EFF deputy president Floyd Shivambu failed in a court bid to overturn a parliamentary sanction docking his salary after a finding against him on alleged undisclosed payments.
The Cape Town high court ruled that the urgency Shivambu claimed was “self-created” last week.
The second legal blow came when the high court dismissed an urgent case involving Shivambu and EFF leader Julius Malema, who wanted the rescinding of their suspensions from parliament because of disruptions at last year’s state of the nation address (Sona). The suspensions prevent them from attending the Sona this week.
After the court dismissed that challenge, judge James Lekhuleni dealt with Shivambu’s individual case related to parliament’s ethics committee’s findings in 2023 that he had breached the parliamentary ethics code.
The findings stem from DA complaints against Shivambu.
In 2018, DA MP Phumzile Karlsen complained to the committee, alleging Shivambu had not disclosed benefits he received from VBS Mutual Bank via one of his brother’s companies, Sgameka Projects.
Shivambu denied any interest and payments.
In 2019, MP John Steenhuisen also laid a complaint against Shivambu. Steenhuisen cited Daily Maverick articles that implicated Shivambu in yet more payment benefits from business relations involving another of his brother’s companies, Grant Azania.
The payments were allegedly used to pay for Shivambu’s wedding. Steenhuisen reiterated the complaints by Karlsen.
The ethics committee ordered an investigation by the registrar’s office.
At the time, VBS was under provisional liquidation. The liquidator informed the committee that Shivambu received three payments in 2017, totalling about R200,000. The registrar noted the payments had not been disclosed.
In April 2023, the committee deliberated and concluded that Shivambu violated the ethics code.
However, Shivambu told Lekhuleni he was never asked about the three payments and so did not get a chance to respond.
He pointed to communications he sent in June 2023 to the registrar, outlining that he had not received any correspondence informing him of the findings. He said he was “horrified” as it was the first time he saw what the registrar and ethics committee had relied on.
He told the registrar these amounts were loans from his brother, constituting a gift he did not have to disclose. He appealed to the committee to reconsider.
However, the committee recommended to the National Assembly that he have his salary reduced by nine days as punishment. This was adopted by the National Assembly in November 2023.
Shivambu said he wanted the EFF to be able to enter the coming election without a report hanging over his head that he believed was “likely” to be set aside. Therefore, he urgently wanted it overturned.
He also argued that the decision “carries a stigma of corruption”, creating a “false” narrative “detrimental” to Shivambu and the EFF.
Parliament argued the urgency was “self-created” and, in any event, the decision by parliament to dock his salary had already been made.
Lekhuleni agreed. He pointed to Shivambu’s own communications in June 2023 and how he “took no action” in court.
He also noted an EFF media statement in October 2023 indicating its desire to challenge the findings in court. Shivambu’s lawyers soon after began engaging with parliament, requesting it to suspend processes. If parliament refused, the lawyers said, they would institute proceedings.
Parliament rejected this request but, as Lekhuleni notes, it “took two months to bring this application”. To Lekhuleni, this undermined claims of urgency.
Shivambu could have instituted proceedings “upon receipt of the [parliament’s] registrar’s rejection” of his lawyers’ requests, in October 2023, Lekhuleni ruled.
“The urgency was clearly self-created,” Lekhuleni said.
As a result, he struck the matter off the roll and dismissed it with costs.
Shivambu filed a longer, nonurgent review of the sanction at the same time as his urgent bid, but this will be heard only later this year. Until then, the sanction remains.
Parliament said it “welcomes the decision” of the high court.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.