THE Western Cape High Court has struck from the roll an urgent application by the African Transformation Movement (ATM) seeking to ensure that Wednesday’s motion of no confidence in President Cyril Ramaphosa is conducted through a secret ballot.
The party wanted to obtain an interdict against the decision but the high court found that the ATM created the urgency itself.
Judge Rosheni Allie said the party could have approached the court much earlier. Allie then struck the matter from the roll with costs, including the cost of two counsel.
The motion of no confidence is set to be tabled on Wednesday and will be followed by a motion of no confidence tabled by the Democratic Alliance (DA) in Ramaphosa’s entire Cabinet.
After losing the court bid, ATM leader Vuyo Zungula wrote a letter to the National Assembly Speaker Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula and said he would look at the other options.
“The high court did not deal with the merits of the ATM’s review application. The ATM will seek to have the review application heard and determined on an expedited basis, and is confident of its success in the review,”said Zungula.
He said the ATM was of the opinion an open vote would be unlawful, therefore it was appropriate to delay “so that the lawfulness of the speaker’s open vote decision can be determined by the high court.”
However, Parliament’s spokesperson Moloto Mothapo said the National Assembly Speaker has no obligation to conduct a motion of no confidence in the president through a secret ballot.
“During today’s court proceedings, the Speaker argued that the ATM was aware of her decision not to accede to its request to hold the vote in the motion of no confidence in the President utilising secret ballot since 16 February 2022,” said Mothapo.
“She contended that the ATM had sufficient time to approach the courts from when that decision was communicated to it. Instead, it elected to ask the speaker to review her own decision and only approached the court more than three weeks after the decision was communicated to it.”
“The speaker also disagreed with the ATM’s contention that her refusal to ‘review’ her decision amounts to a fresh decision entitled to be reviewed by the court as it affects the earlier decision of 16 February 2022.”
- Inside Politics
