Zuma's MK party wants Ramaphosa removed in motion of no confidence
Former president Jacob Zuma's MK party has written to Parliament to consider its motion of no confidence in President Cyril Ramaphosa, accusing him of economic mismanagement, law enforcement failures, and 'failure to act decisively against corruption.'
In a draft motion to the National Assembly Speaker, Thoko Didiza, on Tuesday, MK party parliamentary leader Dr John Hlophe claims that Ramaphosa's leadership has 'eroded public trust and allowed the country to unravel.'
Draft motion
'Lack of transparency regarding campaign funders, including the sealing of court records related to his campaign funding, failure to act decisively against corruption within state-owned enterprises and government institutions,' are some of the reasons Hlophe cites in a letter to Didiza.
ALSO READ: 'Ramaphosa will go down in history as one of the most useless presidents' – analyst
Last week, the MK party issued a similar motion against Ramaphosa if the president did not reverse his decision to appoint Wits University law professor Firoz Cachalia as acting police minister and place police minister Senzo Mchunu on a leave of absence following explosive allegations by KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) top cop Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi.
'Urgent'
In the letter, Hlophe said the matters against Ramaphosa are 'urgent.'
'I write to formally submit a motion of no confidence in Mr Cyril Ramaphosa as President of the Republic of South Africa, in terms of Section 102(2) of the Constitution and Rule 129 of the Rules of the National Assembly.'
Hlophe said the motion requests the urgent convening of a special sitting to debate and vote on the matter within two weeks of receipt.
ALSO READ: Ramaphosa's response 'a direct spit in the face of our revolutionary forefathers' – Sisulu foundation
'Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter. I trust that the motion will be scheduled for debate and vote at the earliest opportunity to ensure the stability and governance of our nation,' Hlophe wrote.
'Not politically motivated'
In the draft motion, Hlophe claims the motion is not politically motivated but is a 'necessary step to prevent South Africa from spiralling further into instability and to restore public trust in governance.'
Hlophe listed charges of governance failures for which Ramaphosa must be removed.
Persistent high levels of crime and lawlessness under his leadership, including marked increase in murder, robbery, and gender-based violence cases.
Failure to address the deteriorating state of the South African Police Service (Saps), which has been unable to maintain public safety or prosecute high-profile offenders.
Allegations of interference in law enforcement agencies, as highlighted by the KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Commissioner's media briefing, which revealed syndicate involvement in Saps and the broader criminal justice system.
Economic mismanagement
Under economic mismanagement, Hlophe cites record-high unemployment rates, with no actionable economic recovery plans to address the economic despair in rural and urban communities.
'Failure to achieve acceptable economic growth rates, exacerbating poverty and inequality'.
Hlophe also mentions security concerns.
Failure to secure South Africa's borders, leading to an influx of undocumented foreign nationals and compromising the safety of citizens.
Inadequate response to organised crime, including construction mafia criminality, kidnappings, and gang violence.
Motion of no confidence
While Zuma and the MK party hope that Ramaphosa will be removed, it's unlikely that the motion will pass or succeed in the National Assembly without the support of the coalition of parties in the government of national unity (GNU) if they vote against it.
In his eight years as president of the country, Zuma survived eight motions of no confidence.
ALSO READ: WATCH: Moeletsi Mbeki criticises Ramaphosa: 'He's been a very weak president'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Eyewitness News
3 hours ago
- Eyewitness News
Ramaphosa's lawyers argue that probing claims against Mchunu would enable a dismissal in line with Constitution
JOHANNESBURG - Lawyers representing President Cyril Ramaphosa have argued that the need to investigate the allegations against Police Minister Senzo Mchunu would enable him to dismiss the minister in a way that is consistent with the Constitution. The Constitutional Court is hearing a case brought by the MK Party to challenge Ramaphosa's appointment of an acting minister while Mchunu is suspended. Mchunu's suspension was prompted by an explosive press briefing by KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, where he made allegations about Mchunu's links to a crime syndicate in Gauteng. ALSO READ: • Ramaphosa can fire Mchunu and reappoint him if he is cleared, MK lawyers argue in ConCourt • Zuma's lawyers accuse Ramaphosa of abusing Constitution The president has addressed Parliament and taken questions on his decision not to fire Mchunu but place him on suspension, to which he has responded that he cannot suspend Mchunu based on untested allegations. On Wednesday, his lawyer, Advocate Ngwako Maenetje, took this argument a step further, saying the investigation into Mchunu in the form of a judicial commission of inquiry would enable the president to respond to the allegations in line with the Constitution and the principle of rationality. "And we would submit that that need for investigation in that context is to enable the president to distress the power to dismiss in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution and the requirement of the principle of rationality." Maenetje said that while there is no express provision that says the president can suspend a minister, it is implied in his power to appoint. The president's lawyers said it was good governance on the part of the president to remove Mchunu from his office, while he is being investigated.
Eyewitness News
3 hours ago
- Eyewitness News
Whisky & vodka, a sheep & shoes: MPs beat deadline to declare financial interests to Parliament
CAPE TOWN - Parliamentarians have all made the deadline to declare their financial interests to Parliament and none will run the risk of being sanctioned this year. Perhaps a sign of the times, but far fewer MPs have received gifts as was often the case in the past. Owing to the nature of their jobs, ministers are mostly the ones on the receiving end of gifts of alcohol, artworks, scarves, handbags and blankets. The register is the second since the start of the seventh administration. International Relations Minister Ronald Lamola has racked up a considerable list of donations, mostly of whisky and some vodka, while National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza has declared an ostrich leather handbag, and Water and Sanitation Minister Pemmy Majodina, a sheep and shoes. Deputy President Paul Mashatile, whose property ownership has in the past come under the spotlight, has declared three residential properties - in Constantia in Cape Town, and Midrand and Kelvin in Johannesburg. Meanwhile, the MK Party's parliamentary leader, John Hlophe, has made no disclosures whatsoever in the public section of the register, claiming neither to own nor rent land or property. Several ActionSA MPs have declared sponsored travel to Taiwan in March, from the local trade office, at a time when government has been under pressure to downgrade Taiwan's embassy status in Pretoria. In a more unusual donation received by an MP, the Democratic Alliance (DA)'s Mlondi Mdluli received dog food donations worth more than R170,000. But it appears it was not for personal benefit and that the food was all donated to animal welfare organisations.
Mail & Guardian
4 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
Concourt reserves judgment on MK party's challenge to Ramaphosa suspending police minister
Suspended Police Minister Senzo Mchunu. (@Senzo_Mchunu/X) The The case, which was argued on Wednesday, raised constitutional questions about the scope of presidential powers, the legitimacy of judicial inquiries and whether the country's highest court is the right forum for such matters. Early this month, Ramaphosa put Mchunu on special leave pending the outcome of The president's appointment of Cachalia, who at the time was not a member of the cabinet, as acting police minister triggered a backlash from the MK party, which claims the move is unconstitutional. Ramaphosa's legal team argued that the case was in the wrong jurisdiction and should be sent to the high court. Kate Hofmeyr SC, representing the president, said the applicants had failed to make a compelling case for either exclusive jurisdiction or direct access to the apex court. 'This is such an important issue, and they devoted two paragraphs to it,' Hofmeyr said, referring to the applicants' founding affidavit. 'If this court in this judgment widens its jurisdictional ambit to take this case, it will likely mean that all powers that are granted to the president under the Constitution will come here and only here as this court of first and final instance. And that would make a mockery of the prior jurisprudence of this court.' Hofmeyr maintained that the constitutional scheme required such disputes to be initiated in the high court, which can deal with urgent matters more efficiently. Justice Rammaka Mathopo queried whether dismissing the case on technical grounds might be seen as judicial abdication, but Hofmeyr said it would reinforce the integrity of the court's jurisdiction. Asked by Mathopo what would happen if the application was dismissed, Hofmeyr responded: 'He [Cachalia] will take office and the Madlanga inquiry will continue. That is the consequence, Justice Mathopo, when litigants go before the wrong forum … If you go before the forum that didn't have jurisdiction, you suffer this consequence. 'Forum shopping cannot be rewarded,' she said, reiterating that urgent matters should begin in lower courts before reaching the apex court. Justice Steven Majiedt asked Hofmeyr whether the alleged implications for national security and judicial integrity in the matter justified bypassing the high court. 'Now the argument is that this is a matter of important rational concern, which as an ordinary citizen it is,' he said. 'But legally … why doesn't this case warrant direct access, given that it goes to national security and implicates the judiciary?' Ramaphosa's senior counsel, Ngwako Maenetje SC, defended the president's choice to appoint Cachalia, a former MP and constitutional law expert, as acting police minister while Mchunu is investigated. 'The president says he is not in a position to exercise the discretion to dismiss without those allegations being investigated,' Maenetje said, referring to the serious but untested claims brought by Mkhwanazi. The MK party, represented by Anton Katz SC, and Zuma's representative, Dali Mpofu SC, argued that Ramaphosa overstepped his constitutional authority. They maintained the president can appoint or dismiss ministers, but not suspend them or delegate their functions to someone outside the cabinet. 'The president cannot assign the powers or functions of Minister Mchunu to a non-member of cabinet. The appointment of Cachalia is ultra vires the Constitution,' Mpofu said. He maintained that Mchunu had been forced to go on special leave, contrary to claims of it being voluntary. Katz echoed Mpofu's submission that the Constitution does not give the president powers to suspend ministers.'Our submission is that the president will always have a discretion to dismiss or not to dismiss. But there is no power for the president to suspend ministers in the Constitution.' Mathopo said the interpretation advanced by the MK party could force presidents to fire ministers prematurely based on untested claims, which he said could have 'chaotic' consequences. The MK party also attacked the legitimacy of the Madlanga commission, arguing that because Mkhwanazi's allegations implicated the judiciary in corruption, it was inappropriate for a sitting judge to preside over the inquiry. Justice Leona Theron asked why the party opposed a judge chairing the commission. Mpofu clarified that the party did not oppose the inquiry itself, only that it be led by a judicial officer. Theron warned that the MK party risked a cost order because of unsubstantiated conspiracy claims in its court papers. Mpofu responded that Ramaphosa had addressed those allegations and had not requested a costs order himself. Justice Jody Kollapen argued that the Judicial Service Commission is the proper forum for addressing complaints against judges, and suggested that Mkhwanazi's claims appeared to be generalised allegations rather than formal grievances. Majiedt challenged Mpofu on how the court could preside over a case that includes accusations against itself. 'How does this court hear a matter where the judiciary is being attacked, and yet it is this same judiciary being asked to adjudicate the matter?' Theron questioned the MK party's decision to approach the constitutional court directly, asking why the high court was not the appropriate first step. Mpofu argued that the matter was of 'utmost public importance', citing protests and financial implications, including the cost of the commission and the confusion of having 'two police ministers'. Outside court, MK youth leader Bonginkosi Khanyile told supporters that the party was 'protecting South Africa from the gangsterism being perpetuated by politicians in government'. He called for Mchunu to be arrested rather than placed on leave at taxpayers' expense. MK deputy president Lincoln Machaba said he was awaiting direction from the party's leaders on the next step.
