THE ANC wants the speaker of the National Assembly to have the final say when deciding if a motion of no confidence in the president should be debated.
But opposition parties disagree, saying that would give the speaker unfettered powers on an issue of national importance.
Sharp differences emerged between parties in Parliament yesterday when the matter was briefly debated by a subcommittee reviewing the rules of the National Assembly.
A legal showdown is looming in the Constitutional Court over the issue. The opposition wants the court to clarify the rights of MPs from minority parties with regards to the tabling of motions of no confidence in the president.
In November, opposition parties approached the Western Cape High Court to force Parliament to hear a debate on a motion of no confidence in President Jacob Zuma tabled by the DA and supported by seven other parties.
They were frustrated last year when the ANC used its majority to block the debate. The ruling party insisted that such a debate could only be held on February 26.
The matter will be heard in the Constitutional Court on March 28 as the DA seeks clarity on what rights it and other parties have when tabling such motions.
Yesterday, ANC MP John Jeffrey said the decision on whether a vote of no confidence should be debated should rest solely with the speaker.
But IFP MP Mario Oriani-Ambrosini said he was not in favour of giving the speaker unfettered power in respect of motions of no confidence in the president.
"The role of the speaker has been gravely misconceived in this Parliament, it has been made akin to the role of a minister. The speaker has no executive powers.
"We want the speaker to operate by the rules, not the rules to operate by the discretion of the speaker," Oriani-Ambrosini said.
Committee chairman and ANC MP Michael Masutha said the role of the speaker should be that of an "umpire".
He said the rules committee would meet next week to consider the proposals. Following that, it would draft a resolution to the House which would decide if any amendments to parliamentary rules were necessary.
"That would satisfy the Constitutional Court order of providing a progress report by March 14," he said.
ANC wants speaker of National Assembly to have final say
THE ANC wants the speaker of the National Assembly to have the final say when deciding if a motion of no confidence in the president should be debated.
But opposition parties disagree, saying that would give the speaker unfettered powers on an issue of national importance.
Sharp differences emerged between parties in Parliament yesterday when the matter was briefly debated by a subcommittee reviewing the rules of the National Assembly.
A legal showdown is looming in the Constitutional Court over the issue. The opposition wants the court to clarify the rights of MPs from minority parties with regards to the tabling of motions of no confidence in the president.
In November, opposition parties approached the Western Cape High Court to force Parliament to hear a debate on a motion of no confidence in President Jacob Zuma tabled by the DA and supported by seven other parties.
They were frustrated last year when the ANC used its majority to block the debate. The ruling party insisted that such a debate could only be held on February 26.
The matter will be heard in the Constitutional Court on March 28 as the DA seeks clarity on what rights it and other parties have when tabling such motions.
Yesterday, ANC MP John Jeffrey said the decision on whether a vote of no confidence should be debated should rest solely with the speaker.
But IFP MP Mario Oriani-Ambrosini said he was not in favour of giving the speaker unfettered power in respect of motions of no confidence in the president.
"The role of the speaker has been gravely misconceived in this Parliament, it has been made akin to the role of a minister. The speaker has no executive powers.
"We want the speaker to operate by the rules, not the rules to operate by the discretion of the speaker," Oriani-Ambrosini said.
Committee chairman and ANC MP Michael Masutha said the role of the speaker should be that of an "umpire".
He said the rules committee would meet next week to consider the proposals. Following that, it would draft a resolution to the House which would decide if any amendments to parliamentary rules were necessary.
"That would satisfy the Constitutional Court order of providing a progress report by March 14," he said.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending
Latest Videos