Simon Nare
THE EFF is heading to the Constitutional Court to seek relief after losing its bid to have the removal of its members from the National Assembly by the protection services declared unconstitutional.
On Monday the Western High Court dismissed with costs the EFF’s application to have the conduct of Parliament during the 2015 and 2017 State of the Nation Address (SONA) declared unconstitutional after some members of the party were ejected for unruly behaviour.
But the Red Berets are not giving in without a fight. They had argued that the manner in which their MPs were removed was unlawful and “styled as including some gratuitous violence” in the court application.
They said in a statement on Tuesday, they are taking the matter to the Constitutional Court, charging that abuse of power should not be tolerated as this recently recurred when MPs wanted to hold President Cyril Ramaphosa accountable for the Phala Phala saga.
“This systemic misuse of power and violent repression within Parliament mirrors the broader issue of violence in South Africa
“Furthermore, a court that dismisses brutality against elected public representatives who uphold their oath of office sends a crude message to its citizens.
“This normalisation and acceptance of such brutality at the highest levels of justice and governance contribute to the pervasive culture of violence across the country,” the party said in a statement.
“The EFF aims to appeal the ruling at the Constitutional Court, as we continue to participate dynamically and determinedly to strengthen our democracy.”
The EFF challenge and court battle stems from their removal during former President Jacob Zuma’s tenure after, in both incidents, the party MPs had repeatedly ignored orders and refused to leave the house when instructed to do so by the Speaker.
The EFF at the time had declared that Zuma should not be allowed to address the nation until he pays back the money used to renovate his Nkandla homestead.
The disruptions during the SONA were followed by violent clashes between the EFF MPs and parliamentary protection services where the fighters were forcibly removed.
The court, in delivering its ruling said it noted allegations by Parliament that the party members allegedly willfully, violently and with premeditation unlawfully disrupted proceedings.
Further, Parliament alleged that the MPs refused to cooperate with officers and physically resisted any move to throw them out of the National Assembly.
“The first and second case is that they did not instruct that any members be assaulted or harmed in any way when they were being removed and took every reasonable measure to ensure that, when as a last resort, members were ejected by the parliamentary personnel to restore order, they would not be physically harmed,” read the ruling.
The court supported Parliament’s decision and ruled against the EFF’s argument that the removal was unconstitutional.
The court ruled that it was not disputed that an MP could be removed from the house if such a member refused to obey the instruction to leave, the member could be removed by the officers.
“It seems to me to be undisputed that the ejectment of the applicants was done as a last resort and was necessitated to ensure that the parliamentary proceedings could proceed without unnecessary interruptions.
“Most significantly, the applicants do not challenge the prevailing legislation or the rules. This is important because a claim for constitutional damages should not be instituted where an effective remedy exists at common law,” read the judgement.
Parliament welcomed the ruling saying the institution remained committed to enabling the institution to protect and perform its constitutional duties and will continue doing so with respect to decorum.
INSIDE POLITICS
