THE INTEREST THAT IS SECTION 89 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
The recent Concourt judgement that resulted in a majority decision against the National Assembly, can be better understood if one gives oneself an opportunity to go through the Rules of the National Assembly.
It also makes one wonder how it was possible that the judgement also had a minority judgement that was expressed so strongly by the Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng.
If one goes through such Rules of Parliament, one realises that a motion of no confidence in the state president is only considered in terms of section 102 of the Constitution.
This is contained in Chapter 7 of the Rules of Parliament that deals with motions. In this case, it is specifically section 129 of the Rules of Parliament that only deals with motions in terms of section 102 of the Constitution.
There is no mention whatsoever of section 89 of the Constitution.
This is very interesting because it was the very Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng who delivered a very scathing unanimous judgement against Zuma and the National Assembly in the Nkandla matter.
This particular judgement referred specifically to section 89 of the Constitution and one wonders as to how the National Assembly sought to effect this judgement with inadequate rules that didn't even had any reference to section 89 of the Constitution.
One might not be a legal expert but considering the majority judgement in the EFF, UDM and COPE that was specifically directing the National Assembly to correct this glaring part, it becomes really mind boggling that such a decision came to be regarded as, judicial overeach ??
Nevertheless it is interesting to note that parliament has taken a decision to quickly correct this situation and I am positively sure that once parliament gets its house in order in this regard, they will on their own without any push from the opposition parties, institute impeachment processes against Zuma, that is, if he would not have been recalled by the ANC !!!!!
PHAMBILI SA ( FORWARD SA ).