Lilita Gcwabe | Published 1 hour ago
Parliament’s National Assembly Rules Committee has held off on adopting a disputed "fit and proper" requirement for MPs serving on a presidential Impeachment Committee, after political parties clashed over whether such a rule would be constitutional.
The issue was debated during the Rules Committee meeting on Friday, as Parliament continues to process rule amendments linked to Section 89 impeachment proceedings.
The latest discussion focused on whether MPs nominated to serve on the Impeachment Committee should be subjected to a heightened suitability test before taking up their seats.
The Subcommittee on the Review of Assembly Rules had considered legal advice and proposals on possible procedural reforms after the Constitutional Court judgment revived the Phala Phala impeachment process against President Cyril Ramaphosa.
According to the report presented to the Rules Committee, the subcommittee met on May 21 and June 4 to deliberate on legal advice, proposals, and political party submissions. The revised proposals were then submitted to the Rules Committee on June 10.
Three issues were referred back to the subcommittee for further clarification. These included the meaning of "fit and proper" in the context of parliamentarians, whether the proposed amendments would apply retrospectively, and how to interpret the requirement that a charge must relate to an action or conduct performed by the president "in person".
The subcommittee met again on June 17 to consider further legal advice on these questions.
Parliament’s legal advice found that the proposed amendments to the Section 89 rules, including the proposed amendment dealing with Impeachment Committee membership, would not apply retrospectively.
The advice also found that conduct performed by the president "in person" meant the president himself must have performed the conduct, but could also include an instruction given by the president to another person if that instruction itself constituted a serious violation of the Constitution or the law, or serious misconduct.
On the "fit and proper" requirement, Parliament’s legal team proposed that an MP serving on the Impeachment Committee should have the capacity to perform the functions of the committee and the character to match the importance of those functions.
The legal team said the purpose of such a requirement would be to promote public confidence in the capacity, capability, and integrity of members of the Impeachment Committee, as well as public acceptance of the committee’s work and outcomes.
However, the proposal was opposed by the MK Party and the EFF.
The MK Party argued that Section 47 of the Constitution already sets out who may serve as a member of the National Assembly and does not include a "fit and proper" requirement for elected representatives.
The party warned that Parliament could not use its rules to create new qualifications or disqualifications for MPs beyond those already contained in the Constitution.
"Members of Parliament derive their legitimacy from the electorate, not from an appointing authority exercising discretion," the MK Party submitted during the meeting.
The EFF supported the MK Party’s position and argued that the proposed amendment was premature and could become an unnecessary distraction from the work of the Impeachment Committee.
DA MPs pushed back, arguing that eligibility to serve as an MP did not automatically settle whether a member was suitable to sit on a specialised committee dealing with impeachment.
The DA argued that an Impeachment Committee was an exceptional structure and that it was rational to require a higher standard from members serving on it.
National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza, who chaired the meeting, raised concerns about how the "fit and proper" test would be applied in practice.
Didiza said the principle was important, but questions remained about who would determine whether an MP met the requirement, what would happen if political parties disagreed, and what dispute resolution mechanism would apply.
She also noted that if parties were responsible for submitting names, the process could remain subjective unless the rules clearly set out who would act as the final arbiter.
Didiza proposed that the disputed "fit and proper" requirement should not be included in the current amendments being taken forward, and that only amendments flowing directly from the Constitutional Court judgment should proceed.
She said the issue should be referred back for wider engagement, including with parties not represented on the subcommittee, and for further research into how other jurisdictions deal with similar requirements in legislatures.
The DA objected to the delay, arguing that the subcommittee had already supported the inclusion of the requirement and that the matter should not be kept on the back burner indefinitely.
The debate comes as the Impeachment Committee dealing with the Phala Phala matter continues i…
Read the full article at IOL (Independent Online) →
ZA