Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Mogoeng demands quick response to no-confidence debate

27 NOV 2012 10:36 - SAPA

Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng has requested an answer on the urgency of debating a motion of no confidence in Jacob Zuma before December 7. OUR COVERAGE Conspiracy theories mobilise people to see Zuma as victim Nkandla: Documents call Zuma's bluff MORE COVERAGE Mmemezi accused of buying votes for Zuma Zuma and Mantashe go uncontested at KZN nominations KZN throws its weight behind Zuma to serve second term Nomura calls Mangaung for Zuma Mogoeng issued the order on Monday to speaker Max Sisulu and Mathole Motshekga, the ANC's chief whip, Beeld reported on Tuesday.

This follows Democratic Alliance parliamentary leader Lindiwe Mazibuko's "extremely urgent appeal request", which was submitted to Mogoeng, concerning the no-confidence debate. Judge Dennis Davis ruled in the Cape High Court last week that it was any MP's right to request a no confidence debate, and that such requests were "by their very nature" urgent.
But, because the rules of the National Assembly did not make provision for no confidence debates, Davis could not tell Sisulu when and where the debate should be heard. Motshekga said, amongst other things last week, that the debate was "trivial" and that Parliament had more important things to do. In a statement handed to Mogoeng on Monday, Mazibuko said that Motshekga's attitude was unconstitutional.
"A debate about a vote of no confidence has to be accorded priority over any other parliamentary work – this is international standard practice." She asked the Constitutional Court to order Sisulu to schedule the debate to be heard no later than December 7, saying she regarded the matter as extremely urgent, because eight opposition parties representing approximately 33% of the country's voters supported the vote of no confidence. – Sapa Mail & Guardian

COMMENTS BY SONNY This is why we should keep politics out of the Judiciary. Zuma appointee pushing buttons here? Outcome will determine political intimidation?

No comments:

Post a Comment