The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) says it welcomes the judgement of the Western Cape High Court sitting in Cape Town in its ruling against Parliament in the sanctions it made against the party leader Julius Malema.
Last year, Parliament’s Joint Committee on Ethics and Members Interests resolved to sanction Malema after it found that he used the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) interview processes as a platform for his personal interests.
This is after he had questioned Judge Elias Matojane about the R500 000 defamation order he made against the EFF in favour of former Finance Minister Trevor Manuel.
Malema launched an urgent court interdict for the stay of the Parliament’s sanction.
“Judge, I was reluctant to ask you about this case because somehow I am involved, but we will deal with it at a high level. The issue of Manuel versus the EFF quantum which was upheld by the Supreme Court of Appeal in part and the quantum was refereed back to oral evidence. How did you arrive that it was appropriate for you to award R500 000 without any of the parties giving any oral evidence? I know that Manuel is now appealing to the Constitutional Court, but the Supreme Court of Appeal has referred that matter back to you and said there must be oral evidence led so that whatever figure you arrived at, should be on the basis of that evidence that should have been led in that level. Thank you.”
It was this question by Malema directed to Judge Elias Matojane that set in motion the contention by Parliament that Malema misused the JSC interviewing process for personal gains.
But Judge Matojane had this to say in answering the question.
“You know, Mark Twain said nothing spoils the good story than the arrival of an eye witness. This matter is pending for the Concourt and I don’t think that the Chief Justice is interested in my views. So, my simple answer to you Mr. Malema is that I cannot second guess, that is going to be made by the Constitutional Court. The matter is now out of my hands. I said what I have to say and the SCA has partially upheld me like you said. The SCA said the matter must go for oral evidence. We don’t know what the Chief Justice is going to say.”
EFF’s arguments at the Supreme Court of Appeal:
Parliament not happy manner in which the matter was handled
In its response, Parliament says while it respects the judgment, it is not happy with how the matter was held.
Spokesperson Moloto Motapo says the institution plans to seek other platforms to voice its dissatisfaction.
“As much as Parliament respects the order of the court and it will abide by it, it is concerned about the manner in which this matter was conducted, and it is seriously exploring available avenues to deal with its concerns.”
EFF satisfied with ruling
However, the EFF has expressed its satisfaction with the decision.
“It is the EFF’s firm belief that the role of the duly elected politicians who are Members of Parliament serving in the Judicial Service Commission is sacrosanct and must be protected. Those elected leaders represent the aspirations and the will of our society to ensure that our judiciary system is in touch with the material realities of society and the political contradictions. So, to undermine their posture in interviewing is to actively strafe democracy and that’s exactly what the ethics committee has attempted to do. So, we welcome the ruling by the Western Cape High Court to suspend the sanction,” says National Spokesperson Sinawo Thambo.
