Synopsis:
Application concerning when and how a member of the National Assembly may initiate a motion of no confidence under section 102(2) of the Constitution and Rule 98(1) of the Rules of the National Assembly.
The majority dismissed the direct appeal and held that Rule 2(1) of the Rules of the National Assembly (Rules) does not empower the Speaker to schedule a motion of no confidence in the President if the Programme Committee (Committee) fails to arrive at a consensus on tabling the motion. In terms of Rules 187 to 190, this task rests with the Committee. Alternative application for direct access was granted. The Court declared Chapter 12 of the Rules invalid to the extent that it is inconsistent with section 102(2) of the Constitution, but suspended the declaration of invalidity for six months. The Court did not decide whether section 102(2) creates an obligation for the Assembly within the meaning of section 167(4)(e). Application by the Speaker to cross-appeal against the High Court cost order was allowed and upheld. Application by the Chief Whip to cross-appeal against the cost order was allowed, but dismissed.
A minority judgment agreed that the Speaker did not have residual power to table a motion of no confidence in the Assembly, but would not have set the matter down for lack of prospects of success and because the Assembly was already amending the Rules. The minority would have dismissed the application with costs.
Majority: Moseneke DCJ (Froneman J, Khampepe J, Nkabinde J, Skweyiya J and Van der Westhuizen J concurring).
Minority: Jafta J (Mogoeng CJ, Mhlantla AJ and Zondo J concurring).