MOTIONS OF NO CONFIDENCE IN THE PRESIDENT - WHAT TO BEAR IN MIND
The official opposition political party has signaled its intention to introduce, in accordance with Parliament’s established Rules, a motion of no confidence in the President. This motion will be debated on 1 March 2016 by the National Assembly. The opposition party has cited the President’s decision to remove the Finance Minister, Nhlanhla Nene late last year - a decision which reportedly cost the economy R500 billion - as the driver for the decision to proceed with the motion. It is not the first time that the opposition party has attempted to have a no confidence resolution passed in the National Assembly.
No such attempt in South Africa’s constitutional democracy has ever succeeded, given that for the resolution to pass, the motion must be supported by a simple majority of the members of the National Assembly. Since the President is drawn from the ranks of the governing party whose members command the majority of the National Assembly, it is highly unlikely that these same members would support a motion of no confidence in their leader. This raises the obvious question as to whether Members of Parliament are beholden to their party bosses rather than to the Constitution.
Section 102(2) of the Constitution makes provision for the National Assembly by way of voting, to pass a motion of no confidence in the President. Should the majority vote be carried, then the President must resign. Parliament accordingly makes provision for such proceedings through its Rules.
A motion of no confidence must be differentiated from the removal of a President according to section 89 of the Constitution. The removal may take place by a resolution of the National Assembly adopted with a supporting vote of at least two-thirds of its members, and only on grounds of serious violation of the Constitution, serious misconduct or the inability to perform the functions of office. The President’s term of office may also end when such President no longer enjoys the support of the majority of members of the National Assembly.
Simply put, a motion of no confidence is a moral test, while the impeachment proceedings are a factual test. For example - should the Constitutional Court make an adverse finding against the President regarding his conduct where the law or the Constitution has been violated - then, arguably, this could constitute a factual ground for impeachment proceedings.