Malema Has Won His Apology Hearings Against The Parliament
Julius Malema, the leader of the EFF, has won the first round of his recent court dispute against parliament, with the high court in Cape Town suspending a sanction against him until the process that led to the sanction is investigated.
Malema had until Monday to apologise to the National Assembly, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), and judge Keoagile Elias Matojane for his question about himself during the JSC interview process.
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE: Three Housemates Dismissed From BBMzansi
“The first to the fourth respondents are interdicted from implementing the sanction contained in the report of the ethics committee pending the outcome of the review application,” said acting judge Nolundi Nyati.
The court ordered Malema to file his intended review application within 20 days of the order’s date.
The first, second, third, and fourth respondents were ordered to pay the costs of Malema’s application jointly and severally, with the one paying the other absolved.
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE: Suspected IT Specialist Shot Dead After Defrauding Absa Of R103 Million
Malema filed an urgent application with the high court last week to suspend the implementation of the order that he should apologise, and that he not be found in contempt if he does not issue an apology by Monday.
He stated that he will appeal the report of parliament’s joint committee on ethics and members’ interests, which found that he violated the MPs’ ethics code during his questioning of Matojane during the JSC interviews in April last year.
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE: Zodwa Wabantu Flees For Life After Nasty Fight With Her Ben 10
The ethics committee determined that Malema should not have questioned the judge about a personal matter involving him and his party, namely a defamation lawsuit filed against the EFF by former finance minister Trevor Manuel.
Malema stated in his affidavit to the high court that he believed the ethics committee’s findings were incorrect and that if he is bound by the committee’s findings, his rights will be severely and unjustly prejudiced.
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE: ANC Advises Against Taking Sides In The Russia-Ukraine War
He said, “The reason an interdict is necessary to protect my rights is because if I comply with the report, any further rights I would have had in respect of the review [regardless of its merits] would be pre-empted.”
“Furthermore, my failure to comply with the report [absent an interdict] also subjects me to a greater risk of punitive sanction by parliament itself [being found in contempt].
“The possible sanction includes my suspension from parliament for up to a month, including being deprived of my salary.”
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE: Tragic!! North West Collision Claims Seventeen Family Members
In response, Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula, the speaker of the National Assembly, stated that the urgency was self-created. She argued that Malema’s application was not urgent because he had been aware of a complaint about his conduct at the JSC hearings since May 2021.
She said, “Yet, the applicant did not take issue with the competence of parliament to investigate the matter.”
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE: Top Official Arrested Over R21m In PPE Corruption
Mapisa-Nqakula also argued that parliament has the expertise and power to investigate the complaint against Malema and rule on it in accordance with the Code of Ethical Conduct and Disclosure of Members’ Interests for Assembly and Permanent Council Members, because Malema is a member of the National Assembly and is designated as such by the assembly.
“It follows that if the applicant had not been a member of the National Assembly, he would not have been designated to serve on the JSC and would not so serve.”
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE: Woman Catches Hubby Red-Handed, Raping Their Teenage Daughter
Malema, according to Mapisa-Nqakula, remained bound by the assembly’s code while serving on the JSC.
The code’s ethical duties do not exclude an MP’s conduct, and the code applies to all members regardless of where their conduct occurs or the other capacity in which it occurs.
She claimed that the National Assembly was enforcing its own rules against its own members.
