Acting Speaker of the National Assembly, Lechesa Tsenoli, has accepted the DA’s motion to have Speaker Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula removed from office.
DA MP Siviwe Gwarube filed a motion of no confidence in the speaker last week following allegations of corruption and money-laundering.
At the time, Gwarube argued that for the head of the national legislature to face corruption allegations undermines the integrity of parliament, necessitating immediate action.
The DA’s formal motion of no confidence aims to compel parliament to address the matter before the current term concludes, she indicated.
On Tuesday, parliament spokesperson Moloto Mothapo confirmed that the acting speaker has written to Gwarube and the DA acknowledging the motion.
Constitution permits removal of speaker
“Section 54[2] of the constitution states that the National Assembly may remove the speaker or deputy speaker from office by resolution, with a majority of assembly members present when the resolution is adopted,” said Mothapo.
“This section is enacted through Rule 28 of the National Assembly rules, which specify that the house may remove the speaker or deputy speaker from office by resolution, in accordance with Section 52[4] of the constitution.”
Mothapo said the acting speaker would have to consult first with the chief whip of the ANC, being the majority party in parliament, and a date for the motion to be heard in parliament will be communicated at a later stage.
“This motion must be placed on the order paper and must detail the grounds for the proposed removal.
“The appropriate scheduling of this motion will be announced once the consultation with the chief whip of the majority party concludes.”
Urgent court interdict
On Monday, the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) accepted a plea from Mapisa-Nqakula’s lawyers not to arrest her until a decision on her interdict application is made.
The speaker filed an urgent interdict on Friday to stop her impending arrest in the wake of the damning graft allegations.
The matter was heard at the Pretoria High Court.
In her application, the speaker expressed concern about the erosion of constitutional rights, particularly regarding the “step-aside rule” affecting her position.
She argued that while combating corruption is crucial, it should be done within the bounds of due process and fair trial rights
Mapisa-Nqakula’s legal team requested urgency in the matter, urging the court to interdict and restrain authorities from arresting their client.
Access to police docket
Additionally, they demanded access to the police docket and related investigation materials.
However, in the answering affidavit, advocate Bheki Manyathi, representing the NPA, contended that the applicant’s urgency in filing the application is self-created.
He contended that, contrary to what the applicant claimed, there was no imminent arrest and that negotiations between the applicant’s legal counsel and the NPA were ongoing.
Manyathi highlighted that the applicant’s attempt to move the court date to an earlier date was not in compliance with practice directives and lacked justification.
He also disputed the applicant’s claims of urgency, stating that the investigation was complete and there was no imminent threat of detention, as bail would not be opposed.
Manyathi challenged the grounds of urgency cited by the applicant, including media reports and alleged denial of legal representation, and called for the application to be struck off the court roll with costs.
The law knows no positions
He also argued against granting Mapisa-Nqakula’s request for an interdict, both interim and final, asserting that the balance of convenience did not favour granting the interim interdict, especially one that would interfere with the NPA’s exclusive jurisdiction and blur the separation of powers.
“The applicant does not have a right to access the docket at this stage. She has not been charged,” said Manyathi.
“Even worse, it is not urgent that she gets access to the docket at this stage because the trial has not been set down.
“She does not need the docket to defend herself against the media.”
Continued Manyathi: “While the applicant has her constitutional rights, such rights are not unlimited. The applicant’s rights cannot be elevated above the interests of justice.”
“The law knows no positions.”
