Review of National Assembly Rules: further deliberations on Motion of No Confidence

Rules of the National Assembly

18 February 2014
Chairperson: Adv J De Lange (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Sub-Committee met to consider the proposals in relation to procedures of Motions of No Confidence. The Committee had before it two proposals. The first proposal was from the African National Congress while the second proposal was that submitted by the Task Team on the Review of the Rules which was supported by the opposition parties.

After a briefing on the contents of both proposals, the Committee agreed that both documents were very similar and the only differences were in relation to the wording. A Member of the Democratic Alliance suggested that Members could take the proposals for consideration by their various political parties and revert to the Sub-Committee with any issues of critical importance or difference.

The Chairperson agreed to the proposal and said he would provide an update to the Rules Committee containing the decision arrived at by the Sub-Committee.
 

Meeting report

The Chairperson welcomed the Members to the meeting and reminded them of the need to complete the process of establishing rules to govern Motions of No Confidence. The Constitutional Court had ruled on the matter and it was now up to Parliament to make provision for this in the Rules. The Sub-Committee had before it two sets of proposals in terms of Rule 102A which dealt with motions of No Confidence. The Chairperson called on the Committee Secretary, Mr Perran Hahndiek, to briefly update the Committee on the content of both proposals.

Proposals on Rule 102A
Mr Hahndiek explained that the ANC had submitted a proposal on Rule 102A which was slight different from the proposal made by the Task Team on the Review of the Rules which was supported by the DA. Mr Hahndiek quickly read through both proposals.


102A. Motions of no confidence in terms of section 102 of the Constitution

(1) A member may propose a motion of no confidence in the Cabinet or the President in terms of section 102 of the Constitution.

(2) The motion must include the grounds for the proposal of no confidence.

(3) Notice must be given of the motion in accordance with Rule 98.

(4) Rules 95,97, 101 and 102(3)(a) do not apply to motions of no confidence in terms of this Rule.

[Note: The non-applicable Rules relate to the "same question rule", motions without notice, questions of privilege and lapsing of notices of motion by decision of the Rules Committee, respectively.]

(5) The Speaker may amend or otherwise deal with a notice of a no confidence motion which contravenes the rules and orders of the House or directives and guidelines approved by the Rules Committee.

(6) The Programme Committee must schedule a motion of no confidence for debate and decision in the House within a reasonable time, taking into account the programme of the Assembly and according the motion due priority over other motions and business of the House.

[Note: The wording of this Subrule is in line with paragraph 66 of the Constitutional Court judgement. ]
___

(7) If a motion of no confidence cannot reasonably be scheduled by the last sitting day of an annual session, it must be scheduled for consideration as soon as possible in the next annual session as if notice had been given on the first sitting day of that session.

(8) The debate on a motion of no confidence may not exceed the time allocated for it by the Programme Committee, after consultation with the Chief Whip of the Majority Party as chairperson of the Chief Whips' Forum.

Part 2: Motions of No Confidence in terms of Section 102 of the Constitution

102A. Motions of no confidence in terms of section 102 of the Constitution


2 The Speaker must accord such motion of no confidence due priority and before deciding on any aspect of the matter, properly and timeously, consult with the Leader of Government Business. the Chief Whip of the Majority Party, the Chief Whip's Forum and the Programming Committee.

3 The motion must com I to the satisfaction of the Speaker with the prescripts of an relevant law or any relevant rules and orders of the House and directives and guidelines approved by the Rules Committee, before being placed on the Order Paper, and must include the grounds on which the proposed vote of no confidence is based.

4 The Speaker ma request an amendment of or in an other manner deal with a notice of a no confidence motion which contravenes the law. rules and orders of the House or directives and guidelines approved by the Rules Committee.

5 . After proper consultation and once the Speaker is satisfied that the motion of no confidence complies with the aforementioned prescribed law, rules, orders, directives or guidelines of the House, the Speaker must ensure that the motion of no confidence is scheduled, debated and voted on within a reasonable period of time given the programme of the Assembly.

[Note: The wording of this Subrule, read with Subrule (2, is in line with paragraph 66 of the Constitutional Court judgement.]

6 The debate on a motion of no confidence ma not exceed the time allocated for it b the Speaker, after aforesaid consultation process.

7 If a motion of no confidence cannot reasonably be scheduled b the last sitting day of an annual session, it must be scheduled for consideration as soon as possible in the next annual session.

8) Rules 95 Rule.

[Note: The non-applicable Rules relate to the "same question rule ", motions without notice, questions of privilege and lapsing of notices of motion by decision of the Rules Committee, respectively. ]


The Chairperson called on members to comment on the proposals. It was important to bear in mind that the Sub-Committee had to provide a recommendation or report to the Rules Committee which was going to take the final decision in terms of procedures relating to the vote of no confidence.

Mr M Mdakane (ANC) said that the proposal from the ANC and that which was supported by the DA were not very different as they all originated from the deliberations of the Task Team. Only a few aspects mostly relating to the wording of the rule were different but the idea and principles were practically the same.

Mr A Watson (DA) agreed with Mr Mdakane that both proposals were indeed very similar. He said for the process to be fair and complete, the Sub-Committee could allow Members to take the proposals back to their political parties and consider them to identify any areas of striking difference and disagreement. The parties could highlight these areas of disagreement and revert to the Committee with a summary of the aspects. However, this was just to ensure that parties were actually the ones deciding as he did not think that there were any critical differences in the documents.

The Chairperson said that it was important to note that the Sub-Committee had to provide a report to the Rules Committee on the matter.

Mr Mdakane said the Chairperson could ask the committee staff to compile a summary of the discussions and that could be provided to the Rules Committee.

The Chairperson confirmed with the Members that they were going to discuss the proposals with their various parties and revert with any critical differences.

Members were in agreement that this was how they would proceed.

The meeting was adjourned.
 

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: