PRESS STATEMENT BY THE INKATHA FREEDOM PARTY ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT JUDGEMENT

9 October 2012

Today the Constitutional Court has handed down its judgement on the challenge of constitutionality which I brought against the Rules of Parliament which prevented a Member of Parliament [MP] from introducing a Bill in the National Assembly. These rules required that an MP could only introduce a Bill if he first received the permission of the majority of his colleagues. The Constitutional Court found in my favour and rendered a judgment which accepted 100% of the relief which I sought.

This is not my personal victory, but a victory for South African democracy. I must thank and praise Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi for the support and inspiration that he has given to me and to all those who have been involved in this difficult piece of litigation. Prince Buthelezi is not new to fighting his battles for democracy in court rooms, as he has time and again brought about some of the most important judgements of the Constitutional Court which have shaped our democracy into what it is. Without his support, this new important landmark could not have been achieved, and he must rightly be credited for it.

The Constitutional Court has held that MPs have the constitutional right and obligation to introduce legislation and can do so without receiving the permission of anyone else. This judgement is a game-changer in our parliamentary democracy and takes South African democracy onto a new and higher level of engagement, which is finally on par with all established democracies of the world. This judgement removes what was one of the major shames in our democracy.

We need to prepare ourselves to finally have a democratic parliament. In the past 18 years, legislation has been drafted almost exclusively at the executive level and has been introduced by Ministers. MPs have often acted as rubber stampers and always been seized by the legislative initiative of the executive branch of government. Now MPs have the opportunity of causing parliament to be seized by the initiatives of parliamentarians.

This judgment opens the door for laws to be conceived, drafted and introduced in parliament by MPs who are not cabinet members or deputy ministers. I hope that this judgement will open a new season in which MPs will be more active and proactive and will consider issues on that merit, and not because of the political label which one may wish to attach to it. It would be a great day in our parliament if in this parliament, like in other parliaments of the world, a Bill could be supported at its time of introduction by several MPs across party political lines.

I am sure that there are many Bills that my party and I would be more than willing to endorse and support which are amongst those which thus far have been prevented from being introduced by the majority, and amongst those will be Bills by MPs who belong to the ANC. In fact, the permission requirement has been used not only to stop and prevent opposition members from introducing legislation but also to silence the voice of ANC back-benchers who are now being freed to express their views through actual legislation.

This judgment enables all MPs to be all that which the constitution and the electorate expects them to be and for them to do the job for which they are empowered by the Constitution, trusted by the voters and paid by the tax payers. With this judgement we have opened a door. It will be up to the initiative, courage and foresight of other MPs to walk through it.

It is regrettable that a consolidation of this aspect our democracy had to be achieved through a process of court litigation which had to be protracted all the way to the Constitutional Court. However, this having been done, we now enjoy the benefit of a final and conclusive determination which teaches us that the values of our democracy cannot be compromised and that they are not, by necessity, safe when in the hands of a majority - of any majority.

This judgement proves that a single initiative can change the institutional landscape. It is the duty of any minorities to keep any majority in check and balance by resorting to the courts when the values of our democracy are not adequately protected. We remain committed to pointing out the many other aspects of our legislation and parliamentary practices which are not in line with the values of our democracy and we shall do so in the hope that the next time around we may be heard and listened to without having to resort to litigation.

We remain committed to resorting to litigation whenever necessary, for we would be relinquishing the duty we have as an opposition party if we did anything different, as we hope that our opponents may do if we ever find ourselves in the position of the majority.

Statement issued by Mario Oriani-Ambrosini MP, IFP spokesman on Justice, October 9 2012

Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter