Madam Deputy Speaker, on the 8th of May the Constitutional Court found in the Phala Phala matter that Parliament had failed in its constitutional duty of holding the President to account. It instructed Parliament to continue with an impeachment inquiry, emphasising that the National Assembly’s oversight role over the President lies at the heart of our constitutional scheme.
It bears noting that costs were also ordered against Parliament, amongst other respondents.
The President then took the Independent Panel’s Report on review and also brought an urgent application to interdict Parliament from continuing its work.
On the 15th of June, the ACDP wrote a letter to the Speaker and the Chairperson urging that that interim interdict (that would prevent Parliament from doing its work) should be opposed.
We said it is inconceivable that Parliament would not oppose this application, which could result in Parliament being interdicted from carrying out its oversight duty over the President, as mandated by the court.
In this context, the Committee’s compliance with the Constitutional Court was pointed out by a senior advocate—that this is a legal and constitutional imperative and that the committee cannot suspend its work pending the outcome of litigation. It must proceed with its work.
Against this background, and in view of the Constitutional Court judgement, the ACDP would have expected the Speaker to do her utmost to protect the institution of Parliament and the foundational role of holding the President accountable. We would have expected her to stand side by side with the honourable chairperson of the committee, honourable Gana, in opposing this ill-considered, urgent application to stop Parliament from doing its duty.
Instead, what we see is, in our view, a rather limp-wristed response to abide the outcome and file an affidavit, in response to what seems to be political pressure.
This the ACDP finds deeply disappointing.
I thank you.
