Jacob Zuma’s uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party has successfully defended its decision to axe 10 MPs, with the Western Cape High Court finding that their court papers omitted important factual issues.
The 10 MPs turned to court in their bid to be reinstated and stop the filling in of their positions by the National Assembly.
Their move came after they were notified by National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza last month that the party’s chief whip Sihle Ngubane informed her that their membership was terminated and all internal processes were exhausted.
Their application, one to stop the filling of their parliamentary seats pending the consideration of the application to review and set aside the termination of their membership to the party and the National Assembly, was heard by the Western Cape High Court last week.
The MK Party opposed the application by filing an affidavit by Zuma while Didiza filed a notice to abide by the outcome of the application. In her judgment delivered on Tuesday,
Judge Katharine Savage said the papers of the axed parliamentarians, including the founding affidavit by Thamsanqa Khuzwayo, lacked in a number of respects.
“Important factual issues are omitted from the founding affidavit, with an attempt to make out the applicants’ case by reference to an annexure to the founding affidavit. The affidavit is silent in a number of significant respects, failing to state that the applicants were members of the MK Party or that their membership was terminated, when the applicants were sworn in as Members of Parliament and when, or if, they have been removed as such,” she said.
“The result is that the key averments relating to the relief sought have not been placed before the court by the applicants. In addition, the constitution of the MK Party, which Mr Khuzwayo contended was attached as an annexure to his founding affidavit, was not attached,” Judge Savage said.
She also said confirmatory affidavits of eight of the applicants were placed in court on the date of hearing without the leave of the court sought to introduce them at such late stage.
Judge Savage said there were certain factual issues in the affidavits, which the MK party was given no opportunity to respond to.
“Furthermore, no replying affidavit was filed, which left all of the factual issues detailed in Mr Zuma’s answering affidavit unchallenged by the applicants.”
She also said the applicants contended that they hold a prima facie right to the relief sought based on the review application and their constitutional rights without pleading any factual basis to support the claim.
“The applicants fail to show the existence of a prima facie right to the relief sought.”
Despite the concerning picture Zuma painted in how the MK Party operated and made decisions involving its members, Judge Savage said it remained for the applicants to show that the prerequisites for the interim relief sought by them had been met.
“An interim interdict is not to be granted by a court simply on the asking.
“Even if regard is had to the version of events advanced by Mr Zuma, the applicants have failed to show the existence of a prima facie right worthy of protection.”
The MK Party welcomed the court outcome, with spokesperson Nhlamulo Ndhlela saying they never intended the internal matter to enter the public domain as the axed members were formally informed not to be sworn in as MPs.
Ndhela said the former members had proceeded with the swearing in and were subsequently informed that their presence in Parliament would be temporary.
Khuzwayo a spokesperson for the axed MPs, said: “I can’t comment now because the matter is sub judice. I can only comment when I have advice from my attorney.”
Cape Times