By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
Judgment has been reserved in the ATM’s court bid to overturn the National Assembly’s decision not to continue with impeachment proceedings against President Cyril Ramaphosa over the Phala Phala saga.
The ATM approached the court in December to overturn the National Assembly’s decision not to continue with impeachment proceedings against Ramaphosa over the Phala Phala saga. The ATM is asking the court to set aside National Assembly Speaker Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula’s decision.
It is also asking the court to set aside the National Assembly’s proceedings of 13 December, and for a declaratory order that such a vote must be by secret ballot.
Arguing on behalf of the ANC, advocate Tembeka Ngcukaitobi said the ATM had two weeks to lodge the case after the Speaker made her decision on the voting procedure.
“To do so after the event is moot. It can’t be reconstructed. If the opposition had won the vote, they would not be in court today,” he said.
Ngcukatoibi also submitted that there was no hard evidence of threats before the court.
Furthermore, Ngcukaitobi argued that all opposition parties in the multiparty forum voted in the same way.
Advocate Anton Katz, for the ATM, said it was “absurd” to suggest previous cases on a secret ballot for a motion of no confidence were moot because of the time that had elapsed.
Katz told the court it was problematic that the more than 400 MPs were subject to voting along party lines, and not with the Constitution.
Judge Daniel Thulare asked Katz whether it would be premature for the conclusion that the ANC disciplines its members if they didn’t toe the party line, to which Katz responded by saying: “It’s only the threat of discipline that counts.”
Days after former spy boss Arthur Fraser laid charges against Ramaphosa, ATM lodged a motion in terms of Section 89 of the Constitution for Ramaphosa’s removal.
Mapisa-Nqakula didn’t accept the initial motion, but a subsequent one was accepted.
In the December 13 sitting, the ANC used its majority to shield Ramaphosa from impeachment, throwing him the proverbial get-out-of-jail-free card, as 148 MPs voted “yes”, 214 “no”, and two abstained from voting for the adoption of the Phala Phala report.
Mapisa-Nqakula meanwhile said that she did not believe that there was a legal basis for the court to grant the relief the ATM was seeking.
She’s argued that there was no evidence to suggest that she determined the voting procedure to achieve a predetermined outcome.
The Speaker through her legal team also told the court that her decision was independent and impartial and that she duly considered the reasons advanced by the ATM for a secret ballot.