EFF top brass lose bid to oppose parliament’s rules

Senior EFF members, including Julius Malema and Floyd Shivambu, lost their high court challenge of parliament’s rules of suspension, after it suspended them for “disruptive behaviour” during the 2023 state of the nation address (Sona).

The EFF members’ suspension prevented them from attending 2024’ saddress.

A full bench of the Western Cape High Court ruled the EFF members’ legal objections “stand to be dismissed”. The EFF also lost earlier court bids to attend 2024’s Sona.

The EFF is still deciding if it will appeal, which it can do only at the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) or Constitutional Court.

In 2023 EFF members repeatedly interrupted President Cyril Ramaphosa’s address with points of order and had to be forcibly removed when they stormed the stage.

Malema and Shivambu as well as Marshall Dlamini, Sinawo Tambo, Vuyani Pambo and Mbuyiseni Ndlozi were found guilty of contempt of parliament by parliament’s powers and privileges committee. Their sanction by the National Assembly included their suspension from parliamentary activities for the month of February 2024, during which time the Sona was held.

In February, they urgently asked the Western Cape high court to effectively overturn their suspension so they could attend. On the morning of the February address, the court dismissed their application.

“All EFF MPs will not participate in the 2024 Sona activities and programme,” the EFF said in a statement after the February judgment, calling Sona activities “undemocratic and unconstitutional”.

With the urgent bids dismissed, the EFF members persisted in their challenge against the committee’s suspension sanction. The investigation process was not “conducted by an independent and impartial decisionmaker”, they argued. It was conducted by a committee of “political opponents”, the EFF claimed, so the process was biased against them.

The EFF members argued the related laws and regulations failed “to provide sufficient guidelines” when deciding sanctions and was unconstitutional.

However, the full bench dismissed their challenge.

Writing for a unanimous court, judge Dennis Davis said the argument that the privileges committee required an independent decisionmaker “never got out of the legal starting blocks”. Nowhere in the law or the committee’s rules does it allow for “delegation” of its functions to others. The committee itself must investigate.

The EFF members argued that the lack of legal guidelines for imposing sanctions has the potential for abuse by political opponents. Davis, however, said parliament legally “has significant powers and thus discretion ... in respect of the severity of the appropriate sanction”.

None of the other lesser sanctions “were sufficient” given the “grossly disorderly conduct” found by the committee.

Davis noted the EFF members chose not to attend the only committee hearing to give their side, after Malema called it “a kangaroo court”.

Davis dismissed the case, but made no costs order due to the EFF making out a proper case that raised important constitutional questions.

Speaking to Business Day, the EFF indicated it was still “reviewing” the judgment and “will decide on the next steps”.

DAVIS MADE NO COSTS ORDER BECAUSE THE CASE RAISED IMPORTANT CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS