The EFF has been chastened by a full bench of the high court in another of its urgent applications to lift parliamentary suspensions that was dismissed last week.
The court warned of encroaching on parliament’s authority and noted the EFF members “have [not] made out a strong and clear case ... against parliament”.
A unanimous full bench dismissed the application last Thursday just before Sona 2024, with the court expressing its “displeasure”.
This marks the second time a similar EFF challenge has been dismissed by a full bench of the same court. The court dismissed the earlier case, as a result of various failures to comply with procedures, undermining the alleged urgency of the matter.
The suspensions follow a finding by parliament’s powers and privileges committee that six EFF members were in contempt of parliament for their actions at Sona in February 2023.
During that address by President Cyril Ramaphosa, the six members of the EFF disrupted proceedings in a way that other MPs viewed as against the dignity and decorum of the National Assembly.
That eventually led to disciplinary proceedings and the findings that led to sanctioning.
As parliament told the court, the suspension sanctions were to run during February 2024 specifically, to ensure the disruptions would not repeat themselves.
In response, the EFF members launched their initial application on December 20 2023, but by then the courts and parliament were closed for the festive holidays. Various other issues arose, compounded by the festive season.
The EFF tried to bring the matter urgently when courts resumed in 2024. But deadlines were missed that had been made an order of court, leading to parliament arguing it could not properly respond to the EFF’s case due to time pressure.
The previous full bench said it would be forced to read more than 1,000 pages over a weekend and make a quick ruling, which was almost impossible.
It dismissed the case, noting the urgency had been “self-created” by the EFF applicants.
Last week, as noted by judge Mark Sher, writing for new full bench, issues have repeated themselves.
“As was the case with the first court,” Sher wrote, “expecting a second full court to force reams of paper down its throat over a weekend (before the hearing) and to digest the contents thereof so that the matter could be heard and judgment handed down in the space of a day or two thereafter, was ... wholly unreasonable.”
He noted that the EFF had “forced an impossibly tight schedule and timeline” on everyone, including the court, and it was the EFF who “were the source and cause of why it had become so urgent”.
Sher noted that the EFF had also not made out a case for a right that required urgent protection. He noted that asking a court to temporarily restrain state power, in this case parliament’s power to sanction, can be done only in the “clearest” of cases due to encroaching on parliament’s authority. That was not what he found here.
The EFF “did not identify any constitutional or other prima facie right (at least not by name) which required protection”, Sher said. Though the EFF argued if the court does not assist them, they would be “punished by a process they could never undo”, this did not persuade the judges.
The EFF applicants argued that being banned during February 2024 and during Sona 2024, just before the elections, means they lose out on “occasions (that) would probably be the last time that the president addressed parliament and could be held accountable before the election”.
However, as parliament noted, “the six applicants only represent about 14% of (of the EFF’s) MPs, as it has 44 elected representatives in parliament”. The court pointed to statements by the EFF itself that indicated its remaining members would represent the EFF’s interests during the period of suspension. There would no “irreparable harm” that warranted court protection.
Sher, therefore, ruled “this is not an instance where the applicants have made out a strong and clear case for the grant of a temporary restraining order against parliament”.
He dismissed it with punitive costs, ruling it “a matter that was not only an abuse of process but also hopeless”.
Malema and the five others did not attend Sona on Thursday evening.
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.