MAZIBUKO V SISULU (MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE)

Summary of "Lindiwe Mazibuko v Maxwell Sisulu and Others

NNO"

Facts:

Lindiwe Mazibuko, the parliamentary leader of the Democratic Alliance, filed a notice
of a motion of no confidence in President Jacob Zuma on 8 November 2012 under
section 102(2) of the South African Constitution. The Speaker of the National
Assembly referred this notice to the Chief Whips’ Forum and the Programme
Committee to decide when the motion should be debated and voted on. Both
committees failed to reach a consensus, resulting in the motion not being tabled
before the Assembly. Mazibuko then approached the Western Cape High Court,
seeking an urgent order to compel the Speaker to ensure the motion was debated
and voted on by 22 November 2012. The High Court dismissed her application.
Mazibuko appealed to the Constitutional Court, arguing that the Rules of the
Assembly were inconsistent with the Constitution as they did not ensure that a
motion of no confidence would be debated and voted on as a matter of urgency.

Judgment:

The Constitutional Court, in a majority judgment, granted Mazibuko direct access but
refused her appeal with costs. The Court held that section 102(2) of the Constitution
grants any member of the Assembly the right to give notice of and have a motion of
no confidence in the President tabled and voted on within a reasonable time. This is
essential to ensure the accountability of the President and the national executive to
the Assembly, composed of democratically elected representatives. The Court found
the current Rules of the Assembly inadequate in this respect and declared them
inconsistent with section 102(2) of the Constitution and thus invalid. However, this
declaration of invalidity was suspended for six months to allow the National
Assembly to amend its Rules accordingly.

A minority judgment argued that direct access should not have been granted
because the Assembly had already started amending its Rules and that the judiciary
should not intervene in parliamentary matters except where constitutionally
mandated.

Relevance:
This case is pivotal in reinforcing the constitutional principle that the President and
the national executive must be accountable to the National Assembly. It underscores
the importance of procedural rules that ensure motions of no confidence can be
debated and voted on within a reasonable time, thus upholding democratic
accountability. The judgment mandates that parliamentary rules must align with
constitutional requirements, ensuring that any member of the Assembly can
effectively bring a motion of no confidence against the President, safeguarding the
rights of minority parties. The decision also highlights the judiciary's role in
interpreting constitutional provisions to ensure democratic processes are upheld,
while also respecting the separation of powers.