448:– approached the Constitutional Court directly, arguing that the National Assembly was constitutionally obligated to hold Zuma accountable for failing to implement the Public Protector's report. They sought an order declaring that the National Assembly had failed in this obligation. More specifically, they argued that under section 89(1) of the Constitution, which permitted the National Assembly to impeach the President "on the grounds of a serious violation of the Constitution or the law", the National Assembly was obligated to conduct an inquiry to determine whether President Zuma's conduct (in respect of the Public Protector's report, and as maligned in
520:
on a motion to impeach; instead, any impeachment motion must begin with an "investigation or some other form of an inquiry" to establish objectively whether grounds for impeachment exist. In the case of Zuma's violation of the
Constitution in respect of the Nkandla report, the National Assembly had not conducted any such investigation, so the failed motion to impeach Zuma had not complied with section 89. Moreover, the National Assembly had not at any point formulated any institutional rules for the conduct of such investigations.
47:
549:– were sufficient to enable the fulfilment of the legislature's impeachment function under section 89, and that the National Assembly had already fulfilled its obligation to hold Zuma accountable for his conduct in respect of the Nkandla report. Moreover, Zondo held that there was no basis for the Constitutional Court to order the National Assembly to carry out a section 89 impeachment process to hold Zuma accountable: as set out in
580:– a constitutionally impermissible intrusion by the Judiciary into the exclusive domain of Parliament." Froneman, in turn, wrote a separate judgment which concurred in Jafta's judgment and defended it against Mogoeng's allegation of judicial overreach; all the judges who had joined Jafta's judgment (Justices Jafta, Cameron, Kathree-Setiloane, Kollapen, Mhlantla, and Theron) concurred in Froneman's judgment.
516:. The majority granted the opposition parties' application, holding that the National Assembly had failed in two of its constitutional obligations under sections 89 and 42 of the Constitution: it had failed to make rules to regulate the section 89(1) impeachment process, and it had failed to determine whether President Zuma had committed impeachable conduct in terms of section 89(1).
561:
110:
519:
The majority's reasoning turned on its view that the
National Assembly was obliged to pre-determine what constituted "a serious violation of the Constitution or the law" for the purposes of impeachment under section 89(1). Members could not be left to interpret this provision subjectively when voting
544:
concurred. Zondo disagreed with the majority about the requirements of section 89, finding that the identification of a "serious violation of the
Constitution" was a value judgment that must be left to individual Members of Parliament rather than subject to institutional pre-determination. He
597:
said on
Twitter that it was "unacceptable" conduct. However, several legal commentators gave credence to Mogoeng's view that the majority judgment encroached on the separation of powers, and some openly criticised it as an example of the "judicialisation of politics", relying on a "strained"
588:
Mogoeng's vociferous dissent attracted media attention, especially after
Mogoeng "noticeably interrupted" Jafta's reading of the majority judgment to pass a note requesting that his own opinion should be read into the record in full. The EFF's
487:
under section 167(4)(e) of the
Constitution, insofar as it concerned an alleged failure by Parliament to fulfil its constitutional obligations. On the other legal questions, however, the court was split seven to four. Justice
830:
384:
31:
471:. Although the applicants cited President Zuma as the second respondent, no order was sought against him and he did not participate in the proceedings; the application was opposed by the
445:
838:
463:
representing the United
Democratic Movement and Congress of the People. The DA was joined as an intervening party, seeking the same relief as the applicants, and the non-profit
1004:
752:
472:
693:
546:
418:
in Zuma under section 102 of the
Constitution (including one conducted by secret ballot in the wake of the Constitutional Court's June 2017 judgment in
640:
193:
in terms of section 89(1) of the
Constitution. The National Assembly failed in this obligation and in its obligation to determine whether President
805:
778:
553:, the court had the authority to say whether the National Assembly had fulfilled its constitutional obligations but not the authority to prescribe
17:
420:
379:
289:
57:
111:
Economic
Freedom Fighters v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others; Democratic Alliance v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others
860:
614:
1009:
994:
375:
967:
400:
305:
186:
464:
370:, had found that Zuma had benefitted unduly from the upgrades, the Public Protector's remedial action was not implemented. The
666:
719:
404:
313:
182:
929:"Esoteric decision-making: Judicial responses to the judicialisation of politics, the Constitutional Court and EFF II"
545:
therefore agreed with the Speaker that existing rules of the National Assembly – such as the recourse to establish
441:
399:, the Constitutional Court held that the Public Protector's remedial action was binding and that the President and
293:
999:
509:
429:
371:
359:
297:
190:
161:
309:
415:
46:
484:
253:
328:
scandal, the case was politically sensitive, and critics held that the court's order transgressed the
928:
573:
329:
272:
475:
in her capacity as representative of the legislature. Judgment was handed down on 29 December 2017.
428:
under section 89. Each motion was defeated in the National Assembly, which was controlled by Zuma's
456:
577:
537:
948:
909:
727:
355:
940:
899:
831:"Chief Justice's dissenting voice in Zuma judgment described as 'misplaced and unfortunate'"
590:
501:
363:
321:
198:
565:
533:
367:
221:
Froneman J (Cameron, Jafta, Kathree-Setiloane, Kollapen, Mhlantla and Theron concurring)
213:
Jafta J (Cameron, Froneman, Kathree-Setiloane, Kollapen, Mhlantla and Theron concurring)
541:
497:
169:
988:
594:
529:
513:
493:
468:
165:
133:
68:
Economic Freedom Fighters and Others v Speaker of the National Assembly and Another
197:
committed impeachable conduct under section 89(1) when he failed to comply with the
968:"The Judicialisation of Politics in South Africa: A Critique of the Emerging Trend"
888:"Pushing the boundaries: judicial review of legislative procedures in South Africa"
753:"Constitutional Court rules Parliament failed to hold Zuma to account over Nkandla"
505:
285:
Economic Freedom Fighters and Others v Speaker of the National Assembly and Another
157:
114:
93:
18:
Economic Freedom Fighters and Others v Speaker of the National Assembly and Another
944:
887:
378:(DA), two opposition parties, sought legal recourse, leading in March 2016 to the
489:
425:
347:
341:
325:
301:
258:
202:
806:"Mogoeng's 'deep-seated agony and bafflement' over majority ConCourt judgment"
779:"Mogoeng's 'very serious' attack on majority judgment difficult to comprehend"
560:
460:
351:
317:
194:
153:
149:
141:
129:
952:
913:
731:
694:"Opposition parties have their day in ConCourt to pursue impeachment of Zuma"
568:
wrote that the majority judgment was "a textbook case of judicial overreach".
385:
EFF v Speaker of the National Assembly; DA v Speaker of the National Assembly
320:
had committed impeachable conduct in failing to comply with a report by the
137:
904:
641:"Parliamentary Nkandla Q&A sessions deficient‚ Mpofu tells ConCourt"
720:"Zuma impeachment calls grow after court rules on home upgrade scandal"
593:
condemned Mogoeng for "fight in full view of cameras", and EFF leader
300:
accountable for his conduct. In a majority judgment written by Justice
145:
455:
The Constitutional Court heard the matter on 5 September 2017, with
483:
The court was unanimous in holding that the matter fell within its
30:
This article is about the decision known as EFF II. For EFF I, see
32:
Economic Freedom Fighters v Speaker of the National Assembly
452:
I) constituted a "serious violation" of the Constitution.
350:, the public scandal surrounding state-funded upgrades to
572:
Mogoeng also wrote a separate dissenting judgment on the
492:
wrote for the majority with the concurrence of Justices
861:"EFF slams chief justice for interrupting fellow judge"
316:
and to use those rules to determine whether President
576:, calling the majority judgment "a textbook case of
615:"Malema heads to Concourt to seek Zuma impeachment"
532:wrote a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice
241:
233:
225:
217:
209:
175:
125:
120:
105:
100:
89:
81:
73:
63:
53:
39:
229:Zondo DCJ (Mogoeng, Madlanga and Zondi concurring)
96:; 2018 (3) BCLR 259 (CC); 2018 (2) SA 571 (CC)
8:
667:"'Why would Zuma tell the truth this time?'"
407:insofar as they had failed to implement it.
346:The matter was one of several arising from
1005:Constitutional Court of South Africa cases
189:to make rules regulating the removal of a
45:
36:
903:
296:'s constitutional obligation to hold the
559:
440:Three opposition parties – the EFF, the
606:
362:. Although a March 2014 report by the
972:South African Journal on Human Rights
933:South African Journal on Human Rights
927:Gildenhuys, Lauren (1 October 2020).
557:the National Assembly should do so.
7:
598:interpretation of the Constitution.
421:United Democratic Movement v Speaker
414:, opposition parties lodged several
290:Constitutional Court of South Africa
58:Constitutional Court of South Africa
692:Nicolson, Greg (5 September 2017).
837:. 29 December 2017. Archived from
718:Maclean, Ruth (29 December 2017).
266:Public Protector's remedial action
25:
804:Bornman, Jan (29 December 2017).
508:, as well as of Acting Justices
473:Speaker of the National Assembly
250:Accountability of the President
269:section 89 of the Constitution
1:
945:10.1080/02587203.2021.1932566
892:Constitutional Court Review
1026:
886:Gardbaum, Stephen (2019).
442:United Democratic Movement
339:
288:is a 2017 decision of the
29:
1010:Economic Freedom Fighters
995:2017 in South African law
510:Fayeeza Kathree-Setiloane
459:representing the EFF and
430:African National Congress
372:Economic Freedom Fighters
360:President of South Africa
308:to make rules regulating
246:
180:
44:
416:motions of no confidence
358:during Zuma's tenure as
312:under section 89 of the
310:presidential impeachment
304:, the court ordered the
27:South African legal case
783:The Mail & Guardian
619:The Mail & Guardian
569:
485:exclusive jurisdiction
446:Congress of the People
426:remove him from office
254:exclusive jurisdiction
115:[2016] ZACC 11
94:[2017] ZACC 47
966:Nyane, Hoolo (2020).
905:10.2989/CCR.2019.0001
563:
540:, and Acting Justice
528:Deputy Chief Justice
574:separation of powers
424:) and one motion to
380:Constitutional Court
330:separation of powers
273:separation of powers
162:Kathree-Setiloane AJ
841:on 29 December 2017
457:Tembeka Ngcukaitobi
376:Democratic Alliance
324:. Arising from the
867:. 29 December 2017
759:. 29 December 2017
673:. 6 September 2017
647:. 5 September 2017
578:judicial overreach
570:
538:Mbuyiseli Madlanga
547:ad hoc committees
479:Majority judgment
403:had breached the
401:National Assembly
356:Nkandla homestead
306:National Assembly
281:
280:
263:National Assembly
187:National Assembly
16:(Redirected from
1017:
1000:2017 in case law
980:
979:
963:
957:
956:
924:
918:
917:
907:
883:
877:
876:
874:
872:
857:
851:
850:
848:
846:
827:
821:
820:
818:
816:
801:
795:
794:
792:
790:
785:. 2 January 2018
775:
769:
768:
766:
764:
749:
743:
742:
740:
738:
715:
709:
708:
706:
704:
689:
683:
682:
680:
678:
663:
657:
656:
654:
652:
637:
631:
630:
628:
626:
611:
591:Mbuyiseni Ndlozi
502:Nonkosi Mhlantla
467:was admitted as
465:Corruption Watch
364:Public Protector
322:Public Protector
199:Public Protector
121:Court membership
77:29 December 2017
49:
37:
21:
1025:
1024:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1016:
1015:
1014:
985:
984:
983:
965:
964:
960:
926:
925:
921:
885:
884:
880:
870:
868:
859:
858:
854:
844:
842:
829:
828:
824:
814:
812:
803:
802:
798:
788:
786:
777:
776:
772:
762:
760:
751:
750:
746:
736:
734:
717:
716:
712:
702:
700:
691:
690:
686:
676:
674:
665:
664:
660:
650:
648:
639:
638:
634:
624:
622:
621:. 30 March 2017
613:
612:
608:
604:
586:
566:Mogoeng Mogoeng
534:Mogoeng Mogoeng
526:
524:Other judgments
481:
438:
410:In the wake of
382:'s judgment in
368:Thuli Madonsela
344:
338:
277:
35:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
1023:
1021:
1013:
1012:
1007:
1002:
997:
987:
986:
982:
981:
958:
939:(4): 338–361.
919:
878:
852:
822:
796:
770:
744:
710:
698:Daily Maverick
684:
658:
632:
605:
603:
600:
585:
582:
564:Chief Justice
542:Dumisani Zondi
525:
522:
498:Johan Froneman
480:
477:
437:
434:
337:
334:
279:
278:
276:
275:
270:
267:
264:
261:
256:
251:
247:
244:
243:
239:
238:
235:
231:
230:
227:
223:
222:
219:
215:
214:
211:
207:
206:
178:
177:
173:
172:
127:
126:Judges sitting
123:
122:
118:
117:
107:
106:Related action
103:
102:
98:
97:
91:
87:
86:
83:
79:
78:
75:
71:
70:
65:
64:Full case name
61:
60:
55:
51:
50:
42:
41:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1022:
1011:
1008:
1006:
1003:
1001:
998:
996:
993:
992:
990:
977:
973:
969:
962:
959:
954:
950:
946:
942:
938:
934:
930:
923:
920:
915:
911:
906:
901:
897:
893:
889:
882:
879:
866:
862:
856:
853:
840:
836:
832:
826:
823:
811:
807:
800:
797:
784:
780:
774:
771:
758:
754:
748:
745:
733:
729:
725:
721:
714:
711:
699:
695:
688:
685:
672:
668:
662:
659:
646:
642:
636:
633:
620:
616:
610:
607:
601:
599:
596:
595:Julius Malema
592:
583:
581:
579:
575:
567:
562:
558:
556:
552:
548:
543:
539:
535:
531:
530:Raymond Zondo
523:
521:
517:
515:
514:Jody Kollapen
511:
507:
503:
499:
495:
494:Edwin Cameron
491:
486:
478:
476:
474:
470:
469:amicus curiae
466:
462:
458:
453:
451:
447:
443:
435:
433:
431:
427:
423:
422:
417:
413:
408:
406:
402:
398:
394:
391:
387:
386:
381:
377:
373:
369:
365:
361:
357:
353:
349:
343:
335:
333:
331:
327:
323:
319:
315:
311:
307:
303:
299:
295:
291:
287:
286:
274:
271:
268:
265:
262:
260:
257:
255:
252:
249:
248:
245:
240:
236:
232:
228:
224:
220:
216:
212:
208:
204:
201:'s report on
200:
196:
192:
188:
185:requires the
184:
179:
176:Case opinions
174:
171:
167:
163:
159:
155:
151:
147:
143:
139:
135:
131:
128:
124:
119:
116:
113:
112:
108:
104:
99:
95:
92:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
69:
66:
62:
59:
56:
52:
48:
43:
40:EFF v Speaker
38:
33:
19:
975:
971:
961:
936:
932:
922:
895:
891:
881:
869:. Retrieved
865:Sunday Times
864:
855:
843:. Retrieved
839:the original
835:Business Day
834:
825:
813:. Retrieved
809:
799:
787:. Retrieved
782:
773:
761:. Retrieved
757:Business Day
756:
747:
735:. Retrieved
724:The Guardian
723:
713:
701:. Retrieved
697:
687:
675:. Retrieved
671:Sunday Times
670:
661:
649:. Retrieved
645:Sunday Times
644:
635:
623:. Retrieved
618:
609:
587:
571:
554:
550:
527:
518:
506:Leona Theron
482:
454:
449:
439:
419:
411:
409:
405:Constitution
396:
392:
389:
383:
345:
314:Constitution
284:
283:
282:
183:Constitution
109:
101:Case history
67:
898:(1): 1–18.
490:Chris Jafta
436:Application
348:Nkandlagate
342:Nkandlagate
326:Nkandlagate
302:Chris Jafta
259:impeachment
218:Concurrence
210:Decision by
203:Nkandlagate
166:Kollapen AJ
82:Docket nos.
989:Categories
871:28 January
845:28 January
815:28 January
789:28 January
763:28 January
737:28 January
703:28 January
677:28 January
651:28 January
625:28 January
602:References
536:, Justice
461:Dali Mpofu
444:, and the
374:(EFF) and
352:Jacob Zuma
340:See also:
336:Background
318:Jacob Zuma
294:Parliament
237:Mogoeng CJ
195:Jacob Zuma
154:Mhlantla J
150:Madlanga J
142:Froneman J
130:Mogoeng CJ
953:0258-7203
914:2073-6215
732:0261-3077
584:Reception
298:President
191:President
138:Cameron J
134:Zondo DCJ
90:Citations
85:CCT 76/17
242:Keywords
170:Zondi AJ
158:Theron J
234:Dissent
226:Dissent
146:Jafta J
74:Decided
978:: 319.
951:
912:
810:News24
730:
504:, and
395:). In
551:EFF I
412:EFF I
397:EFF I
54:Court
949:ISSN
910:ISSN
873:2024
847:2024
817:2024
791:2024
765:2024
739:2024
728:ISSN
705:2024
679:2024
653:2024
627:2024
512:and
181:The
168:and
941:doi
900:doi
555:how
450:EFF
432:.
390:EFF
354:'s
292:on
991::
976:36
974:.
970:.
947:.
937:36
935:.
931:.
908:.
894:.
890:.
863:.
833:.
808:.
781:.
755:.
726:.
722:.
696:.
669:.
643:.
617:.
500:,
496:,
366:,
332:.
164:,
160:,
156:,
152:,
148:,
144:,
140:,
136:,
132:,
955:.
943::
916:.
902::
896:9
875:.
849:.
819:.
793:.
767:.
741:.
707:.
681:.
655:.
629:.
393:I
388:(
205:.
34:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
