/ MEDIA STATEMENT / 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.

The Western Cape High Court has dismissed the application from the African Transformation Movement (ATM) to review and set aside the decision of the Speaker of the National Assembly (NA) to decline its request for a secret ballot on the vote on its motion of no confidence in President Cyril Ramaphosa.
 
In its judgment today, the court found that the Speaker’s decision not to hold a secret ballot was based on sound reasons – not illegitimate motives and considerations, as the ATM claimed. She also had provided the ATM with her reasons for an open ballot and for declining their application for a secret ballot. Her decision was, therefore, unimpeachable.
 
The Court ordered the ATM to pay costs.
 
For today’s judgment from the Western Cape High Court, please click https://tinyurl.com/3ndvbre8
 
In her affidavit, the Speaker had said that the ATM’s case lacked merit because it failed to provide sufficient reasons why the secret ballot was appropriate in the prevailing circumstances. The Speaker had also maintained that, in the absence of compelling reasons for a secret ballot, the default position of openness and transparency in the conduct of the business of Parliament should prevail.
 
The case was not about whether a motion of no confidence can be held by secret ballot. The Constitutional Court had already decided on that and that the discretion on which method of vote (secret or open ballot) should be employed rests with the Speaker.
 
Instead, the ATM’s case turned on whether the Speaker lawfully exercised her discretion to hold an open ballot on the special circumstances of the ATM’s motion of no confidence in the President. The ATM failed to establish that the Speaker did not exercise her discretion lawfully.
 
The ATM submitted a defective motion of no confidence, which was only made compliant after the Speaker’s assistance. After considering the resubmitted motion, the Speaker made her decision that voting on the motion would be by open ballot.
 
She based this on, among other things, that NA Members swear an oath to the Constitution and that the Constitution requires the NA to conduct its business in an open manner. This was particularly because the ATM had failed to provide evidence to justify its request for a secret ballot.
 
Merely because the ATM disagreed with the Speaker’s decision did not make the decision unlawful. This was especially so where a potential consequence would be for the Court to direct the Speaker on how to conduct the affairs of the NA.
 

Issued by the Parliamentary of South Africa