Parliament to get to work on amending Constitution following high court order barring John Hlophe from serving on JSC
Besides a submission made to the Constitutional Review Committee by the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution (CASAC), the DA says a bill to this effect is already in the pipeline.
ALSO READ:
The party's justice spokesperson, Glynnis Breytenbach, said it's important to tighten the law to prevent impeached individuals from making a return in other spheres of government.
The National Assembly speaker is yet to announce the next steps in filling the vacancy on the judicial service commission.
The seat belongs to the MK party, which plans to appeal a ruling preventing its parliamentary leader, John Hlophe from serving on the body.
CASAC wants Parliament's Constitutional Review Committee to consider amending sections 177 and 194 to specify that any person removed from judicial office or a Chapter 9 institution may not hold any other public office.
Breytenbach, co-chair of the committee, said a Private Member's Bill has already been prepared and is with Parliament's legal drafters.
"I think it's very important that Parliament is populated with MPs who are ethical, honest, reliable and have integrity, so the sooner we can prevent bad eggs like John Hlophe and Busisiwe Mkhwebane coming to Parliament, the better."
The Western Cape High Court said in a judgment last week that the National Assembly had not acted rationally nor constitutionally when it rubberstamped the MK Party's nomination for the JSC.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Citizen
13 hours ago
- The Citizen
What do you think of Malema's Bill to nationalise the Reserve Bank?
If the South African Reserve Bank Amendment Bill is passed in parliament, there will be no more checks and balances. Parliament wants to know what you think of Julius Malema's Bill aimed at nationalising the South African Reserve Bank. Malema tabled the South African Reserve Bank Amendment Bill in parliament in 2018 and published for comment at the end of May 2018. However, it lapsed at the end of the fifth parliament, but the National Assembly revived it in October 2019. According to Cabinet, the Bill also lapsed at the end of the sixth parliament but was revived by the National Assembly in July 2024. In September last year, the standing committee on finance resolved to open the Bill to another round of public comment. The South African Reserve Bank Amendment Bill seeks to establish the state as the sole shareholder of the Reserve Bank's shares, while the minister of finance will exercise the rights attached to the shares in the bank the state owns. ALSO READ: The ANC's war about nationalising the Reserve Bank is pointless Aims of the South African Reserve Bank Amendment Bill The South African Reserve Bank Amendment Bill also aims to amend the South African Reserve Bank Act to: delete certain definitions; insert a definition; provide for the minister to appoint certain board directors; provide for the tenure of appointed directors; deal with the filling of casual vacancies for appointed directors; repeal certain sections of the Act; give the minister the power to appoint auditors of the Reserve Bank; give the minister the power to make regulations regarding the appointment of appointed directors; and provide for related matters. ALSO READ: Why the Reserve Bank should not be nationalised Free SA already had its say The organisation Free SA already made a formal submission to parliament, expressing its strong opposition to the South African Reserve Bank Amendment Bill, warning that the proposed nationalisation of the central bank threatens the country's economic stability, institutional independence and international credibility. While the Amendment Bill does not alter the Reserve Bank's constitutional mandate to protect the value of the rand, Free SA cautions that it will undermine the very independence that makes this mandate effective. 'An independent central bank is the cornerstone of any credible economic system. Handing full control of the Reserve Bank to political authorities opens the door to fiscal dominance, inflationary pressure and potentially disastrous economic mismanagement,' Reuben Coetzer, spokesperson of Free SA, says. He points out that Free SA's submission details the economic, legal, institutional and reputational risks of centralising the Reserve Bank's governance in the executive. Drawing on examples from Zimbabwe and Venezuela, he says the submission illustrates how loss of central bank independence historically led to hyperinflation, currency collapse and widespread poverty. ALSO READ: The slow nationalisation of the South African Reserve Bank Specific dangers in South African Reserve Bank Amendment Bill The submission highlights these specific dangers in the South African Reserve Bank Amendment Bill: Inflation risk: politicised monetary policy could lead to the Reserve Bank financing government deficits, weakening the rand and driving up inflation; Governance concerns: transferring all shareholder powers to the minister of finance eliminates external oversight and invites politicisation of appointments; Legal ambiguity: while technically constitutional, the Bill may undermine the spirit of section 224 of the Constitution, which demands independence 'without fear, favour or prejudice'; Investor flight: market confidence in South Africa's monetary policy regime could erode, resulting in capital outflows and higher borrowing costs. 'Symbolic ownership should not come at the cost of real economic harm. The Reserve Bank is one of South Africa's most respected institutions. Undermining its independence, whether deliberately or by accident, will hurt ordinary South Africans most, especially the poor who suffer first and worst from inflation.' Coetzer says Free SA calls on all members of parliament to reject the Amendment Bill and to uphold the constitutional and economic safeguards that protect South Africa's monetary integrity. 'Reform should focus on strengthening accountability and transparency within the Reserve Bank, not eroding the institutional checks that preserved macroeconomic stability through some of the country's most turbulent years.'
IOL News
21 hours ago
- IOL News
Power must be exercised responsibly and rationally
The recent decision by President Cyril Ramaphosa to dismiss Andrew Whitfield, Deputy Minister of Trade and Industry, has plunged South Africa into a new political quagmire, threatening the stability of the Government of National Unity (GNU). Image: Supplied The leadership of our country continues to repeat past mistakes, undermining effective governance. The recent decision by President Cyril Ramaphosa to dismiss the Deputy Minister of Trade and Industry has plunged South Africa into a new political quagmire, threatening the stability of the Government of National Unity (GNU). This action, taken without adequate consultation or transparency, reflects a troubling disregard for the principles of responsible and rational governance enshrined in our Constitution. The GNU, formed to foster cooperative governance among diverse political parties, relies on consultation, transparency, and trust to function effectively. However, as Democratic Alliance (DA) leader John Steenhuisen explained in Parliament on June 26, 2025, the President's decision to remove the Deputy Minister was made unilaterally, bypassing key GNU partners. Steenhuisen highlighted that the dismissal was announced abruptly, with no prior discussion with coalition members, and appeared motivated by political posturing rather than substantive policy disagreements. This approach, which Steenhuisen described as prioritising 'cheap politicking' over coalition unity, undermines the collaborative spirit of the GNU and risks destabilising its complex arrangements. Comparing this situation to the leadership styles of Nelson Mandela and Thabo Mbeki is misguided and reveals a lack of historical perspective. During Mandela's presidency (19941999), executive decisions were often marked by inclusive dialogue, even amidst ideological differences, to build national unity. Similarly, Mbeki's administration (1999–2008) emphasised consultation within the African National Congress (ANC) and its allies to maintain stability. In contrast, the current dismissal reflects a unilateral exercise of power, ignoring the consultative ethos of the GNU framework. Such a comparison is not only naive but also ignores the unique challenges of governing under a coalition arrangement, where trust is paramount. The President's constitutional authority to appoint and dismiss members of the Executive, as outlined in Section 91 of the Constitution, is undisputed. However, the issue lies in how this power is exercised. The Constitutional Court, in Masetlha v. President (2008), emphasised that the principle of legality requires both the outcome and the process of executive decisions to be rational. Rationality demands valid, reasoned justifications and a transparent process. In this case, the President's failure to consult GNU partners or provide a clear rationale for the dismissal falls short of this standard. Steenhuisen's remarks in Parliament revealed that the decision was presented as a fait accompli, with no explanation of the Deputy Minister's alleged shortcomings or how the dismissal served the public interest. This opacity violates Section 1(d) of the Constitution, which mandates openness and accountability in governance. The handling of this dismissal has been both irresponsible and inept, eroding public trust and coalition cohesion. For instance, the lack of consultation with GNU partners, such as the DA, not only alienated key stakeholders but also fueled perceptions of arrogance in the presidency. A rational process would have involved prior discussions with coalition leaders, a clear articulation of the reasons for the dismissal (e.g., performance issues or policy misalignment), and an opportunity for dialogue to mitigate political fallout. Instead, the decision appears driven by short-term political expediency, risking long-term damage to the GNU's credibility and functionality. To prevent such missteps, the President must adhere to the constitutional principles of rationality and accountability. This requires transparent decision-making processes, meaningful consultation with coalition partners, and clear communication of the reasons behind executive actions. Failure to do so not only undermines the GNU but also sets a dangerous precedent for arbitrary governance. In conclusion, the dismissal of the Deputy Minister of Trade and Industry reflects a troubling disregard for the principles of responsible and rational governance. By acting unilaterally and opaquely, the President has weakened the GNU's foundation and eroded public trust. To restore confidence, future executive decisions must prioritise consultation, transparency, and reasoned justifications, as demanded by our Constitution and the lessons of past leadership. South Africa deserves governance that upholds its democratic values and fosters unity, not division. Pakes Dikgetsi, Acting National Chairperson of COPE
IOL News
2 days ago
- IOL News
Tshwane's cleansing charge set to begin amid legal challenges
The City of Tshwane's disputed cleansing charge is slated to kick in on July 1, 2025, despite AfriForum's ongoing legal challenge against it. Image: Helenus Kruger / City of Tshwane The City of Tshwane's contentious cleansing charge is set to take effect on July 1, 2025, in the face of AfriForum's ongoing legal challenge against it. Member of the Mayoral Committee for Environment and Agriculture Management, Obakeng Ramabodu, confirmed that the City's cleaning charge will proceed, saying it will enable the City to provide and enhance waste management services for all residents. The new levy targets gated communities and shopping malls that do not have existing city waste accounts but use private waste collection services, charging a monthly tariff of R194. AfriForum slammed the City of Tshwane's proposed cleansing levy, deeming it unlawful due to double taxation and claiming it would further burden residents. The DA in Tshwane has also voiced opposition to the proposed levy, labelling it as just another tax burden on the city's residents who are already overtaxed. Ramabodu said: 'Municipalities in South Africa provide essential public services, including refuse removal, street cleaning, and urban hygiene, typically funded through tariffs charged to residents and businesses. One such charge is the City cleansing charge.' He clarified that the levy covers the costs of waste-related services, including collecting, transporting, and disposing of litter and refuse from public areas. 'The City of Tshwane cleansing charge as approved by Council will come into effect on July 1, 2025. The charge will assist the City to provide and improve waste management services to all residents in the City,' he said. According to him, the City has a constitutional mandate under Section 156(1)(a) and Schedule 4 Part B of the South African Constitution to manage functions like cleansing and waste removal. He acknowledged that some civil organizations, such as AfriForum, have expressed disapproval and taken legal action against the City's cleansing charge by approaching the North Gauteng High Court to have it overturned. Ramabodu said the stance by AfriForum is regrettable and inexcusable. He added that the City remains committed to its mandate of providing quality services to all residents and businesses, as required by the Constitution. 'In this context, the primary purpose of the city cleansing charge is to drive environmental objectives in line with environmental Legislation and the provision made by section 74 (2) (h) of Municipal System Act – and further ensure that the residents of Tshwane do benefit and live in a clean city,' he said. Ramabodu explained that certain areas, like Wonderpark Estate and shopping centers such as Menlyn Mall, are being targeted because they have multiple bins but only pay for one, despite disposing of waste at city landfills through private waste collection services. Deidré Steffens, AfriForum's local government affairs advisor, said AfriForum had done everything possible to avoid a legal dispute from the start. 'We approached the metro shortly after the council announced the plans for the levy in March this year and stressed that implementing it would result in an unfair double tax,' he said. [email protected]
