The content on this page is not written by Polity.org.za, but is supplied by third parties. This content does not constitute news reporting by Polity.org.za.

Cope leader Mosiuoa Lekota’s decision to legally challenge his suspension from a National Assembly sitting, following his refusal to withdraw his unsubstantiated allegations against the President, is a publicity stunt by somebody desperately seeking attention. It is a laughable and bizarre court action, which Lekota himself knows stands no chance of succeeding.

However, the court challenge should be welcomed, as it will serve as an educational course on the basic rules of parliament and thereby groom him to be a better Member of Parliament. It is shameful though, that having been an MP for many years, during which time he presided over the National Council of Provinces as its chairman – it should take a court action for him to understand the rules, conventions and practices governing the business of parliament.

The court will educate Lekota that in term of Section 57 of the Constitution, the National Assembly may determine and control its internal arrangements, proceedings, procedure as well as make rules and orders concerning its business. The court will tell him that one of those rules and orders is that MPs who wish to bring allegations of improper conduct are NOT prevented from doing so, but are required to do so by way of a substantive motion. Given that he is utterly clueless about what a ‘substantive motion’ is, he will learn that this is a formal proposal put before the house for the purpose of eliciting a debate and resolution of parliament. The court will remind him of his responsibilities as an honourable Member of Parliament in relation to this practice: if you make use of a parliamentary podium to make serious claims, back them up with irrefutable evidence – or don’t make them at all.

Lekota has complained in the media that his freedom of speech is being muzzled. The Court will then teach Lekota that in terms of Section 58(1) of the Constitution, as much as MPs enjoy high level of freedom of speech and parliamentary privileges, such is subject to the agreed rules and principles that guide the management of parliamentary business.

Who knows? Perhaps by the time he graduates from this crash course he will have transformed from a howling, angry and emotional MP into a rational, decent and fine MP worthy of his place amongst the other honourable Members of Parliament.