Constitutional Court judges ask tough questions of parties in secret ballot case
Attorneys for the UDM, EFF and IFP argued in favour of a secret ballot to be held in a pending motion of no confidence vote against President Jacob Zuma
Attorneys for the UDM, the EFF and the IFP faced a grilling on Monday as they put forward different arguments in favour of a secret ballot to be held in a pending motion of no confidence vote against President Jacob Zuma. Advocate Dali Mpofu, representing the UDM, argued that speaker Baleka Mbete was obliged to hold the vote in secret and that she had failed on that score. He also contended that the matter was not about the separation of powers, as some critics had contended. Judges questioned Mpofu on its approach to the court and whether it was not for Parliament itself to decide whether to hold the vote in secret. They asked him why the section dealing with a vote of no confidence failed to mention that the vote should be done in secret. Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga said there were only two instances in the Constitution in which a secret ballot was raised and these were when citizens voted in an election and when the president was appointed, in section 86. Advocate Tembeka Ngcukait...
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Subscribe now to unlock this article.
Support BusinessLIVE’s award-winning journalism for R129 per month (digital access only).
There’s never been a more important time to support independent journalism in SA. Our subscription packages now offer an ad-free experience for readers.
Cancel anytime.
Questions? Email helpdesk@businesslive.co.za or call 0860 52 52 00. Got a subscription voucher? Redeem it now.