DOCUMENTS
Kebby Maphatsoe's letter of complaint to Ace Magashule
Kebby Maphatsoe |
26 March 2021
MKMVA President deeply disappointed by ANC caucus' decision to vote in favour of DA motion on the PP
The Secretary General of the African National Congress Comrade Ace Magashule The SGO, Luthuli House, 6th Floor
54 Pixley Ka Isaka Seme St, Johannesburg, 2001
Care of: Comrade Pule Maseko
Comrade Chris Ackeer
Friday, 26 March 2021
Dear comrade Secretary General,
-->
RE: MKMVA DISAPPOINTED THAT THE ANC VOTED IN SUPPORT OF A DA MOTION AND REQUESTS THE ANC NEC TO DISCUSS IT
The Umkhonto we Sizwe Military Veterans Association (MKMVA) is deeply disappointed with the decision that led the African National Congress (ANC) caucus to have voted in favor of a motion by the Democratic Alliance (DA). MKMVA believes that the members of the ANC caucus were wrongly instructed by the members of the National Office Bearers (NOB’s) who told them to vote in favor of the DA motion.
In terms of the ANC Constitution the following Duties of members are crucial with regards to this very unfortunate instruction to vote in favor of the DA motion:
Rule 5.2.2 Take all necessary steps to understand and carry out the aims, policies and programs of the ANC;
-->
Rule 5.2.5 Combat propaganda detrimental to the interests of the ANC and defend the policies, aims and program of the ANC;
Rule 5.2.6 Fight against racism, tribal chauvinism, sexism, religious and political intolerance or any other form of discrimination and chauvinism;
MKMVA insists that to vote in favor of the DA, which is white dominated, has a history of racist conduct, and consistently defends entrenched white privilege, was a terrible failure in understanding and acting in defense of the policies, aims and program of the ANC. Nor does it past the test that it is the duty of every ANC member to fight against racism.
It is evident that confusion was allowed to reign with regards to the said DA motion. After the National Assembly had adopted the new Rules to guide the possible removal Chapter 9 appointees, it was wrong to have simply accepted a related motion by the DA with regards to the acceptance or rejection of the Report of the Independent Panel in terms of Section 194 of the Constitution on the Public Protector.