By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
The Western Cape High Court has reserved judgment in the case involving Jacob Zuma and 10 Members of Parliament expelled from his uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) party.
They are seeking an interim interdict to halt the swearing-in of their replacements while their review application, challenging their expulsion from the MK party and subsequent removal from the National Assembly, is still pending.
The 10, who were among 18 fired MK party MPs, also want the court to declare that they remain members of the party until their membership is lawfully terminated and that they may continue serving as legislators unless they join another political party.
They argue that their sudden removal, just a month after they were sworn in, was unlawful and aimed at making way for replacements, including former Economic Freedom Fighters deputy president Floyd Shivambu.
The MK party, which succeeded the Democratic Alliance as the official opposition, has contended that the MPs were removed after they were found to have been incorrectly listed as candidates in the party’s slate for the May general elections.
During proceedings, Advocate Simba Chitando, representing the applicants, argued that Zuma contradicted himself in his court papers opposing the former MK party MPs’ application.
“Former president Zuma’s answering affidavit says two different things. He says that they were never members of the MK party and he also says that he used his powers to remove them. You cannot remove people that are not members of your party to begin with,” he told the court.
Chitando emphasised the urgency of the former MPs’ case, stating that they sought to protect their jobs from being filled.
“Without an interdict, there is no legal impediment of nomination of the new members,” the advocate said.
Chitando further stated that the applicants’ families would be “left destitute” and “out in the cold”, as they would be forced to vacate the parliamentary villages where they currently reside.
“Unfortunately, the MK party does not have a constitution; it does not have procedures to deal with the applicants.
“We don’t know what formal process can accommodate not just them, but their dependents,” the advocate argued.
In response, the MK party’s lawyer, Advocate Nikiwe Nyathi, asked the court to dismiss the applicants ‘case due to their failure to file a replying affidavit.
“What that means is that we have an answering affidavit with allegations that are completely unanswered.
“My learned colleague has attempted to justify some of those in the heads of argument, but those submissions that are not in the papers cannot be accepted by the court because they are submissions from the bar,” she said.
She also requested a punitive costs order against the expelled MPs. Judge Kathrine Savage reserved the judgment.