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.

Today the Constitutional Court has handed down its judgement on the
challenge of constitutionality which I brought against the Rules of
Parliament which prevented a Member of Parliament [MP] from introducing a
Bill in the National Assembly.  These rules required that an MP could only
introduce a Bill if he first received the permission of the majority of his
colleagues.  The Constitutional Court found in my favour and rendered a
judgment which accepted 100% of the relief which I sought.

This is not my personal victory, but a victory for South African democracy.
I must thank and praise Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi for the support and
inspiration that he has given to me and to all those who have been involved
in this difficult piece of litigation.  Prince Buthelezi is not new to
fighting his battles for democracy in court rooms, as he has time and again
brought about some of the most important judgements of the Constitutional
Court which have shaped our democracy into what it is.  Without his support,
this new important landmark could not have been achieved, and he must
rightly be credited for it.

The Constitutional Court has held that MPs have the constitutional right and
obligation to introduce legislation and can do so without receiving the
permission of anyone else.  This judgement is a game-changer in our
parliamentary democracy and takes South African democracy onto a new and
higher level of engagement, which is finally on par with all established
democracies of the world.  This judgement removes what was one of the major
shames in our democracy.

We need to prepare ourselves to finally have a democratic parliament.  In
the past 18 years, legislation has been drafted almost exclusively at the
executive level and has been introduced by Ministers.  MPs have often acted
as rubber stampers and always been seized by the legislative initiative of
the executive branch of government. Now MPs have the opportunity of causing
parliament to be seized by the initiatives of parliamentarians.  This
judgment opens the door for laws to be conceived, drafted and introduced in
parliament by MPs who are not cabinet members or deputy ministers.
I hope that this judgement will open a new season in which MPs will be more
active and proactive and will consider issues on that merit, and not because
of the political label which one may wish to attach to it.  It would be a
great day in our parliament if in this parliament, like in other parliaments
of the world, a Bill could be supported at its time of introduction by
several MPs across party political lines.  I am sure that there are many
Bills that my party and I would be more than willing to endorse and support
which are amongst those which thus far have been prevented from being
introduced by the majority, and amongst those will be Bills by MPs who
belong to the ANC.  In fact, the permission requirement has been used not
only to stop and prevent opposition members from introducing legislation but
also to silence the voice of ANC back-benchers who are now being freed to
express their views through actual legislation.

This judgment enables all MPs to be all that which the constitution and the
electorate expects them to be and for them to do the job for which they are
empowered by the Constitution, trusted by the voters and paid by the tax
payers.  With this judgement we have opened a door.  It will be up to the
initiative, courage and foresight of other MPs to walk through it.

It is regrettable that a consolidation of this aspect our democracy had to
be achieved through a process of court litigation which had to be protracted
all the way to the Constitutional Court.  However, this having been done, we
now enjoy the benefit of a final and conclusive determination which teaches
us that the values of our democracy cannot be compromised and that they are
not, by necessity, safe when in the hands of a majority - of any majority.
This judgement proves that a single initiative can change the institutional
landscape.  It is the duty of any minorities to keep any majority in check
and balance by resorting to the courts when the values of our democracy are
not adequately protected.  We remain committed to pointing out the many
other aspects of our legislation and parliamentary practices which are not
in line with the values of our democracy and we shall do so in the hope that
the next time around we may be heard and listened to without having to
resort to litigation.  We remain committed to resorting to litigation
whenever necessary, for we would be relinquishing the duty we have as an
opposition party if we did anything different, as we hope that our opponents
may do if we ever find ourselves in the position of the majority.