Freedom of speech and rules of Parliament
The image and prestige of parliament recently came under perilous attack when Cope leader, Mosious Lekota, sought to push the boundaries of freedom of speech and abused parliamentary privilege when he made a startling allegation that President Jacob Zuma has "violated his oath of office". This serious charge was amongst an array of astonishing allegations Lekota bellowed out in his emotive and angry contribution to the national assembly's presidency budget vote debate.
Violation of an oath of office by a head of state is a serious constitutional transgression and history is littered with countless examples of presidents who have been impeached or recalled from office in this regard. Before a president commences the execution of the office, he/she must take an oath of affirmation to be faithful to the republic of South Africa and to obey, observe and uphold the constitution and all other laws of the land. The constitution also enjoins the president to undertake in his oath to, amongst other things, promote all that will advance the republic and oppose all that may harm it; protect and promote the rights of all South Africans; and devote himself or herself to the wellbeing of the nation.
In terms of section 89(1) of the constitution, a president can be removed by the National Assembly on the grounds of a serious violation of the constitution and the law. Parliament has the power afforded to it by the constitution to appoint and remove presidents. Therefore, due to this constitutional power that parliament wields in this regard, an allegation by a member of parliament in the House that a head of state has violated his oath of office is a serious matter that has serious implications for the legislative body.
It is for this reason that when Lekota made this claim, minister of higher education and training, Dr. Blade Nzimande, sprung up on a point of order and requested that national assembly deputy speaker, Nomaindia Mfeketo, look into the utterances and make a ruling. ANC chief whip, Dr. Mathole Motshekga, called on Lekota to apologise.
An allegation of violation of office by a head of state is a serious matter that cannot be made lightly or for mere political posturing, as Lekota has done. In terms of parliament's established practice and procedures, an MP who wishes to bring allegations of improper conduct should do so by way of a substantive motion in this House alleging facts which, if true, would in the opinion of the Speaker prima facie warrant such a decision.