By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
The Western Cape High Court has dismissed the application by 10 former Umkhonto weSizwe (MK) party members who were challenging their expulsion from the party and subsequent removal from the National Assembly.
The 10, who were among 18 fired MK party MPs, also wanted 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 argued 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 (DA) 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.
In the judgment, Judge Kathrine Savage stated that the former MPs failed to prove the urgency of their application.
Savage highlighted that the applicants did not include important facts in their court papers.
The axed MK party members also failed to file a replying affidavit.
The applicants only filed confirmatory affidavits on the day the case was heard on 3 September.
The judge said the former MPs further failed to show they held a prima facie right to an interim interdict based on the review application.
“In claiming this, without pleading any factual basis to support this claim, the applicants fail to show the existence of a prima facie right to the relief sought,” the judgment reads.
While Savage commented on the way Zuma runs his party, the judge dismissed the applicants’ interdict application with costs.
“Despite the concerning picture painted by Mr Zuma regarding the manner in which the MK party currently operates and makes decisions involving its members, it remains for the applicants to show that the prerequisites for the interim relief sought by them have been met.
“An interim interdict is not to be granted by a court simply on the asking.
“Even if regard is had to the version of events advanced by Zuma, the applicants have failed to show the existence of a prima facie right worthy of protection.”
She further rejected the MK party’s argument that the high court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.
“Turning to the issue of costs, there is no reason why the ordinary rule relating to the award of costs should not apply and counsel for both parties accepted as much. Costs must therefore follow the result.”
In a statement following the ruling, the MK party welcomed Savage’s findings, adding that the internal dispute was never meant to become public.
“They [the members] proceeded with the swearing in [as MPs], despite being informed that their presence in parliament would be short-term,” the party said. “It wasn’t enough for these recalcitrant litigants to drag the party to court, causing unnecessary expenses, such as changing office locks, keys, and covering hotel costs for new members unable to access accommodation in parliamentary villages.”
“The MK party’s voting numbers were affected due to these acts of ill-discipline by perfidious individuals,” it added, saying the court’s punitive order, “reaffirmed the party’s stance that the issue should have been resolved internally, and that the group’s actions brought the party into disrepute”.
“All due procedures were followed, and we have been vindicated,” it said, warning against any further “frivolous legal challenges from disgruntled members who failed to adhere to party protocols”.