meeting follows the Constitutional Court judgment handed down on 29 December 2017 that the National Assembly had failed to put in place proper rules regulating a procedure for section 89(1) of the Constitution.

“The Constitutional Court ordered the National Assembly to make such rules without delay to initiate a process under section 89(1), in terms of the newly developed rules. In keeping with the Assembly’s commitment to comply fully with the Constitutional Court’s majority judgment, Members of Parliament serving on the National Assembly Rules Subcommittee have been notified of the forthcoming meetings and supplied with documents to be considered there,” he said.

Mothapo said the documents include a draft procedure drawn up in April 2016, but not finalised, and a comparative study, compiled in 2015, about impeachment proceedings of seven other Parliaments on the removal of a Head of State.

“The draft procedure, once finalised by the Subcommittee, would need to be adopted by the National Assembly as part of the Assembly’s rules,” he said.

Following the ruling, Parliament came out and said it had noted the majority ruling and said it would comply with the decision. The application was brought by the EFF, the UDM and COPE against the Speaker of the National Assembly, and it sought an order compelling the National Assembly to carry out its Constitutional functions and scrutinise Zuma’s conduct.

The case was based on former public protector Thuli Madonsela’s remedial actions following an investigation into upgrades to Zuma’s homestead in Nkandla. She found that not all upgrades were for security reasons and Zuma had to foot the bill for those.